As a lurker on the list, I would like to take up Eric's challenge for more of us to speak up, and for the discussion to move beyond the traditional catalog.
I think we need a Copernican turn, a realization of what's at the center of the information solar system, what's at the fringe, and what revolves around what. Toward that end, I'd like to propose some ideas. Part of what I'm proposing comes from a study I'm just completing of what metadata elements would be most useful to members of the American literary community. The evidence is preliminary, but it is evidence nonetheless. I'd be happy to provide a cite if/when I have it.
Stop Assuming That Books Are at the Center of the Information Solar System.
They're not. They're a small but interesting dwarf planet in a somewhat distant orbit (think Pluto). Much of what users want and need simply isn't in books. We seem to assume that if we hammer long and hard enough on our bibliographic standards that we can beat them into a shape that will make them adequate for “other forms of information.” We can't. The mathematics of doing that are intractable (http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/), and electronic information is too different from books (http://informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper94.html). Books are now the alternate form of information.
Stop Bashing Google.
Bashing Google for not allowing people to search by title, author, etc., misses the point of a general purpose search engine. Instead, let's create rich resources like the American Memory Project (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html), and let search engines such as Google serve as the gateway. Search engine optimization (SEO, http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf) of the resources we create may benefit us much more than attempts to convince people that Google is a bad thing.
Stop Bashing Users.
Have you ever implied that users don't use our tools because those users are ignorant of how our tools work? Because the users are impatient? Don't be surprised if those perceptions color our interactions with users. How many times on this list, and others, have we heard people advocate ignoring user desires and needs? Let's stop telling users what they need, and instead focus on meeting those needs as they are.
Stop Using Any Tool That Doesn't Work.
If a tool doesn't work for our users, then it doesn't work at all. Let's say, for example, that we find out that users want or need description of information below the level of the book (individual chapters, poems, articles, images, etc.). The MARC record is not a good tool for that purpose, so other tools may need to be considered, e.g., languages that allow us to create internal markup within documents (http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml).
Consider Eliminating Cataloging.
We need to ask whether it is practical to retrofit cataloging standards to better match the current information landscape. If that isn't practical, we need to eliminate cataloging as we know it in favor of more appropriate technologies. For example, links directly from an electronic document to other material by that author or publisher may serve users better than a catalog entry or subject heading. The evidence I have so far suggests that users indeed want that kind of linkage. In my study, 67% of the respondents indicated interest in the name of an anthology in which the author's name had appeared. In an online environment, we can provide a direct link with no intervening surrogate. But the MARC record can't be used to encode an e-book, only describe it on a fairly gross level. A standard such as XML can do both. And more. Let's not dissipate our energy rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Steve
=====================================
Stephen Paling
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Studies
4251 Helen C. White Hall
600 N. Park St.
Madison, WI 53706-1403
Phone: (608) 263-2944
Fax: (608) 263-4849
paling_at_wisc.edu
Received on Mon Jun 28 2010 - 11:44:26 EDT