Isn't this more about the terms on which information is made available than
about library catalogs? Some information is free in full text on the web
and can be harvested by Google. Other information is not free--it's behind
paywalls or copyright restrictions or license-mandated obstacles or not on
the web at all. If the argument is that the value of restricted information
has dropped precipitously in competition with freely available information,
then the folks who need to look out are the ones who restrict access to the
information they own, not catalogers. On the other hand, if the commercial
model of requiring payment before information is made available and
limiting its circulation continues to be viable, then some information
people need will only be accessed legally "for free" via libraries and
their catalogs, collections, licenses, and subscriptions.
The catalog card, like the online catalog record, is a brief (at least
initially) surrogate representation. What seems new to me in the idea of a
"card" web is less the card format and more the idea that cards would have
enough metadata, perhaps hidden in their primary display, to enable
multiple kinds of sorting and ordering per the searcher's choices. The
machine could, say, quickly pull out the cards for restaurants in my
neighborhood and sort them by price, or by distance from a point, or by
star rating, etc. It's this uncoupling of information navigation from
information representation which might be advantageous for small screens,
but I'd like to know more about how the navigation interface works before
coming to any conclusions.
Stephen
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Alexander Johannesen <
alexander.johannesen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> "James Weinheimer" <weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > You could never get anything like the same result in a library catalog.
> > Why? Because there are no recipes in the library catalog.
>
> Just to be clear; I don't want the same result in the catalog, and I'm
> quite aware the library don't have full-text in their catalogs (as I've
> complained the lack of this for years :) ).
>
> > This is why I have said that the public is not really interested in
> > our catalogs.
>
> I'm worried that no one is really interested in your catalogs. Even the
> specialists and niche users are shying away as the info they're after is
> found more and more elsewhere. Yes, there's always some core research users
> that will always love you, but I don't think they justify current levels of
> funding.
>
> > They are interested in the information in the collection
>
> Yes, and I think I mentioned this in some interview I did recently. :)
>
> > 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.
>
> There's a thing to be said for "enjoyment" in all of this. I know
> "enjoyment" has never been the yardstick the library world has ever used
> for their services, but ... perhaps it needs to be included? People tend to
> enjoy things being simple and fast and clear and useful and direct, *even*
> if they don't get exactly what they wanted, at least they found out they
> couldn't get it in ... enjoyable ways? (I could flesh this argument out a
> bit, I suppose)
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> Allow me to lament a bit here; yes, people are after what they're after. I
> recently talked (!!) about human knowledge and their representation and
> curation, of which the library world dips only a finger or two when they
> should be fully emerged. But to view it from a practical angle we need to
> work with what we've got, yes?
>
> So, my question is still valid within that understanding; what are
> libraries doing to appropriate their information in terms of information
> design? A few things that fall into this bucket are;
>
> - If a search returns nothing, how should that "nothing" page look like?
> Should it have pathways into similar searches, a new search box, some
> federated results as well? Include a broken dud search?
>
> - If a search result returns little results, how should that page look
> like? (And then, a lot of the same questions as above)
>
> - If a search result returns bucketloads of results, how should that data
> be presented? How are we to cluster and make facets of it? Should we make
> compacted dud searches? Maybe no federated searches?
>
> If - and only if! - the library had a smidgen of semantic / ontological
> rich meta data available, queries could match up with this extra data and
> perform further searches defined through those ontologies.
>
> Example; If I search for "Monteverdi", there's really only two things I'm
> after: Monteverdi, the composer, or Monteverdi, the car. If I search for
> "Claudio Monteverdi", there's only one thing I'm after; the composer.
>
> When a system knows these things, the results can be made so much better
> than the current stupid catalog searches, including typed searches, free
> searches within typed domains, selected federated results (no point
> federate the car and transport databases if the type is Music :: Composer),
> alternative names / authority records, include search for synonyms and
> alternative related terms, and so on.
>
> I bet that if the current catalogs were made more enjoyable, they would be
> used a great deal more. (I can only speak on this from an Australian
> context, but ever since the NLA developed their Trove interface have I
> talked with people who hated the old catalog but now absolutely loves it!
> And I'm not saying this just because I had a finger or two to do with it
> ... *cough* :) I think it is as simple as this; make it easy to use,
> multi-faceted, not ugly, and make sure you never get to "the end" of the
> catalog (ie. a page saying 'no results') then people will enjoy it. Their
> enjoyment = library success. Nothing else matters much, IMHO.)
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok, leave it to me. *ahem* Dear catalogers; what you're doing isn't
> important to anyone but librarians and researches who knows how to yield
> your old and deprecating systems.
>
> Hmm, I guess there was too much constraints added to make it impacting, as
> I think a lot of catalogers are quite happy with being relevant to just
> library systems. Ok, I could say;
>
> <plea>
> Dear catalogers; you are becoming extinct and irrelevant to the world.
> Please create a revolution within your midst in changing how, what and why
> you catalog. It's not that your work wasn't important, but it sure is
> *becoming* that way. Constraints of the past - of systems as well as people
> - is causing it, not you nor your expertize. Please change! We need to now
> more than ever, but doing slightly different things.
> </plea>
>
> > 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.
>
> Spot on.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
Received on Mon Oct 07 2013 - 12:32:57 EDT