It's interesting to see that someone on this list
believes in clairvoyance. [ :-). ]
Yet, the implication that one or more category of
library employees is in general -- by definition ? --
effectively clairvoyant ( or at the very least,
sufficiently clairvoyant ) does seem to me to be
going a bit far.
Looking to the future ( rather than to the past,
with its limited physical collections and budgets ) :
the picture you paint makes me fairly uneasy.
There's something potentially perilous at play
here, and even potentially detrimental to the
general welfare. It seems to me that one's got to
be very cautious with this kind of way of looking
at things. It even gives me personally a bit of a
creepy feeling.
And incidentally : that bit about the _Iliad_ is to
my mind particularly wrong-headed. ( I say this,
with all respect, by the way, as someone who
previously earned a living at the university
teaching, among other things, the Homeric epics
and their tradition. )
- Laval Hunsucker
Knokke-Heist, België
----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 10:05:42 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Copernicus, Cataloging, and the Chairs on the Titanic,
Part 1 [Long Post]
Laval Hunsucker wrote:
<snip>
What's the difference between quality and something somebody (e.g. a scholar, a
student) can do something (useful, creative, productive, imaginative, inspiring)
with? Or wants to do something with?
</snip>
This will be one topic the library community will have to determine. Still,
library selectors make these types of decisions thousands of times every day, so
that part is not absolutely new. It will change, but it's still unclear (at
least in my own mind) how it will evolve.
<snip>
<snip> Another aspect of selection that I predict will probably arise will be
"appropriateness" e.g. the search for "Michelangelo frescos" should have filters
for texts appropriate for children, novices, adults, experts, and so on.</snip>
Heaven save us from anything like this. Please!
Good grief.
</snip>
This is exactly what library selectors figure out right now, when they have a
budget and they must decide what types of materials they should purchase for the
collection. For someone selecting for a children's collection they will select
for that community; for those who select for an undergraduate institution, they
will select differently; for a research institution, still differently; for a
general public library, even differently. There is nothing at all strange about
this and makes perfect sense. I don't want children being faced with materials
aimed for researchers, or researchers looking at children's materials. Different
communities want different information about, e.g. Homer's Iliad: the PhD
candidate, the interested citizen, the child, the high school student.
Just throwing all of it into a general pot would be a disservice to our users
since everybody would have to wade through all kinds of materials they would
never want.
But again, do I mean that there needs to be completely separate catalogs and so
on? Not necessarily. I personally believe it would be best for everyone to use
and search the same database, but simple codes could be entered by selectors for
each community. This way everyone could cooperate and efficiencies could be
enhanced.
James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Sat Jul 10 2010 - 09:53:03 EDT