On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:49:27 -0700, Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the FRBR definition of work may not be the one that users
>desire. And that's the main problem with WEMI. If a user goes looking
>for War and Peace, odds are seeing all of the various translations isn't
>going to be useful. But that's what W gets them. What they really need
>is E. They MAY, however, be interested to know that it's been made into
>a movie. FRBR doesn't include that in the W. Users have a concept of
>series that isn't included in library catalog, that is things like the
>Harry Potter books, or mysteries with the same detective. WEMI doesn't
>cover that.
This is absolutely correct. I don't know if W is of that much use, and I
have expounded quite a bit as a cataloger(!) about deep problems I have with
M in other messages.
But in order to give our people what they want and fulfill their "user
tasks," we will often have to work with other communities. As Karen points
out, evaluative information, but I think they mean something different. For
example, one of the big issues for everyone is authenticity or reliability
of information, e.g. is this resource peer-reviewed or professionally edited
or what? It's a major issue in Info Lit workshops not only for students, but
for faculty as well, and everybody on the web is worried about being sold a
bill of goods.
In essence, I think this boils down to a type of "provenance," documenting
how the resource was created and who looked at it. While it would be very
difficult for librarians and catalogers to come up with this information,
publishers and/or creators can do it relatively quickly and easily. How can
a system like this work? I see it similar to a mashup, with an API, or in
some other way. A minimal amount of agreement is needed to create something
that would be important to our entire society.
I still say that back in the 1990s people looked at the catalog card, tried
to figure out the parts of that card, took some relationships in the catalog
(analytics, series, multiple volumes etc.) and then mapped it into FRBR. It
all makes perfect sense then.
[I'm stuck at work here since my student didn't show up!]
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Wed Oct 21 2009 - 12:19:40 EDT