On 10/5/2013 2:25 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
<snip>
> So what are libraries doing with information design of their data? Do
> they care?
</snip>
This is really the main point, and I think there is kind of a
misunderstanding what library data really is among lots of
people--including librarians and catalogers. In your message, you
mentioned how in Google you found recipes for pancakes, and found it
even in Norwegian although you are in Australia. It would be interesting
to find out if you searched in English (the word "pancakes") if you
would still get something in Norwegian because of everything Google
knows about you (you have a gmail account).
You could never get anything like the same result in a library catalog.
Why? Because there are no recipes in the library catalog. The recipes
are in the library's collection. This is why I have said that the public
is not really interested in our catalogs. They are interested in the
information in the collection and if they are to get to that
information, they must go through the catalog (or wander helplessly in
the stacks) but that doesn't mean either that they want to use the
catalog or that they enjoy it. Someone who is interested in pancakes can
use the catalog all day long, looking at the records and sorting them
and rearranging them, and at the end still not have the slightest idea
what is a pancake or how to cook it. But you would have an idea of what
had been published about pancakes. That is a completely different
experience from what people have in the Googles, where the information
itself is digested and immediately accessible with a click on a link.
If there were no access to full content from Google searches (as happens
so often in Google Books where you only get a snippet or nothing at all)
then people would experience the same thing as using the library
catalog, where they could search all day long and still know nothing. In
library catalogs, you are not searching the *data* you are interested
in, such as recipes and other information about pancakes, but you are
searching only the data *about* the data you want: when it was
published, who did it, where it can be found etc.
So, when you ask: what are libraries doing with the information design
of their data? The library's data (i.e. the information in the catalog,
which is titles, authors, publication information and so on) is *not*
what people want from the library. They want the information that is
*in* the books and maps and scores and so on. While people certainly
want to manipulate the information about pancakes, or whatever topic
that interests them, I think very few are interested in manipulating the
information *about the information* on pancakes, or whatever interests
them.
The catalog is nothing more than a tool that people want to use as
efficiently as possible so that they can leave it behind to get at what
they really want. Just like we use Google. It is fast and efficient and
the reason we like it so much is that we don't have to spend a lot of
time in Google, but on the pages we want.
This may be obvious to people like you, but when I have pointed this
out, it has left some catalogers angry or hurt since it seems that I am
saying what they are doing isn't important. On the contrary, what they
are doing is important but people have to understand that the less time
people spend with the catalog, it must be considered a success because
it shows that the catalog is an efficient tool, that is, as long as the
people are finding materials successfully.
Returning once again to your question: what are libraries doing with the
information design of their data? We must ask: what is their data? Most
library data is not very interesting except perhaps circulation
information (especially to the National Security Agency!) otherwise,
because of copyright, libraries mostly do not own the information in
their books, etc. Google scoops it up off the web and web masters love
them for it, while when libraries for digitize materials, publishers sue
them.
I do think that catalog information could be very useful to people
however but it has to be reconsidered in the electronic environment, and
sadly it seems as if few want to do that.
--
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 Oct 05 2013 - 11:21:18 EDT