I agree with the idea that our services are not synonymous with our software, but the angels really are in the details. I've met a lot of traditional technical services folks who simply don't understand what the current generation of information technologies can do. If you've been painting in black and white, and you don't know that colors are available, guess what your next picture will look like?
Take a look at the technical specs from the W3C (http://www.w3.org/). Read articles at XML.com (http://www.xml.com/). Check out the TEI (http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml). The possibilities offered by these tools form a massive superset of anything an ILS can do. And these tools are born-digital, just like the vast majority of information now available.
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel CannCasciato <Daniel.CannCasciato_at_CWU.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Participation in the NGC4LIB list (was: mailing list administratativa)
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Hi All,
>
> One of the main concerns I have right now with librarianship in
> general and my area of it (cataloging) specifically is the chaotic and
> contradictory discussion about our future. For this list's theme,
> the next generation catalog, I find that we're spending time
> discussing software and interfaces, but not the catalog. In my view,
> the catalog is a service, but we have no general understanding of the
> service goals. I've recently tried to clarify the issue for myself
> [1]. In many ways, I think the NGC is doing fine; the discussion is
> really more about infrastructure, which is different. The data we
> provide, as well as how it is stored, transmitted, shared, and made
> available at large, are vital to the success of the service, but they
> are not the service. Provision of the service should be the driving
> force behind the adaptations of those other components. Which means
> we need a clearer understanding of our service. [I'm not sure how to
> achieve that.]
>
> For me, discussions or assertions as to what an we should make an NGC
> must be bound within the service goal framework, yet most aren't.
> Suggestions that the NGC should be open source, modular, or
> evolutionary, to me confuse the software with the service. I'm not
> disagreeing about the software issue, just that we often conflate the
> two - the software and the service - and we shouldn't. (You can
> provide services without software.) And yet the interface is a
> component of the service, so the software's usability as well as its
> functionality is an issue that must be addressed. Additionally,
> though, we have to do so within the framework of what we are. For
> example, I work in a medium-sized academic library. We support the
> mission and goals of the university. Whatever we do with our catalog
> service has to reference that mission and those goals. What happens
> in public, private, or corporate settings must be contextual as well.
> All of which is one of the reasons I am less o!
> f an adherent to the ease of use or transparency issue. I'm fine
> with the idea that our patrons (students and faculty) have to learn
> how to use tools to navigate the information universe and scholarly
> publishing. Why shouldn't they have to learn something in this
> regard? It's a messy environment [2], but at least in academe, it
> seems we alone are the area that apologizes for requiring learning
> from our patrons. Our geology profs certainly don't apologize; the
> require students to learn something. So I'm suggesting that our
> discussion should integrate with our missions and goals. First. And
> transparency of use, intuitiveness, etc., are characteristics to
> consider within that context.
>
> Lastly, I think we should give ourselves some professional credit, or
> at least not bother flogging a non-existent dead horse. As a
> profession, we do adapt to change. If someone is resistant to my idea
> or suggested course of action, it doesn't mean that person is fearful
> of change. (It could be a lousy idea, or poorly phrased, or just one
> that no one else considers valuable. Resistance to change can be an
> issue.) On the whole, we are adaptive. We've spent about 15 years
> addressing electronic resources and access; this discussion list
> exists. You can argue we haven't adapted well, but it clouds the
> issue to assert that we haven't tried or that personality traits are a
> negative issue.
>
> And that's about as far as I've gotten on this theme for now.
>
> Daniel
> _________________
> Head of Cataloging
> Central Washington University Brooks Library
> 400 E. University Way
> Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548
> dcc_at_cwu.edu
>
>
> 1. http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Cutters%20objectives%201904.pdf
>
> 2. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/
> [thanks to Stephen Paling]
> http://hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI_2009_ConsumerReport_Dec9_2009.pdf
> [similar. A quote from exec summary: " In 2008, Americans consumed
> information for about 1.3 trillion hours, an average of almost 12
> hours per day. Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion
> words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average
> person on an average day. A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes ...]
Received on Tue Jun 29 2010 - 15:02:50 EDT