Stephen, I still disagree. The organization of the LIBRARY is the
signature contribution. You can use the library without the catalog, and
most users do. That said, the organization of the library has been
limited in the past by its physicality. We should be able to go beyond
this today, providing users with a map of topics that is an unending
graph of relationships.
kc
On 8/2/13 6:07 PM, Stephen Paling wrote:
> Eric is certainly free to step in if he wants, but my understanding is that the list is intended to address the organization of information, broadly speaking, and new approaches to it.
>
> I don't mean to pick nits with this. I think this issue is important. People like me keep raising questions about how catalogs [don't] work. And we get responses like: that particular OPAC has a bad set of tabs in the interface, or, that's just an unusual case, or, Google just uses algorithms on text, or, we just need to adjust this or that, or, libraries offer other services. If I have to look under Books to find a sound recording behind a proxy resolver, and I can meet my need in seconds with Google and YouTube, why would I ignore that? And if the system is that bad, why would I want to use the library's other services? We screwed up your brakes, but let us change your oil? The produce was rotten, but come on over to the deli? The catalog is a mess, but come on in for the Lego club?
>
> Like it or not, catalogs are librarianship's signature contribution to the organization of information. And what if cataloging is just built wrong from the ground up, and can't be fixed for a modern environment? If our signature contributions fail, the Lego club may be the only thing left. Unless we put our efforts elsewhere, into more modern ways of organizing information...
>
> Steve
>
> On 08/02/13, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Actually, Eric LM has said that he regrets using the term "Catalog" in the name of the listserv. He didn't mean for it to be catalog-specific. But even if it WERE intentionally a catalog-related listserv, the catalog has to exist in a context, and a holistic view of the library is essential.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 8/2/13 2:23 PM, Stephen Paling wrote:
>>> On 08/02/13, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> I don't understand all of this emphasis on the catalog,
>>> On a cataloging-related listserv?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
> On 08/02/13, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Actually, Eric LM has said that he regrets using the term "Catalog" in the name of the listserv. He didn't mean for it to be catalog-specific. But even if it WERE intentionally a catalog-related listserv, the catalog has to exist in a context, and a holistic view of the library is essential.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 8/2/13 2:23 PM, Stephen Paling wrote:
>>> On 08/02/13, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> I don't understand all of this emphasis on the catalog,
>>> On a cataloging-related listserv?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sat Aug 03 2013 - 10:04:12 EDT