Yes, "useful" means "useful to those using our services." And I
totally agree about lack of real information. One of the catch-22's is
that when we do test our systems, we test our current systems with
their current data, so none of the answers could refer to something
that isn't there. We also tend to test how people use our systems
rather than how they do research. Admittedly, testing is very
difficult and most libraries don't have budgets to support that
activity.
kc
Quoting Stephen Paling <paling_at_WISC.EDU>:
>> One of the issues is that we are working with the facets we have
>> rather than the facets that would be most useful. (Oh shades of
>> Rumsfeld!) There may be somewhere an analysis of what facets we would
>> LIKE to have...
>
> I agree with the general gist of what Karen said, but I also feel
> it's important to register an important disagreement. We should be
> thinking in terms of the metadata that USERS need, not what WE would
> like to have. One of the reasons that cataloging has landed in such
> a pickle is that we have very little basic research about what
> metadata will serve users best in different contexts. Sometimes I
> get the sense that a lot of people find it much easier to tinker
> around with existing systems rather than asking whether the systems
> are workable in the first place.
>
> 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
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Mar 31 2011 - 11:08:50 EDT