Often we throw around the word Catalog without specifying the difference
between the Technical Services backroom functioning of "the catalog" and the
"PAC, Public Access Catalog". In days gone by, we had a shelflist. It was
the inventory of the library's holdings, yet there was another catalog that
the Front Desk Librarians and Patrons would use for easier access.
Remember our Cutter's Principles. The Catalog provides access to what the
library has collected.
In short, I agree that Discovery systems are "not" catalogs. Catalogs are
useful meta-data tools to provide access to a library's collection (in
whatever format).
The next question is "What do we consider to be part of the library's
collection?
We can't "collect" every website in the world. But, there may be a few very
good ones out there that we have found most useful for our patrons. So we
can catalog those, thus "collecting" them for our library.
If we choose not to catalog a web resource we are helping our patron
discover it and providing access.
The Discovery System - goes beyond the concept of a catalog. Yes, it will
include meta-data found in the catalog, but also meta-data found in other
places not added to the "collection".
TJP
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of KLINGLER, THOMAS
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:39 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] discovery systems need to do more
But Bernie....Eric didn't say the "catalog" needs to do more. He said
"discovery systems" need to do more. I see the discovery system as another
system or layer that's not the catalog. From where I sit, the content in
the catalog is just one of the buckets that the discovery layer will tap
into. Other buckets include the repositories, the ETD centers, the
e-journal centers, etc. In some ways it's sad that the catalog and the
discovery layer are not / likely won't be the same thing. But the
discovery layer will provide broad searching, faceted retrieval, social
network hooks, massive pre-indexing, integrated federated searching, etc.
that some of us can't mash into our existing catalogs...
Tom Klingler
Kent State
Chair, OhioLINK Discovery Layer Task Force
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
>Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:18 PM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] discovery systems need to do more
>
>Just to clarify what I said a little bit, I'm thinking that the core
>design principles of library catalogs are based on managing "silos" of
>physical materials. As Brian Kennison said: "Format/location doesn't
>matter any more. If we can, we need to break down silos of information."
>Are library catalogs the right tool for the job?
>
>I first asked this general question 18 years ago on the old PACS-L
>list...long enough ago that I had a BITNET address for my e-mail. The
>subject line was: "The Post-OPAC Era", and I ended the posting by
>asking: "should we be trying to retool the OPAC to play a broader role
>that might perhaps be better filled by developing gateway technologies
>(WAIS, Internet gopher, etc)?" Granted, my examples of "developing
>gateway technologies" are now ancient history, but you get my drift. :-)
>
>Bernie Sloan
>
>--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Brian Kennison <KennisonB_at_WCSU.EDU> wrote:
>
>> From: Brian Kennison <KennisonB_at_WCSU.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] discovery systems need to do more
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:50 PM
>> On 8/31/10 1:13 PM, "B.G. Sloan"
>> <bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I know there are exceptions to what I just said, but I'm
>> thinking that the core design principles of library catalogs
>> are based on the need to manage physical collections?
>>
>> The problem is ( and has been ) that "physical" objects
>> provide only a fraction of information that your patron is
>> in need of and is willing to use and as a proportion of
>> available information is getting smaller all the time.
>> Format/location doesn't matter any more. If we can, we
>> need to break down silos of information. That doesn't mean
>> you couldn't have a catalog that provided added value to
>> physical objects but it's got to be discoverable in the
>> user's normal work flow (not that I know what that is but
>> Google comes to mind ).
>>
>> The other thing I think Eric was trying to get at is "open"
>> content. If libraries can provide both access to these types
>> of materials AND value-added services on top of this access
>> we would be providing significant service to our patrons.
>>
>> While there are a lot of good people working on tools and
>> services I don't think any body has all the tools they need.
>> I think a contributing problem is that lack of majority of
>> the profession to recognize the urgency of this matter and
>> lack of support for this vision both in their commitment of
>> resource and time.
>>
>> Mean while Eric, I guess we just keep plugging away.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Kennison
>> Western Connecticut State University
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 31 2010 - 15:32:10 EDT