Todd Puccio <puccio_at_nova.edu> wrote:
> What you seem to not realize is that these are the same people that will do
> the work in the new environment. Or more to the point the same "kind" of
> people.
Huh, I don't realize this? Are you kidding me? I used to create tools
for specialists catalogers, so i have a pretty good idea of who they
are and what they're up to. I eat EADs for breakfast for heavens sake,
a sad skill I can't seem to unlearn!
> Point 1 : The same folks that obsess over ISBD are the same people that have
> the minds and experience for the complex subject analysis; that have the
> same minds to learn new meta-data schemes. Yes, they are slow to change
> once invested, but we are talking about the same folks.
You don't seem to realize that the tools that were needed for
cataloging books and physical objects in no dramatic way will resemble
the tools needed for knowledge management and electronic resources
(into which books in general now are poured). Even classification
schemes works differently, because computers finally give you the
power you needed in the first place to get it right. The trifecta of
current LCSH and similar schemes, the very notion that a hit is a hit,
is not only missing important information, it is wrong in its
conceptual design! Analysis and the concept of "near misses" are
*paramount* in finding information. Making computer systems more in
tune with human fuzzy nature while applying relevance is the key. Any
selection of subject headings on a book by their very nature make sure
some will find it and some will not. Computers now allow people to
find similar items through subject heading analysis, something
catalogers - specialist or not - cannot help with. (Just to pick on
one thing)
> Point 2 : Experience has shown that over time any new meta-data scheme will
> digress into increasing complexity.
Yes, which is why a lot of people are moving away from schemas (in the
rigid sense). Karen Coyle and friends are doing FRBR and RDA in RDF,
and popping your former schema through SKOS with a more abstract
definition *solve* that particular problem. (Yes, a thesaurii can be
used for more than just thesaurii; it can work as a meta schema) Me,
I'd love to see you do serious modeling without field mentality, so
that you can remove the cruft that doesn't seem to work, but
librarians don't think in such fuzzy ways, so I realize that's a dud.
> I can't seem to find any
> experts in Panizzi's "91 Rules" anywhere these days. They retired, or died,
> or learned the new rules and formats. But, they were still cataloging
> specialists; and so are we.
There once used to be a proud profession of the blacksmith, making
horse-shoes and all sorts of things for pretty much everyone, because
everyone had a horse or more. Today these people work mostly in theme
parks. And there's nothing wrong with it, and it's still a proud
profession. Just not very relevant to society at large.
But what's your point here? Do we *need* the 91 rules, are there still
tons of materials using these rules, were they good rules, would they
be good rules for the future, what? And if there are, then the problem
isn't the rules nor not finding the people involved; the problem is
the deep structure of how cataloging have been done. The point here is
that by looking at all of these rules and schemas together I can
understand some things, while other things are too cryptic ; there are
fundamentals and there are particulars. The specialists are always
specialists in particulars, and to me, all cataloging issues lies in
the twilight zone between the two.
> We are part of the same line of a proud tradition that is dedicated
> to maintaining metadata so that it can be preserved and accessed by users in
> a useful way.
Yes, absolutely, and no one is saying a single bad word about that.
But I'm specifically talking about the future, about now when meta
data isn't about physical items anymore, when computing power is able
to satisfy your every wet dream, and when society has too much
information to feel comfortable with. In this time when we *need*
experts on meta data we *also* need to recognize that the shape of
what meta data is has changed, that methods for finding has
topsy-turvied, that the purpose of the items have changed, that
society is different. Yes, these things have always changed, I'll
agree with that, but it has changed so fast this time that the library
culture has been rendered somewhat irrellevant. I don't want to see
them rendered completely irellevant, but for the libraries to do that
needs to be committed to these new ways far quicker than they seem to
be doing.
Anyway, I'm picking up just too much negative slag again. Time for a break.
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Fri Apr 23 2010 - 17:46:05 EDT