Jim Weinheimer said:
"What do others think? And yes, in such scenarios the 'catalog' will change, but I think will still be the key to it all."
I'm not so sure I agree that, in some future world, the catalog "will still be the key to it all." I'm not even sure that the catalog is "the key to it all" now. I know it's not "the key to it all" for me. It's more like an inventory tool for me. I discover a book or journal article using some other discovery method. Quite a few times I can locate the item without even using the library. When I can't, then maybe I'll go to the catalog and ask "Is the item available through my library?" I can't believe I'm the only person who does this.
I remember reading a couple of studies about the discovery methods used by academics. I can't recall a lot of details, but I do remember that the library catalog wasn't "the key to it all" when it came to their information seeking behavior.
Bernie Sloan
--- On Mon, 6/28/10, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU> wrote:
> From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Problems With Selection in Today's Information World
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 4:54 AM
> Following Eric's slap-down (just
> kidding!), I have decided to pose a question that has not
> been very well addressed, so far as I know: how selection of
> digital resources, and especially open-access materials, can
> be achieved on the web.
>
> Here are some of my own observations concerning the
> issues:
> 1) The non-librarian does not
> understand traditional library selection;
> 2) Library selection has
> traditionally meant being responsible for a limited budget
> and adding materials based on a limited amount of resources,
> both money and shelf space. In essence, it is a process of
> *inclusion* of specific materials, based on specific
> policies and limited resources;
> 3) When it comes to web resources,
> the public wants selection of another type. They are very
> concerned about getting "bad" information. Faculty and
> scholars are just as concerned as students and the regular
> public. While they like to know what is "recommended by the
> most people" this is not enough and they still have
> concerns;
> 4) When we have millions of free
> materials and no problems with shelf space, library
> selection becomes something fundamentally different from
> what it has been; in essence, it becomes (I believe) a
> process of *exclusion*, i.e. taking the "best" and excluding
> the "worst", much as the traditional "bibliographies of best
> books" have tried to achieve (for examples, search the
> subject: "Best books" in Worldcat);
> 5) While it no longer makes much
> sense to catalog the same text over and over and over in
> each library, I don't think it makes much more sense to
> "select" the same thing over and over and over in each
> library;
> 6) The traditional library selector
> has had a lot of help from book dealers and library
> profiles. Without them, it would be pretty much impossible
> to do the work in any sort of comprehensive manner. Book
> dealers get paid to do this work through approval plans and
> other ways when libraries buy the physical books (or other
> resources). It is naïve to believe that similar
> organizations will do a comparable amount of work for
> materials that are available for free;
> 7) Selecting materials on the web
> is being done now to a limited extent through heroic efforts
> in cooperative projects such as Intute, Infomine and other
> projects (to see the tool I created for my own "selection of
> web materials" see: http://www.galileo.aur.it/opac-tmpl/npl/en/pages/news/latestwebsites.html).
> If you look at these sites, you will see many items selected
> that are not in our library catalogs, plus there is metadata
> work done twice on these sites and in our catalogs. The
> resources found through these projects are not nearly all of
> the worthwhile digital sites however;
> 8) In the everyday practice of
> library selection, many people feel ignored and/or left out
> since you cannot make everyone happy. Now, since there is
> not the concerns of a limited budget, or of shelf space,
> each faculty member, teacher, whoever, could equally be a
> selector. This has obvious advantages as well as drawbacks.
>
> This does not at all exhaust all the concerns, but I think
> they represent a good beginning. Perhaps others are
> discussing these matters as well, and if so, could others
> point me in the right directions. I can envision a
> cooperative tool that could solve these concerns technically
> at least, but getting agreement on the huge number of issues
> would be the challenge, not the least being the explosive
> question: who will select?
>
> What do others think? And yes, in such scenarios the
> "catalog" will change, but I think will still be the key to
> it all.
>
> James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu<mailto:j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu>
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> via Pietro Roselli, 4
> 00153 Rome, Italy
> voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
> fax-011 39 06 58330992
>
Received on Mon Jun 28 2010 - 10:45:10 EDT