> Is it relevant to what people - tax
> payers and voters - want it to be?
Well first off; Not all libraries are public libraries.
Secondly :
Not all users are "general public users". Who are they anyway ? Kids ?
Adults ? Different levels of education ? Different levels of needs ?
There is no one user for any particular library.
The reference librarians at our library almost exclusively use the OPAC, not
the technical side of the catalog.
They are an OPAC users, too.
Are you to suggest that we provide individual catalog interfaces for each
kind of patron depending on the level of understanding and depending on
their needs ?
We do that already to some extent (Kid's Catalogs and Simple and Advanced
search boxes), but how individualized would you suggest before we become
patronizing to our patrons.
How are these things determined ?
Self-evaluation by the patron, perhaps ? ie. "Please click on the button
that best describes your library experience"
OR
A series of questions by the catalog ? ie. "Please answer these questions
before continuing your catalog search"
OR
A reference librarian or systems librarians interviews the patron or
examines some set of criteria and them places them in a category that will
only display their personalized catalog.
If we try that then we are placing our patrons in little pre-defined boxes
and _not_ helping them break out of their boxes.
> If the catalog remains "just a catalog"
> when it needs to be something else,
If the catalog needs to be something else - then build something else.
Stop trying to make the catalog something that it isn't.
> this will just kill off the librarianship ideals we're working to save.
Which ideals are you talking about ?
{ that "all users" have a tool that can help provide them metadata access to
the resources they need, which the library can provide ? }
FRBR is generalized because it takes a long view into the past and into the
future.
It has generalized goals because that is all it can and should do.
The catalog is a tool. Please don't blame a screwdriver for not being a
wrench.
The only question at hand is "Is this screwdriver the best functioning
screwdriver it can be, if not, how can I improve it - to be a better
screwdriver (not a better wrench) ? "
Todd
--
Todd Puccio
Director of Technical Services / Librarian
Nova Southeastern University
Health Professions Division Library
3200 S. University Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328
(954)262-3114 or ext 2-3114
puccio_at_nsu.nova.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:44 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cataloging Matters Podcast #12
Janet Hill <janet.hill_at_colorado.edu> wrote:
> There may even be a philosophical argument to be made that there should
> be a limit to how much magic it SHOULD perform
You're now just appealing to "whatever it is, it is what it should be"
without addressing the principle argument against here by James (and
by me and others); is it useful? Is it relevant to what people - tax
payers and voters - want it to be?
At this point it doesn't matter if it is "just a catalog" when the
argument is that it needs to be a whole lot more.
> it is through the process and the journey that real discoveries are made.
Not every struggle produces great art.
> There should be no limit to our imagination, of course, and no limit to
our
> wanting to make finding things .... useful, relevant, serendipitous,
frivolous,
> beautiful, dreadful, authoritative, free-wheeling things ..... easier and
> more powerful.
>
> But there should also be some understanding when perfection, nirvana,
> utopia, or whatever is not realized.
So, because we haven't reached our goal, we should stop and be happy
with how far we've come? I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
A lot of the things we have discussed are measurable and obtainable -
they're not some fancy utopia pie in the sky - and hence I don't find
your argument convincing ; this is about what sacrifices of the
librarian way needs to be made in order to protect the ideal. If the
catalog remains "just a catalog" when it needs to be something else,
this will just kill off the librarianship ideals we're working to
save. If the catalog needs to be even something that's unobtainable in
the near future we should *still* work hard towards that crazy goal in
the desperate hope that some of these efforts are enough to convince
people that you are relevant to their needs.
> (And we should be very very careful about generalizing about
> "what users actually want or need."
I think that's Jim's point about the FRBR user tasks; they're
generalized and, by way of modern technology and the way society is
going, largely irrelevant. (Well, at least, so goes my paraphrasing of
his argument :)
> Just think of all the politicians who bloviate about "what the American
people
> want" and how different that is from politician to politician. Each one
perceives
> that "want" through her/his own filter, bias, understanding, expectation,
and
> preference)
This is by far your strongest argument, and you need to be careful
about this, indeed. However, you also need to be careful about a)
creating a tool only a librarian can love (which, most of time, is
exactly what you now got), and b) believe that whatever you build,
they will find useful and relevant to them.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Aug 11 2011 - 17:17:47 EDT