Bernie,
I said:
" And
> let's not forget all that is good about what we have!
> There *is* value.
> Tremendous value. And scholars and the elites of
> society know it."
And you said I said this about library data. That's not entirely what I meant, and I wish I had been more clear. I was thinking more about the total experiences of scholars and elites being able to use the library effectively - and finding it to be a very helpful and wonderful place (of course this is tied up with our data among other things).
You said:
"...But I'd bet that many of the scholars who regularly and successfully use library catalogs don't spend much time thinking about the underlying data... And I'd bet "the elites of society" are even less likely than scholars to value library data highly."
That's certainly right. At the same time, it would be helpful if more librarians would talk more about the infrastructure we have, why it makes such experiences possible (which yes, I realize, are by no means uniform: especially for persons who are not very well educated), and why it must not only be maintained, but improved - which means more $$$.
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
Educational Service Center
11200 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove MN. 55369
Email: rinnen_at_district279.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:47 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] $$$ Library data is the best $$$
Nathan Rinne says of library data: "There *is* value. Tremendous value. And scholars and the elites of society know it."
I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. Sure, undoubtedly *some* scholars think library data have tremendous value. But I'd bet that many of the scholars who regularly and succcessfully use library catalogs don't spend much time thinking about the underlying data.
I've talked to scholars about library data (i.e., about their experiences using catalogs). While they tend to value librarians and value what's in the library's collection, quite a few of them only *tolerate* library *data*. One professor even went so far as to say that he viewed the catalog and its underlying data as a "necessary evil", the only tool he knew of for navigating the library's collection. And then there are the scholars who avoid using library data. Some studies have shown that using the catalog ranks pretty far down the list of methods that scholars use to find relevant information.
As far as "the elites of society" are concerned, I'd wager that they don't use library data, or libraries, at levels any greater than other segments of the population. And I'd bet "the elites of society" are even less likely than scholars to value library data highly. It's not that they think library data are worthless...they probably just don't think about library data.
Bernie Sloan
--- On Tue, 9/15/09, Rinne, Nathan (ESC) <RinneN_at_DISTRICT279.ORG> wrote:
> From: Rinne, Nathan (ESC) <RinneN_at_DISTRICT279.ORG>
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] $$$ Library data is the best $$$
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:50 AM
> All,
>
> First off, I like what Bernhard has to say about the
> "openness of our
> product". What you see is what you get. Any
> educated person who looks
> at it closely will not only be able to figure out how it
> works and how
> to use it - but can also clearly see its weaknesses (which
> yes, are
> many)
>
> So yes, its transparency is one of its strengths, even if
> now, because
> of our current environment, this does not make a large
> impression on us.
> With Google, on the other hand, because of the
> "under-the-hood" nature
> of the beast, that cannot be said - even if, given the
> current
> environment, this does not strike us as problematic.
>
>
> So, who really is "open"? It depends on what we are
> talking about, and
> what we find desirable at the time, depending on our
> circumstances.
>
> Second, if people can get on board with what Aaron Dobbs
> suggests, I
> hope it works - that the "trick" can be pulled off. I
> really do hope
> that Google is ready to listen ("...it would be nice if
> Google, et. al.
> WOULD use our data and develop cool mash-ups that we could
> piggy-back
> off of to the mutual benefit of both ourselves AND
> Google."[--Jane W.
> Jacobs]).
>
> But.
>
> Jonathan said:
>
> "The idea of libraries collectively "demanding" that Google
> figure out
> how to get meaning out of our data that we haven't managed
> to encode in
> an un-ambiguous machine-readable way in the first place
> (not only
> legacy, but we STILL don't do it
> right)... while at the same time
> complaining that all Google ever does is take from us and
> we'd rather
> they didn't have our data at all or had to pay a lot of
> money for it...
> It's pretty ironic."
>
> Again, it's good that we can point out all the problems we
> have. But
> again, as Bernhard points out - we, and anybody who takes
> the time to
> look really hard, at least *can clearly see* all the
> problems. And
> let's not forget all that is good about what we have!
> There *is* value.
> Tremendous value. And scholars and the elites of
> society know it.
>
>
> Based on the arguments of Jane W. Jacobs a few posts back
> ("the
> perversity of human psychology might be at work... it may
> be the
> availability NOT the inaccessibility of MARC records that
> make some
> people ignore them or question their value") and the views
> of Thomas
> Mann, I am going to take the contrarian position that we
> should not be
> giving our metadata away freely without knowing how it is
> going to be
> used - to Google, or anyone (yes, data is a "public good",
> but the
> government doesn't just give away roads, or anything else
> for that
> matter, without knowing how they will be used). ***It
> is a fool's
> errand mainly because if we do this, the data, in effect,
> will be
> perceived as valueless - or at least of no greater value
> than any man's
> tags.*** If we are not proud (not arrogant) of our
> data - and can not
> see that it is more valuable than everyman's tags,
> eventually people
> will not only not see the value of using it, but also not
> see the value
> in continuing to produce it (since producing it is
> expensive). The
> comprehensive data that we have was created to be the
> backbone of one,
> whole, functioning system (and therefore its abuse cannot
> be justified
> using reasoning like the following [from Google]: "We have
> over 100
> metadata sources, and this is why we have so many errors:
> if you have
> only one source of truth, you never have any doubt") and
> definitely not
> to just be extra keywords thrown in the
> "vocabulary-controlled-less"
> hopper. Again, our data was created to collocate
> items that are
> determined to go together - and to reveal relationships
> (through
> browsing, cross-referencing, etc.). Yes, it has all
> kinds of problems
> (thank you Kelley McGrath) and needs to be updated to be
> more
> computer-friendly - and mashed-up in different ways! - but
> the
> underlying function and purpose of our data is lost when
> used with
> Google books the way it is now.
>
> This is hard for us to deal with, because librarians love
> to be helpful
> and giving - to a fault (its why many of us don't feel like
> we'd be good
> at all in the private sector). And who doesn't - on
> occasion at least -
> love to give things away for free, without expecting
> anything in return?
> Carrots and sticks be damned!, right?
>
> Anyway, from the article that Jim linked to:
>
> "Will the fate of the digital republic of letters be
> determined by the
> laws of the marketplace or will there be provisions to
> protect the
> public good?"
>
> (from the library director of Harvard U:
> http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6696290.html)
>
> Indeed. And I don't think that to say this is not to
> say that what the
> marketplace pursues is wrong:
>
> "Justice is a denial of mercy, and mercy is a denial of
> justice. Only a
> higher force can reconcile these opposites: wisdom.
> The problem cannot
> be solved, but wisdom can transcend it. Similarly,
> societies need
> stability and change, tradition and innovation, public
> interest and
> private interest, planning and laissez-faire, order and
> freedom, growth
> and decay. Everywhere society's health depends on the
> simultaneous
> pursuit of mutually opposed activities or aims. The
> adoption of a final
> solution means a kind of death sentence for man's humanity
> and spells
> either cruelty or dissolution, generally both... Divergent
> problems
> offend the logical mind."
>
> Schumacher, E. F. A Guide for the Perplexed. New York:
> Harper & Row,
> 1977, 127.
>
> So, in sum, to say what I've said above ***doesn't mean
> that libraries
> should not share their data as much as possible***.
> It just means that,
> in the pursuit of some intelligent balance, we should think
> more in
> terms of negotiated contracts and agreements, not simply
> just giving
> stuff away (even with guidance, which for-profit firms may
> determine it
> is in their best interest to ignore: "I would also be far
> from shocked
> if Google says "Um, that's really not worth to us how many
> resources it
> would take to figure out."[--Jonathan Rochkind, in response
> to
> Bernhard's saying collocation of volumes of a multipart was
> key])
>
> Hence OCLC should, if Google does not think it is in their
> best
> interests to negotiate, back out if they can until we can
> get things
> right.
>
> Also, if you don't like the subject line, how about this?:
>
>
> "Library data is the worst form of data, except for all
> those other
> forms that have been tried from time to
> time."
>
> 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 Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Library functions and GBS
>
> Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> >
> > Collocation:
> > Presently, it is difficult to get all volumes of a
> multipart together,
> > be it monographic or serial/periodical. GBS scans
> individual volumes
> > and records their title page titles without regard to
> series title in
> > the metadata.
> >
>
> Ha, have you tried doing that in worldcat, or with your own
> catalog
> records? Our standard cataloging practices do NOT make this
> easy. It
> doesn't help that an individual record _could_ be for the
> multi-volume
> set OR could be for just one volume in the set, depending
> on what the
> catalog library held at the time they cataloged. (Bernhard
> has written
> about how German cataloging handles multi-volume sets a LOT
> less
> ambigously).
>
> Now, granted, Google is practically the _expert_ at trying
> to pull
> meaningful data out of soup where it's not clearly
> expressed, that's the
>
> business they are in. I have no doubt that if they decided
> to throw
> sufficient resources at the problem of collocating
> multi-volume sets,
> they could arise at a reasonable (but not perfect)
> approximation.
>
> I would also be far from shocked if Google says "Um, that's
> really not
> worth to us how many resources it would take to figure
> out."
>
> The idea of libraries collectively "demanding" that Google
> figure out
> how to get meaning out of our data that we haven't managed
> to encode in
> an un-ambiguous machine-readable way in the first place
> (not only
> legacy, but we STILL don't do it
> right)... while at the same time
> complaining that all Google ever does is take from us and
> we'd rather
> they didn't have our data at all or had to pay a lot of
> money for it...
> It's pretty ironic.
>
> Jonathan
>
Received on Wed Sep 16 2009 - 11:09:35 EDT