On 14/11/2012 16:41, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
<snip>
> On 11/14/2012 4:25 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
>> Karen's example of including the local
>> holdings is interesting, but it can be done in a variety of ways,
>> including browser add-ons.
>
> Are you serious? Yes, it can be done in a variety of ways. The way
> you are suggesting is the way that will basically zero impact,
> nobody's going to install browser plugins, and many currently popular
> browsers (including much of mobile!) don't support plugins.
>
> While there are many ways to share our data in a way that can be used
> by other apps, not just "linked data"/RDF (and Karen is saying this
> lately too) -- only ways that actually do THAT are going to be
> meaningful. Browser plugins, really?
>
> I think we are in fact doomed, and catalogers and libraries will be
> irreelvant and possibly not even exist in ~15 years. The problem is
> our community is completely incapable of understanding, let alone
> acting upon, what actually must be done to keep our metadata practices
> relevant and useful. Browser plugins?
</snip>
Yes, I am serious. At least that would be giving it a try and not
waiting for some non-existent pot of gold at the end of the linked
data/RDF rainbow. People do use the Zotero plugin in place of the
expensive options; maybe there could be a chance of getting something
included in Zotero or Mendeley. Of course that would only be a
stopgap--not a solution and why I keep saying over and over that it is
APIs that we must create. But even that goes so far as well. You mention
our metadata practices but as I have discussed, I don't think the
problem is with our metadata *practices* as much as it is with the fact
that our catalogs have been broken--not our catalog records but our
catalogs.
The real problem is and has been the waste of time and resources on RDA
and FRBR which are focused on the catalog records. All this time, effort
and money and the catalogs will *still* be broken, and even more so in
some cases.
To keep from being doomed means to focus on what libraries provide that
is *different* from everybody else--not to try and compete with the
Googles, the Yahoos, and so on plus the publishers, because we will
lose. Libraries have to compete where they are strong--not where they
are weak. What is it that libraries provide their communities that is
*different*? Is it only the option for a free copy of something that you
can borrow for a couple of weeks? I confess that means more during the
economic downturn but it's still not enough.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Received on Wed Nov 14 2012 - 11:21:57 EST