Nice summary, key links, good read:
http://celeripedean.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/google-and-bad-metadata/
From the post:
"Karen [Coyle] goes on in her post to discuss the types of metadata that Google should include in the book scanning project. Among the types are Scholarship, Collection Development, Metasearch, Links to other related resources, and Computation. These types of metadata cover a broad spectrum of what researchers need in collecting and analyzing research materials. This metadata has to be as clear as possible in terms of making more reliable connections in especially for linked data. Despite this comprehensive approach that Karen suggests, it seems to require more rather than less metadata. Perhaps instead of thinking that we should take everything from a record, perhaps it is the question of quality over quantity. Instead of just taking as much quantitative metadata, getting as much qualitative metadata that helps uniquely identify an item as well as promote knowledge discovery is and will become increasingly essential.
A big question that comes out of reading these conversations is how can libraries help Google? Would Google even want help from libraries in order to improve the metadata with their book scanning project? Furthermore, can libraries improve their own metadata qualitatively and make it more interoperable across libraries and digital collections? Perhaps that is the first step for libraries before it can even approach Google....?"
Like I said before, we will not be able to improve any technique or service unless we look carefully at exactly what makes it work when it works ***just as much*** as what makes it fail when it fails (Bade). I think increasing amounts of persons who use libraries need to *more fully understand what we already have* before things can really get better. It seems to me that Geoff Nunberg's critique of Google Books' should accelerate that process.
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 12:53 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] $$$ Library data is the best $$$
I'm not mixing up library data and catalogs. I'm saying that most people's experience with library data comes from using library catalogs.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Thomas Krichel <krichel_at_OPENLIB.ORG> wrote:
> From: Thomas Krichel <krichel_at_OPENLIB.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] $$$ Library data is the best $$$
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 11:52 AM
> B.G. Sloan writes
>
> > 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.
>
> I concur.
>
> > 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.
>
> Bernie mixes up libary data and catalogs.
>
> > 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.
>
> Bernie continues to treat library data and catalogs
> together. It's
> not astonishing since biblographic data has been
> tied to one
> particular catalog, later to one particular web
> site.
>
> Starting in 1993 I pioneered the building of a
> bilbliographic
> dataset that can be used in many end user
> interfaces. That's
> the RePEc digital library for economics. In fact
> RePEc has NO
> user interface of its own. It's a point that 16
> years on,
> still causes some confusion with librarians and
> scholars alike.
>
> RePEc has been tremendeously successful based on a
> model
> of resource and task sharing. While library catalog
> data
> may become more freely available, and thus
> increasingly valuable,
> I don't see much task sharing and specialization
> coming from
> the library community. Institutional repositories
> are a timid
> first step, we need more in this direction.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Krichel
> http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>
>
> RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
>
>
>
> skype: thomaskrichel
>
Received on Wed Sep 16 2009 - 14:17:08 EDT