On 02/08/2013 20:35, Ross Singer wrote:
<snip>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM, James Weinheimer wrote:
>> When I have managed in a very few cases to get someone to understand how
>> the subject headings work, they ask: Why don't Google and Yahoo work
>> this way? That question made me feel great! I think that people today
>> would absolutely love that kind of "new" and "innovative" experience
>> that they can find nowhere else on the web. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,
>> Apple and the other "information companies" will never offer such access.
> I don't know that this is necessarily true. If, say, the data we make
> available to Google, Yahoo, MS, et al is well marked up schema.org,
> JSON-LD, rdfa-lite, etc., AND there are sensible relationships between
> things (that are machine parsable) I see no reason that these companies
> wouldn't take advantage of it. Sure they might need a profit motive to
> implement something, but given the fact that Google has Play (which
> sells/rents books, movies, music, etc.) it's not terribly difficult to make
> the leap.
>
> The key is finding ways to leverage this data so it's profitable for all
> parties.
</snip>
What I mean is that the Googles, Yahoos, etc. will not pay money (i.e.
to libraries or to catalogers) to *create* that access. Sure, they will
always be happy to snap up anybody's free labor so that they can make a
profit on it.
Please realize that I don't think there is anything wrong for the
Googles to profit from the labor of others since that is just the way
the world works. But, I also don't think there is anything wrong with
others profiting from the Googles. Therefore, give the Googles just
enough information to drive people to your site and once you have them,
then wow everybody with your content and tools.
A question to Karen:
<snip>
... the catalog is only one library service, and perhaps not the most
important one. I don't understand all of this emphasis on the catalog,
without a similar emphasis on the library as a whole. How much is your
catalog used in relation to how much your library is used? How many
users go to the catalog, how many go straight to the shelf? Is this
really where we should be spending our energy? Are users drawn to your
library because of the catalog? Do they even think about it?
</snip>
I agree with this, but what other services do you have in mind?
Certainly not reference because (sadly) it is in the dumper. I am
thinking of people using libraries on the web (of necessity, I think)
and I don't know what else libraries have to offer in this sense besides
their catalogs, some archival finding aids and perhaps some research
guides. It is true that most members of the public have always hated the
catalog and much prefer to go directly into the collection, but it
doesn't work very well. People are often lost in the stacks, especially
people who are just starting out. I mentioned this in a paper I gave at
ALA
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/06/reality-check-what-is-it-that-public.html,
when I quoted Noam Chomsky, who said:
"... the Internet is kind of like walking into the Library of Congress
in a sense. Everything is there, but you have to know what you're
looking for. If you don't know what you're looking for you might as well
not have the library. Like you can't decide you want to become a
biologist -- it's not enough to walk into Harvard's biology library. You
have to have a framework of understanding, a conception of what's
important and what isn't important; what makes sense and what doesn't
make sense. Not a rigid one that never gets modified, but at least some
kind of framework.
Unfortunately that's pretty rare."
Even in Google, you are working with a "record" of a sort that has a
short summary of the item, that leads you to click to see it (or not).
It seems to me as if the collection itself (however that collection is
defined--and it must be redefined) will be the center of it, and the
finding tool (catalog) will be vital to getting into the information in
the collection. And yet, I think there would be room for a vastly
enhanced catalog, created in close conjunction with reference and
selectors, to create something brand new.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Received on Sat Aug 03 2013 - 05:37:56 EDT