Quoting Daniel CannCasciato <Daniel.CannCasciato_at_CWU.EDU>:
> Karen finished with:
>
> " why are we so unable to compromise, e.g. with publishers, to make
> it possible to share data and thus be more efficient? Is the library
> way REALLY the only right way, or are we just being stubborn?"
>
> But I think she has ignored the challenge to the idea of efficiency
> presented by Jim and which I agree with. He laid out some of the
> issues that make the idea of efficiency a questionable result.
> Freely available data that we can gather and then re-work usefully
> has some efficiencies to it. Just accepting the data and never
> re-working it, though, is something else.
I guess that's where we differ. I am suggesting that our goal should
be to NOT have to re-work data that we get through the supply chain.
For that to be possible, we would have to give up the idea that there
is *library* data. Instead, we could be working toward a (at least
partially) shared concept of bibliographic data that is in wider use.
This would not only allow libraries to absorb data from other parts of
the supply chain, but would mean that libraries could pass that same
data along to other users of bibliographic data, like authors, thus
passing along some of this efficiency to our users (which I see as a
natural library service). The value of developing and participating in
a bibliographic "mainstream" is greater than just libraries taking in
data to save some time in cataloging departments; it has implications
for things like software development and systems, and the ability of
libraries to integrate with the larger web-based information
environment.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wed Dec 29 2010 - 20:36:18 EST