Am 27.07.2011 12:57, schrieb Alexander Johannesen:
> I have to say, though, that there's something amiss in this whole
> "content vs. carrier" debate, and that is the fact that we humans - us
> happy users of said carriers and content - never really think of these
> things as so distinct and separated as we discuss it here. It's really
> the same thing; content and carrier is the *same* thing,
Inasmuch as the medium is the message, yes.
Close looks reveal, as others have pointed out, that the sameness
collapses at the fringes, at least, but for the question of dates
in the current context, I agree that we shouldn't fuss over it a
great deal and add dates to uniform titles (and work records, if
ever "scenario 1" comes around), whereever and whenever we can
pin down a date without painstaking research. And for
most older stuff, the century will do, and the half-millennium
when going back further. That would add value to our
stuff, no doubt.
> Poking further; the closest the library world is to content is TOC and
> LCSH (and similar), a terribly watered down and flat effort to capture
> what any thing "is about." However, it's what you've got since
> full-text you seem to be mostly allergic too for some reason, although
> after all these years I'm still not sure why. There's been talk of a
> number of scanning projects to get at the content so libraries could
> better deal with it, and the odd e-book project, but little to nothing
> has come of it.
As little and as much as funds would allow. Some libraries
have sealed a deal with Google and are in the process of making
their own search engines and repositories available to the
public, using whatever G. hands down to them (which G. is reluctant
to allow them to disclose). The allergy is on the side of the
publishers, as we all know.
A matter of resources, what else, when there is
struggling to keep up purchase levels for regular books
which insist to be consulted in the arcane ways and refuse
to fall into obsolescence or become open access.
> You probably know how Google Scholar really should be
> in the hands of librarians, alas.
>
Some of the networks here have many millions of journal article
data in their catalogs, linked with the journal holdings
to enable rapid delivery services where no URL for the
article is available or the library doesn't hold a license.
No full-text search of the articles though, but we wouldn't
get the text anyway even if we had the resources to rig up the search
engine.
B.Eversberg
Received on Wed Jul 27 2011 - 08:03:33 EDT