On 11/08/2011 18:23, Ross Singer wrote:
<snip>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Janet Hill<janet.hill_at_colorado.edu> wrote:
>> As I write this, I can hear the voice of Ben Tucker (Principal Descriptive Cataloger at the Library of Congress when I worked there) in my mind, saying in his gentle Carolina accent ... "The catalog is not an encyclopedia, and it is not a dictionary. It's a catalog." It can lead you to the encyclopedia or the dictionary (or biographies, films, works of fantasy, maps, etc.), where you may find the answers to your questions, but it's not there to answer those all of life's questions itself.
> This is an interesting point, but it raises two other questions:
>
> * If a catalog doesn't do those things, but that's want our users actually want or need, does the catalog make sense?
> -and (and these are not necessarily related to each other)-
> * If the catalog does a good job at linking to encylopedias, dictionaries, biographies maps, etc. (which it doesn't -- at least not
> in a machine-readable way) / why doesn't it just become a component in a larger discovery system that *can* utilize these things?
</snip>
These are the type of highly provocative and vital questions that I wish
had been asked all along. Maybe by now we would have had some answers.
Eventually, these sorts of questions will be asked and they will have to
be answered by someone. I think there is still another question that
should be taken into consideration, and it seems that different people
are assuming different things.
There are catalogs, and there are bibliographies. Catalogs normally
relate to the complete holdings of specific libraries and collections,
including all topics, while bibliographies normally relate to "what is
available" on specific topics, no matter where the resources happen to
be. For patrons, when everything was physical, catalogs of specific
collections were the most important, but today where information is
readily available everywhere, it seems as if bibliography is going into
the ascendant and the catalogs of specific collections are less important.
Has the public wanted catalogs or bibliographies? From my research, and
also from my experience of what patrons want, including myself, I would
hazard a guess that in the vast majority of cases, they want
bibliographies because very few people who are interested in the text
and criticism of Huckleberry Finn want to see records for completely
different topics, e.g. Arabic calligraphy or tomes on the war of the
Spanish Succession. In a catalog, you will see these records that are
irrelevant to your needs, especially in a keyword-type environment,
while in a "Bibliography of the texts and criticism of Twain's
Huckleberry Finn" you will not. In catalogs, it is almost inevitable
that you will see all kinds of works you do not want, while in a focused
bibliography, everything should be at least relevant, even though you
may decide you do not want them.
One thing I have considered is that we should perhaps refocus what we
provide to the patrons (not to ourselves, which is an entirely different
task) more in the sense of giving them "bibliographies" instead of
"catalogs". That could be done by providing canned searches, using
complex call numbers and/or subject searches (that our users would never
know how to do and shouldn't be expected to) that they could then
further refine. I think people would really like them, *and* if
correctly done, could be included in all kinds of services created by
others. Group annotated bibliographies come to mind. In this attempt,
the "catalog record" would not have to change much, if at all; the task
would be coming up with some very good, very pointed queries. Something
that is probably beyond the abilities of any single person, but would
need subject experts, catalogers and systems people.
So, perhaps what will happen will be a decline in traditional,
institutional-focused catalogs, but a simultaneous rise of
bibliographies--all different kinds of them. I know I would like some
really great bibliographies on my topics and I am sure that others
would, too.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Thu Aug 11 2011 - 17:40:35 EDT