> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
> Sent: August 10, 2011 11:24 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cataloging Matters Podcast #12
ighlighted.
...
>
> If there were convincing evidence that the public genuinely needs these
> relationships and that the results we see in Worldcat are truly not
> adequate (and Worldcat can't be improved enough such as adding word
> clouds to the results), I would be the first to agree because then, we
> would *know* that we are genuinely providing a service where the public
> has spoken very loudly that it wants and needs. However, I seriously
> doubt that if given a choice the public would want us to add
> relationships such as "abridged in" "has a study" "inspired" etc. as
> no.
We get asked for exactly those things all the time.
Also, on issues like Extent, patrons ignore that at their peril-- a set with 4 DVDs need to have 4 DVDs returned, otherwise there are fines. Where would you expect them to get that information if we deem that field suddenly not important and expendable? And that doesn't even get into the basic common requests ("I need something short for the beach", "I need a quick film for the kids", "I need more than this short children's book-- I need a lengthier in-depth treatment"). Also, the Extent element has within it the most specific term used for the media in the record. Where else would they get this information? We've regularly looked at where the public stumbles and makes mistakes, and adjusted displays accordingly. The Extent will stay exactly where it is.
> 1, even at a major cost to productivity--but I could be wrong! (By the
> way, some of those work-to-work relationships in the LibraryThing
> example seem a little strange. A lot of them look like variant
> expressions to me)
>
> <snip>
> > I would also suggest reading up on what a "strawman" fallacy is:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
> </snip>
>
> Well, I thought they both remained very polite and respectful toward
> one
> another. For example, the patron did not fly off the handle when
> looking
> at all of this meaningless, incomprehensible gobbledygook and asked
> some
> very pointed questions politely.
While humorous, the podcast was irrelevant, as it did not reflect how reference interviews are conducted, how patrons behave, and to what use the data is actually put.
The reference staff (and I am also a front-line librarian) I've found don't need a lot of training on FRBR -- FRBR only delineates what's already intended in our data, and the staff already know the common kinds of questions and the appropriate kinds of responses-- all of this is amiably handled in the FRBR model without using any of the FRBR language. And the staff does appreciate the FRBR-like add-ons when they come-- the most common staff request I get is to combine expressions together in a single record to facilitate holds (something which I can't and shouldn't do, but there is now a "joint-hold" function that allows holds to be placed across multiple records-- often for reasons based upon the commonality of expressions or works).
We did a user survey recently for a library branch, and found the number one request was a book drop. At first this didn't seem related to the catalog, but there is a larger phenomenon occurring. Patrons are using branches as pick up/drop off locations more and more, and there is a correlation with the increased transactional statistics from the catalog. The catalog is a major driver of library usage, even of e-books, and that is because of the nature of the transactions that can happen-- people can specify increasing number of relationships and custom settings to get what they want. The relationships are not just the FRBR ones-- relationships can be established between any kind of entity (which is why one still needs a database model to cut across the data-- fuzzy searching, full-text searching is great (we have it in spades), but that does little for accurate transactions -- and the public can and do complain loudly over any small aspect of the catalog and the accuracy of !
its data).
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
Received on Wed Aug 10 2011 - 11:54:41 EDT