On 11/16/12 8:46 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
> </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?
Rather than beginning with our bibliographic metadata (or any other
metadata, really) I think we should be looking at services first, and
then deciding what metadata fulfills those services. What do people
need? I don't have data that would allow me to answer that question (and
I would love to have such data!) but my own thinking is tending toward:
- they probably need navigation that is based on concepts rather than
words -- that allows them to go narrower and broader, or sideways. I
recall studies when I was in library school that showed that people
begin a search with a broader topic term than what actually fulfills
their information need. In other words, the questions are less specific
than the answer that turns out to be helpful. This makes a lot of sense,
because the person asking the question probably knows less that what
will be revealed as the answer. Keyword searching (aka "googling") isn't
conceptual, and Google et al function more as yellow pages than as
knowledge organization systems. Libraries do classify their works, but
unfortunately we classify only to determine shelf order. I'd like to see
experiments with classification as navigation.
- they need to get to stuff that isn't open access on the web, but is
available through a library. Thus: library holdings and licensed content.
- they need recommendations and guidance when exploring new topics.
Wikipedia sometimes helps people get started, but I'm finding the
bibliographies in WP pages to be somewhat random. I'd like to see the
art of bibliography revived.
- they need all kinds of help digging through the mass of stuff that IS
available, and I'd like to see a way to do "shared screen" reference,
and for libraries to somehow find the means to give personalized help or
even group help. The idea of "maker spaces" needn't be limited to 3-D
printing
- etc etc
It goes on and on, and at some point you try to prioritize based on what
you can do, physically and economically. What I don't think is going to
be the answer to most of these questions is a careful, hand-crafted
description of the physical characteristics of common, mass-produced
items. For all that one can find a use case for knowing that the
pagination of a best-seller is "xii, 356p." (or "xii, 356 pages" in
RDA), I sincerely doubt that this will turn out to be in the top ten of
the metadata elements that provide services people need. And for all
that it may be hard to give up some practices, it still makes no sense
to be spending precious library staff time on anything that doesn't meet
high priority needs.
We still have the problem of determining what those needs are, and one
of the recommendations in the "Future of Bibliographic Control" report
was that we need to become a data-driven profession. It is rather ironic
that we consider ourselves "information professionals" but in fact we
have little information about the impact of our profession in meeting
user needs. We really need to get serious about studying our users and
our services so that we can make decisions based on reality not
conjecture. Where we get both the $$ and the expertise for that I don't
know, but the future of libraries depends on it.
IMO.
kc
see also: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/wish-list-dump-desk.html
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Fri Nov 16 2012 - 21:08:42 EST