LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


[email protected]


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  February 2016

BIBFRAME February 2016

Subject:

Re: creating/writing bibframe data

From:

James Weinheimer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:33:48 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

On 2/19/2016 10:15 PM, Tennant,Roy wrote:
> You created a plausible outline that I'm afraid is missing a rather large and important step. For the lack of a better term I'll call it "entification," which is what we call it around here.
...
> I get the sense sometimes that the library community doesn't fully grasp the nature of this transition yet, and it worries me. We need to shake off the shackles of our record-based thinking and think in terms of an interlinked Bibliographic Graph. As long as we keep talking about translating records from one format to another we simply don't understand the meaning of linked data and both the transformative potential it has for our workflows and user interfaces as well as the plain difficult and time consuming work that will be required to get us there.
>
> Sure, we at OCLC are a long way down a road that should do a lot to help our member libraries make the transition, but there will be plenty of work to go around. The sooner we fully grasp what that work will be, the better off we will all be in this grand transition. No, let's call it what it really is: a bibliographic revolution. Before this is over there will be broken furniture and blood on the floor. But at least we will be free of the tyrant.

I completely agree that the library community doesn't fully grasp the 
nature of the transition. We are only at the beginning of a "long, 
strange trip"--and the resources of some libraries (and librarians 
themselves!) are almost exhausted already.

All of this in the pursuit of a highly abstract goal: an interlinked 
bibliographic graph. I haven't come across that term before, but I guess 
it is a take on the "Giant Global Graph" of Tim Berners-Lee that many 
people consider to be the ultimate goal of linked data. To achieve this 
goal of an interlinked bibliographic graph, we see that much will have 
to be sacrificed, but the revolution will be worthwhile because we will 
be free of the "tyrant". Once again, I am not sure precisely what you 
mean here, but I assume the tyrant is the MARC record, which is a 
"unified bibliographic record" that contains all of the information for 
a bibliographic item.  (I prefer to call it the "unit record" or the 
traditional catalog card, which was made to deal with the 19th-century 
transition from the earlier book catalogs, which were structured quite 
differently)

The unified bibliographic record found in MARC must undergo 
"entification," which again, I assume means to turn as much as possible 
of the current, unified bibliographic record into entities, i.e. URIs, 
that in turn can be linked to--by anyone, I guess. (that is, if it is to 
be linked OPEN data. Linked closed data is an entirely different matter) 
In any case, if all this is done, I completely agree that the data that 
is now in our bibliographic records will become almost infinitely flexible.

There are a few questions of course. Chief among them, the obvious one:

1) Is this what libraries signed up for? What will be the final costs in 
terms of budgets, careers, redoing so much yet again? And how long will 
it take?

2) It remains to be seen whether any of this is what the public wants. I 
guess I'm just an old-fashioned kind of guy, or maybe just naive, but it 
seems to me that when people come to a library (either virtually or 
physically) they come to use the items in the collection, and not to use 
the catalog. In other words, people do not come to a library, or the 
library's website, just to look up something in the catalog and then.... 
go home. They use the catalog to get into the materials in the library's 
collection. If they already know what they want and where it is, they 
ignore the catalog. (Maybe they shouldn't but they do)

The best catalogs are those that I can use as quickly and as easily as 
possible so that I can spend the least amount of time with the catalog 
and spend the most amount of time in the items I find in the collection. 
This is why I personally prefer Google. It is not that I spend a great 
deal of time on Google, but paradoxically, I spend the *least* amount of 
time there compared to the other search engines. That's why I prefer it.

So, even if we make the "100% entified, interlinked bibliographic graph 
tool" that brings in information from hither and yon, that gives me 
charts from the IMF and images from Flickr, videos from YouTube, the 
latest news from Bing, plus of course, all the Wikipedia info, along 
with the library materials--and I'll assume here that it will even be on 
the specific topics I want, that might be great. Pardon my skepticism: I 
think lots of people would still like to see it in action before 
concluding that it really is great.

It may be that the idea is to get rid of or replace the catalog 
completely, but I think the public will continue to demand a quick and 
easy-to-use list to get into the materials in a library's collection. 
The proposed linked data tools do not provide this but only adds 
complexity to the catalog by adding more and more stuff into a search 
result. It seems to me that we can entify things until Doomsday and it 
still won't make it one bit easier for the public to find materials in 
library collections.

The problem is: our catalogs have never been easy-to-use, and they blew 
out even worse when they went online with keyword. There are tons of 
problems and those issues have yet to be addressed. But just because the 
public doesn't like to use library catalogs doesn't mean that they do 
not want a "listing of materials" in the collection they are using. And 
that list should be made as simple to use as possible. Such a listing  
is also called a catalog. A lot could be done to make it easier to use 
than it is today. But nobody seems to be talking about that.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the public doesn't want an easy-to-use 
listing of materials in a library's collection. Like I said, maybe I'm 
just an old-fashioned kind of guy, or just naive.

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
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