LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  March 2015

BIBFRAME March 2015

Subject:

Re: Linked data

From:

James Weinheimer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 8 Mar 2015 20:07:54 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

On 3/7/2015 9:37 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> I find these statements hard to believe. Data is just data. Data,
> metadata - there is no difference.
>
> People are using RDF to describe proteins, semiconductor products,
> horoscope signs, antique coins and who knows what else. What makes you
> think libraries are special? Again, I mean real technical limitations
> -- all the history and the "traditional ways of doing things" are
> irrelevant here.

There are different types of data, and we experience it in all kinds of 
ways every day. I have gone into greater detail in those podcasts and 
presentations I mentioned, but I'll try to redo a little of it here. The 
differences are subtle, but clear.

Before I begin however, what you have claimed to be history, and 
traditional ways of doing things, is not history at all. Whether we like 
it or not, what I described is the way libraries still work. It is what 
users are supposed to do when they use a library, and if people don't do 
it, they will get bad results. Of course, few people do it and this 
explains a lot of the frustration that people currently have with 
library catalogs.

The solution that libraries have tried is called "information literacy" 
and "bibliographic instruction" which, instead of fixing library tools 
to work in a modern environment, means to teach everybody how to use our 
tools the way they are. In my own opinion, this hasn't worked and 
everything needs to be rethought, but what I described is not 
history--unfortunately it is still happening today.

About catalog data, it isn't that it is special, but it is different 
from the other types of data that you point out. When someone comes to a 
library, they don't come specifically to search the catalog (or at 
least, those that do are exceedingly rare). Instead, the vast majority 
are there because they have a question and want information. My example 
has been "What were the causes of the War of the Spanish Succession". 
The catalog does not contain the information I want--the information 
that can answer my question is contained in the books, journal articles, 
and other materials in the collection--but if I use the catalog 
correctly, it can direct me to the resources that have the information I 
want. In this way, the information found in a catalog is similar to 
information found on ... traffic signs.

If you want to drive from Rome to Paris, you need signs to help you get 
there. The better the signs, the better, the easier, and the more 
enjoyable the trip. Poor signs, or the absence of them (which happens in 
Italy all the time), can lead to frustration, anger or even disasters.

So, people want and need decent and reliable road signs, but they are 
very rarely interested in the signs themselves: who made them, where and 
when, what materials they are composed of and so on. Still, those in 
charge of the road signs need to know that information, so that they can 
replace them, update them, add to them, etc.

Using this same reasoning with catalogs and how things are changing, 
compare this with the person who is interested in the "War of the 
Spanish Succession" and searches the library catalog. They can sit there 
quite literally, all day long and not have learned anything about the 
War. All they see are *catalog records* and if they are to learn about 
the war itself, they need to get into the books of the collection. But 
when they search Google, in just a half-an-hour they have gotten some 
real information. This leads them to expect that library tools will work 
similar to what works (apparently) so easily and simply on Google, which 
seems logical but is completely wrong.

Google works with a different type of information: content; library 
catalogs work by giving people directional information: so even when the 
searcher does everything correctly, all they see are directions: for 
general books on the War, look here, For books on the politics look 
there, For battles, look here, etc.

For those who use catalogs incorrectly, they are practically doomed to 
disaster and for them it is similar to a driver who hasn't seen a road 
sign for hours, and ends up at the end of a road in the middle of a 
field at midnight.

Believe me, this happens to students all the time when they are 
researching their papers at the last minute! Both end up in tears and/or 
almost screaming.

Catalogers see this difference in information clearly because they work 
with the actual materials that people want: the books, the recordings, 
the maps, etc. all go through their hands. The mistake that many 
catalogers make (again in my opinion) is that they believe people, who 
care about the information in the collection (i.e. who want to learn 
about The War of the Spanish Succession), also care about the catalog 
records they make. Of course for the public, these records are the 
equivalent of road signs that help them get where they want to go. They 
don't care about the road signs and once they reach their destination, 
they completely forget about all the helpful road signs. I confess I 
remember only the frustrations and anger during the trips that had lousy 
signs. I think the same thing happens with catalog records.

While our methods still "work" in a sense, they are strange for people 
in the 21st century. They need to be, in a sense, translated so that 
they work in today's environment.

So, all data is definitely not equal. I think there is still a need for 
our type of data but it needs to be reconsidered. Tools that work well 
for content data, don't work so well with directional data. And with 
linked data, I am very skeptical about the usefulness of mixing content 
data with our directional data. Nevertheless, we should try it, to find 
out what happens. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

There are other options, too.

James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/

[delay +30 days]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager