Re: User tasks--outdated? Why?

Miksa, Shawne wrote:
> I think that no one should take everything they read in an email literally. 
>
> I was not suggesting we rely only on "... to a person, who is on duty from 9am to 6pm 6 days a week".  It seems to me that Karen could not find out what other books the author had written because her library didn't carry all of books by that person. She went to another source, but one of those sources could have been a live person.  Good grief. Everybody take a chill pill. 
>   

No, actually I went to the UC Union catalog, but it gave me a huge list 
of manifestations and other entries somehow (7xx) related to Melville. 
Page 1 of WorldCat under a search on author name Herman Melville does 
not give me one of his novels, not one. The first record is for his 
poems (poems? well, you learn something every day). This is not a 
"cataloging" problem but it definitely is a catalog problem.

kc

> **************************************************************
> Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Library and Information Sciences
> College of Information
> University of North Texas
> email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
> http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
> office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
> **************************************************************
> ________________________________________
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochkind_at_JHU.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:39 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] User tasks--outdated? Why?
>
> Miksa, Shawne wrote:
>   
>> And, the idea of going outside of a library's system to see what is in the library leaves me with a chill.  It's sort of like wiping all the unique local restaurants off the map and making everyone eat in a huge and impersonal cafeteria.
>>     
> Well, I think it's pretty clear that's what we've got to do to serve our
> users, chill or no.  But we need to do this precisely because users
> aren't going to use just one place to look for things, and the more
> places we put our stuff, the more of our users will be served by finding
> it.
>
> That doesn't mean we get out of the business of providing search
> interfaces. I don't think we do. And if we can provide sophisticated
> tools that our users want to use, they'll use em (syllogism there).
> They'll use em in addition to everything else they use -- and they'll be
> happy to see library holdings in other things they use too.
>
> There's no benefit we're going to get by trying to hold our information
> hostage in our interface only. The more our information gets out there,
> the more that will be done with it by third parties to serve our users.
>
>
>   
>> Of the catalog couldn't answer that question, but I bet a reference librarian could.
>>
>>     
>
> If the only way we can answer sophisticated questions is with in-person
> mediated service, then we are doomed.  But that's not the only way we
> can answer sophisticated questions. We are quite capable of providing
> systems and the metadata to support them to answer sophisticated
> questions.   We've just got to start doing it. We shouldn't _stop_
> providing reference librarians either. But it's ridiculous to suggest
> it's serving our users well to say "We are not going to provide systems
> that can do what you want, the only way you can get what you need need
> is to talk to a person, who is on duty from 9am to 6pm 6 days a week."
> That is not serving our users well.  I mean we know that, right? Why do
> we provide catalogs on the web at all?
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>   


-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------