Jim, all,
While I can't completely endorse Jim's evaluation of the situation, he
raises a lot of good points.
"I can't escape the feeling that in a couple of hundred years when
people
look back at this time of transition, they'll find it rather amusing
that we
continue to try and try to force these new resources and methods into
our
old forms instead of focusing on how to take advantage of the new."
Undoubtedly. Even so, some "old forms" may also be more enduring than
we suspect.
"our cataloging information *must be
used* in Google Books when the full-text becomes available."
Maybe if we had realized its value more, Google would have as well. As
it stands now...
" our catalog records must be made useful in
the Google environment -- somehow. This is something that we haven't
been
able to do ourselves in our current library catalogs where we had some
kind
of control."
Is this not a bit overstated? Many scholars find our catalogs very
useful vis a vis Google right now (its good to have high standards, but
sometimes you don't realize what you have either), even as our catalogs
must get better. These scholars may be decreasing in number though, not
necessarily because Google is superior in every way, but because of
human nature: the principle of least effort, which Google encourages.
"But it's a new world, whether we like it or not."
"Sustainability" is a big word these days - but sometimes I think most
who talk this way have no idea what they are talking about. Surely
copyright law needs to be re-hashed and liberalized, but it seems to me
that insisting that it is wise that we should cultivate a mindset that
all intellectual property ought to be free, as some seem on the edge of
doing, is bordering on downright ridiculous. It seems to me that
something eventually has to give - and that we are foolish if we think
that the need to pay for valuable "intellectual property" will not
"arise from the ashes" again after the current system is destroyed.
I don't deny that things change, but when we are talking about these
"forms", how really "new" is it all? - that's what I wonder.
A couple pieces to think long and hard about:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_
gladwell
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6008860/Pirate-Bay-leads-Swedish-V
iking-charge-on-paid-content.html
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
Educational Service Center
11200 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove MN. 55369
Email: rinnen_at_district279.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:34 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] An article to warm the hearts of cataloguers
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:01:16 -0500, Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
<RinneN_at_DISTRICT279.ORG> wrote:
>I think: maybe OCLC shouldn't have given them everything (out of
chips).
There is a big part of me that agrees with Nathan: that this is *our*
stuff
that we shouldn't just be giving away. After all, it was made with the
blood, sweat and tears of generations of experienced catalogers and is
incredibly valuable. Simply giving it away seems crazy.
I think this is the way that the music industry is looking at a similar
situation, the book industry, the film industry, the newspaper industry,
as
well as the "scholarly-production complex." All are in a state of
crisis. We
have all of this "stuff" built up with such labor over such a long time
and
somebody ought to have to pay for it. If we just give it away, it's
equivalent to saying that it's not worth anything at all, or if it is
worth
something, then someone else who uses it and profits from us should give
us
a piece of the action.
But it's a new world, whether we like it or not. The music industry
doesn't
want to admit that they have lost control over all kinds of things and
so
they sue people in outrageous ways, but it doesn't stop anything at all.
For
a current example, see the Tenenbaum case:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/riaa-continues-to-squeez
e-tenenbaum-wants-injunction.ars
Whether we agree with the music industry or not in this case, it seems
as if
the old system can only be continued by threatening to throw people in
jail
or threatening to impoverish them. And even then it won't stop it. To
me,
the case of Tenenbaum and the consequences is precisely the same as the
Catholic Church's attempts to control publishing through coercive
methods
and use of their "Index of Forbidden Books." The only people who were
punished were those unfortunates who happened to be in their
jurisdiction,
and they were tortured and/or burned at the stake. But for *everyone
else,*
it was relatively free and open, like in Holland or Britain or Germany.
And
some printers used the "Index" as their guide for what to publish,
something
the Church thought was especially perverse. Of course, we see now that
many
of the main advances in human thought at this time came from outside
Church
lands.
This is the situation we have now. Everyone understands that if you are
on
the web, you must be findable in Google or you will die. That's why
"page
rank" is so important and why companies pay so much to improve it. I
submit
that if we want to remain relevant, our cataloging information *must be
used* in Google Books when the full-text becomes available. Do we really
think that the majority of people will *not* use the Google Books
interface
but will prefer ours instead, where they will, by definition, get only a
subset of the materials available to them. This is a moment of crisis
for
the catalog, itself. I think it must evolve into something bigger than
ever
before.
To be honest, if Google decides to give money to OCLC or not is
completely
irrelevant to me. I'm sure my library won't see any of it, and I don't
think
any of us will profit from it personally, but it might help OCLC. Big
whoop!
But then push comes to shove, and our catalog records must be made
useful in
the Google environment -- somehow. This is something that we haven't
been
able to do ourselves in our current library catalogs where we had some
kind
of control. In that sense, Google will have complete control of it. What
will they come up with? I don't have the slightest idea.
Oh yeah, there's lots of other metadata in there too, like the Armenian,
Brazilian etc. that the Google fellow discussed. Will our "better"
metadata
simply override theirs? When? And how will it all mash together?
I can't escape the feeling that in a couple of hundred years when people
look back at this time of transition, they'll find it rather amusing
that we
continue to try and try to force these new resources and methods into
our
old forms instead of focusing on how to take advantage of the new.
A few thoughts,
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Fri Sep 11 2009 - 08:37:56 EDT