On 16/11/2012 16:36, Karen Coyle wrote:
<snip>
> Jim, I don't know how many times I have to explain this: our holdings
> data is low-hanging fruit and therefore a good place to START if we
> want to make libraries visible in the Web NOW - because it probably
> can be implemented using today's data and today's Web technology.
> Nowhere, NOWHERE, do I say that it's the only thing we have. In fact,
> in that talk I mention many things that we could or should be doing,
> from creating links between library materials and web materials,
> adding and exploiting the concept of time, and including the
> experience of our users. I also talk about the fact that our
> classification work is not getting much return on investment (and go
> into more of that here [1] in a talk I gave a few years ago). All of
> these can be part of our future, but most of them are going to take
> much more work than the low-hanging fruit of holdings.
>
> Would you please stop turning what are rather big ideas into a
> reductionist black and white? Sheesh!
</snip>
A thousand apologies for getting the wrong idea. I do seem to remember
you saying that the web doesn't need our bibliographic data, but there
was an exception for our holdings data. Still, perhaps I misunderstood
or just got the idea completely wrong. What role should our current
bibliographic metadata play? Is there a need for it on the web?
--
*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 Fri Nov 16 2012 - 11:49:58 EST