On 9/12/12 10:46 AM, Laval Hunsucker wrote:
> kc wrote :
>
>> I find "discovery services" to be pretty jargon-ish -- does everyone
>> have the same definition?
>
> There necessarily exist no definitions for neologistic expressions
> like like this, it seems to me. Nor should there ; we shouldn't
> *want* any clear definitions to exist, I dare say. That's the whole idea :
That's fine for inventing things, but it does make me wonder how one
will judge the results of a survey based on no clear definitions. Will
there be some self-selection of participation based on people's reaction
to this neologistic expression? Will people actually be answering the
same questions, or will their assumptions about the meaning of the term
"discovery services" mean that some people are actually answering
different questions? Without a baseline definition, the analysis of a
survey can't be very useful.
kc
> a vague term, leaving room for enterprising types, and those they
> are able to convince, to subsume under the expression any offering
> they see as having a fair chance of viability. Far from being a problem,
> this kind of free-floating jargon is very useful, inducive as it is of
> creativity and innovation and progress along paths which we
> collectively feel should be followed, without being able to say what
> the results will ultimately be. It would sooner be a problem and a pity
> if everyone *did* have the same definition. As time goes on, a decent
> definition will probably crystal out all by itself, retrospectively. But by
> that time, we'll have moved on to different challenges which will in
> turn have generated their own vaguish jargon. But important to keep
> in mind is, in any case, that it *is* just jargon. We shouldn't assume that
> the ( collective ) term "discovery services" is a meaningful one for those
> we're aiming to serve -- or should be. Those are of course all individuals
> with varying specific, situational and contextual, contingent, often
> ineffable documentary information needs, who of course never should
> be expected to express themselves in anything resembling our kind of
> jargon, nor be expected to understand, or to empathize with, us if we
> communicate with them in anything like the way we do among
> ourselves. You can be pretty sure e.g. that what the user understands
> under "discovery" has little to do with what we ( in this current
> context ) understand under "discovery". His or her understanding will
> almost certainly be ( much ) more sophisticated, more subtle, more
> profound, and more relevant.
>
> Apologies for running on, as it turned out.
>
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
> Breukelen, Nederland
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net>
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] NISO Open Discovery Initiative - survey
>>
>> I find "discovery services" to be pretty jargon-ish -- does everyone
>> have the same definition? Does it mean any catalog or database? Or is it
>> more precise than that? Does it include reference services? In-person,
>> or only online?
>>
>> kc
>>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Sep 13 2012 - 13:33:07 EDT