>>Nobody could have predicted the explosion that has occurred
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 02:26, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_unt.edu> wrote:
> I beg to differ.
How can you? No one has that sort of prescient ability as to foresee
such a revolution the Internet became. Even in the days before, we
already had networks and powerful computers for over 20 years, so it
was not in our history or in our mindset that one particular network
with a specific set of technologies and backing would literary change
the world as we know it. Claiming so would be overly arrogant.
> I would go so far as to say this scenario has played itself over and
> over throughout history. Perhaps we should say we didn't study our
> history enough to anticipate the "explosion".
That there is and will be changes to society is not something anybody
denies. It is in what shape or form which is the trick. You cannot
study the past and have confidence in what shape the future will be.
Of course, we all try, and some are better than others, but all in
all, even if the iPod changed the way we interact with music, the
Apple Newton / MessagePad has not changed the way we do anything (but
changed the way Apple do a lot of things, including bleeding). Even
the best in the business of trying to know what the future can look
like have a rather modest success rate.
I suggest you all read "The Myths of Innovation" by Scott Berkun for
more on this.
>>the public likes the new tools and prefers them to ours in many, many ways.
>
> Which public? Show the data.
What 'data'? Show your reasoning.
> Otherwise I feel it is just a broad generalization based on the
> preferences of one group of users, those who are online, as
> opposed to users across the board.
I thought 'users across the board' is a rather apt definition of 'the public.'
> Case in point, the OCLC study on the perception of libraries---they
> only surveyed people who were online but then generalized the
> findings as if it represented everyone.
Well, it's the cheap way to get an ounce of knowledge these days. And
certainly, most people have *access* to computers and being online
these days, even the older generation, so I doubt their methods are
*that* way off.
But again, I feel the discussion bumps into that old chestnut of "what
library", as there are anything in there from casual generic libraries
to specialized academic libraries. One observation I feel I should
point out is that most academic institutions are reclaiming their
ability to post stuff that comes out of the academic world, to protect
their assets at the same time of keeping information free, and the
hundreds of ePresses and arXive is testament to this. Just what will
happen when journals stop and move online for the academic library?
Even the academic library will struggle in this scenario, and I doubt
I'm assuming too much here.
>>We may be looking at a time, perhaps very soon, a time period measured in
>>months instead of decades, when someone can get a bachelor's degree without
>>ever setting foot into a library. How much longer will it be before they can
>>get a master's, or PhD?
>
> This is already happening. But, perhaps it is too soon to see if these
> method of education provides high quality people.
Can I ask why there would be any reason why they should not? What
advantage for the future do you have with library skills?
> The creators of Google are of the same cut---in researching their beginnings
> I finally had to conclude they were the type of guys who hated going to the
> library and instead wanted the information to come to them so they started
> downloading as much Web content as they could, gave up on their PhD's
> in computer science and got financial backing. The rest is as we see it today.
> Brin's recent op-ed in NYT proves he has no clue what library's can do, have
> done, and have done well.
Uh, I'm not quite sure how to react to this stuff. They are some of
the richest and most successful people in the world, they do more for
setting information free and allowing people to find what they're
after than *any*other* entity*on*the*planet*, and they somehow haven't
got a clue about what libraries are all about? Are you friggin'
kidding me!? Why the heck should the value of the future be measured
in ancient library magic rather than, oh I don't know, actual results
that people actually value and use? And don't give me that "well,
Google can't do *this*", I'll just laugh and point to so much research
on how people and academia is turning to field-less and contextual
searches for *finding* what they're after. The only thing you've got
left is the actual *access* to that information, another area in which
Google slowly but surely is covering. And they don't do this because
they have an agenda, but because *people* want it. We all want it.
Even librarians when they take their library-hat off *wants* to get to
the information they seek. And that is what Google is doing. You may
not like their methods or deals or ways, but it *is* what they're
doing. And unless you're smart, you can't fight this. Being
conservative against a revolution will get your head chopped off. Just
sayin'.
In other words; what is your own special use-case that Google can't
solve at *this* point in time? And how long do you think it will take
them to do so?
> Isn't the point of testing RDA to answer questions such as these?
RDA needs to be tested? We've waited all these years, let the
committees do all this work, for what? To get something that isn't
tested, that doesn't work?
> It seems, as well, that there is a mixing of the construction of bibliographic
> data and the DISPLAY of that data to the user. How do you address this in
> your arguments?
You seem to think there is no influence of display in the annals of MARC?
> So, if RDA were offered for free then these libraries would use it?
"Free" means different things to different folks. For example, "free"
is not just about choice, but also about change. Can anyone change the
RDA foundations of they're wrong?
> If not, then who pays for training them with alternate rules such as those
> of the Cooperative Cataloging Rules? I'm hearing that the major objection
> is the cost of implementation? Just want to be clear.
"Training" is something librarians traditionally slap on anything they
don't understand. If the rules are clear and simple, and if there's a
community is willing to help each other out, and if there's software
that's actually helpful and smart, there is no need for training. RDA
/ AACR2 and MARC needs bucket-loads of training (just ask the friendly
lot at AUTOCAT where that mailing-list is far better than any training
you'll ever receive. Coincident?). Cooperative Cataloging Rules needs
involvement. See the difference?
> Also, you speak of the "new world" but I ask, again, whose (sp?) new world? Does
> it include all users of information or just a subset who happen to be online more so
> than someone who doesn't even own a computer?
When RDA / AACR2 / MARC hasn't got support for even the basics of
epistemology, then they are definitely of the "old world" where people
will go elsewhere to get their needs taken care of. RDA is the
blacksmiths at the turn of the last century when faced with the
onslaught of the car went, "hey, we've invented a new hammer that can
make horseshoes twice as fast!"
> Just playing devil's advocate. ;-)
Don't quit your day job. :) Ahem.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Tue Oct 20 2009 - 19:22:09 EDT