Guys, can we take our petty insults off the list? Please?
Julie Hankinson
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Thu, Jun 24, 2010 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] ALA Session on MODS and MADS: Current implementations and future directions
Hola, Senor!
Me:
> We need the library world to be mapped. Not
> extensively, but enough for us to define, model
> and define that world, and we need to do that
> for ourselves but also for those who wishes to
> cooperate with us.
Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Here I couldn't agree with you less. That's the last thing
we need, for "a serious attempt by all to actually save
the library world from being forgotten by the future",
or for anything else, or for any other reason I can imagine
-- except maybe for a nice exhibit in some museum later
on showing people how there once was this funny thing
everybody used to call a "library" and look, this is more
or less how it worked. Otherwise, "modelling the library
world" seems a pretty useless exercise.
Wow. You obviously have no idea of how this thing called
communication" works, do you? Now, I assume your native tongue is
utch? Good. Now, my native tongue is Norwegian. And under normal
ircumstances we wouldn't be able to have a serious talk, as I don't
peak Dutch and no one sane speaks Norwegian. But, living in countries
ith good education we both probably learned English at school. And
his is a good thing! It enables you and me - otherwise confined to
ute nodding of assumptive vagueness! - to actually talk, to transmit
eaning and models between us. It looks like we're still a bit rusty,
ut at least there's words coming out of my mouth and you seem to hear
hem and understand some of them. So far, so good. English is a map
etween us.
The library world does not speak Norwegian, Dutch or English, but
ibrarynese, with several accents and regional variants thrown in. The
est of the world has a host of other languages. For cultures and
odies to talk effectively and well you need to define what you're
aying in an upper layer. Even within one segment of a language you
ften need to bridge semantics between the two in order to get it
ight. If I say "classical music" out loud, what am I talking about?
he generic broad sweeping (but oh! so stupid notion) "anything with
iolins in it" classical, or do I mean a specific time period, a
pecific time period that's broader than the Classical period (like
mbracing baroque), or a given style of music, or the music of some
omposers, or 'classical' in the way of meaning 'safe' music in a
iven period / idiom, and on and on and on. The sad truth is that
here's no such thing as "classical music", only more specific
efinitions of the notion and often are highly contextual, yet it's an
xpression people use often in all sorts of situations.
So why don't you get it? Do I need to go through the basics of
nformation science, of ontologies, definitions, key/value recursive
axa models, and so on? Or just the basic limitations on
ommunication, language, syntax, structures and rules? How in order to
ranslate between two bodies we look for the bell-curve of semantics
etween the models?
> Why should one
bother to do *that* ? I don't get the point. Seems like an
imbecilic sort of navel-staring.
You're being insulting on purpose, aren't you? Yeah, I know you are,
therwise you would be - oh, what's the word? - really stupid. You
now, the "that" in your tirade above could be referring to a number
f things, but mostly the part where you just don't get it. Are you
oing to attack things and call them stupid because you yourself don't
et it? That's Teabagger territory, that.
> If we should be talking about mapping or modelling or
defining *anything*, we should be talking about
mapping or modelling or defining the ( entire ) universe
and ecology of document and information use --
So, in order to make something neat and small work, we need to make it
uge and unsurmountable?
> an
ecology within which the library and the "information
profession" used necessarily to occupy an essential place
and to play a vital role ( though not a place and not a
role that we as an information profession really ever well
understood, let's not delude ourselves ).
That place is called "the world." We in the semantic web world have
now about it for a very long time, and we have defined our little
orners and nooks pretty well, and they are everywhere. We're now
aiting for consensus to sort of out the kinks, really. Oh, hang on.
here's one piece missing. Yeah, you guessed it; the library world, a
unch of people living in isolation from "the world" thinking outside
hinking is suspicious and if you haven't made it yourself, then we
on't have a bar of it, and as a result totally missing from any
erious world modeling goings on. (Oh, get stuffed; I'm writing
arcastically, of *course* there's exceptions ...)
> Only through
modelling that *whole* documentary/information/
communication ecology can we imho hope to have any
realistic chance left of determining whether our profession
as we more or less know it today will have a future role to
play within that ecology -- and if so, how.
You know, the library world have already done this. It's called MARC
with added AACR2), and it's the thing we're trying to get away from
ecause - surprise, surprise! - it's getting too big, too bloated, too
omplex, too rigid, too crazy, too expensive to maintain and create,
oo limiting, too little, too late.
Focus on what you actually know, and work hard on mapping that to what
he rest of the world is doing (and I'm here giving up on librarians
ver working directly with the rest of the world, and seriously *join*
heir efforts [speaking post-DC here]). If you do anything but that,
ou will fail.
> I'm not even sure it's possible to do something such as
this, in practice.
There were a few links in this very thread showing you that it
efinitely *can* be done. They just need a slightly more open model of
ooperation, and voila!
> But I'm sure that if it *is* possible to do
it in a meaningful way, it's going to be a very very very
demanding undertaking. I wouldn't myself put any money
on the chances for success. We haven't in the last many
decades shown much collective enthusiasm or competence
to do this kind of job. Why should we think it's going to
happen now ?
Because if you don't, there is no future?
> Of course we can on the other hand just keep waiting
around and just see what actually happens.
Spoken like a true warrior.
lex
-
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
-- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
----------------- http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Fri Jun 25 2010 - 09:55:39 EDT