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  February 2017

BIBFRAME February 2017

Subject:

Re: Failure

From:

"James L. Weinheimer" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Feb 2017 12:44:49 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (133 lines)

On 02/02/2017 21:29, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> My fave scenario for library linked data, the data flows in the 
> opposite direction. Look at how rich an author page is in WorldCat 
> Identities.[1] Look how rich it is in Wikipedia.[2] Look what Google 
> does when you search on an author's name and you get that nice box 
> that pulls from Wikipedia and other sources.[3] That's done with 
> linked data. Then do a search on an author in a library catalog. No 
> information beyond the author's name. A name is an identifier, not an 
> information source, and it doesn't tell users anything about the author.
>
> Linked data, to me, means being able to use resources on the net to 
> better serve library users. By connecting place names in library data 
> to the geonames database [4] you could show users those places on 
> maps. This ability already exists because even small sites on the web 
> often show you maps. It's not big tech to do this. You could give 
> author bios for at least some authors. Many books have a Wikipedia 
> page that has coded information included awards won and links to 
> reviews. All of this is available as linked data, but we aren't making 
> use of it.
>
> It also means being able to make easier use of many tools arriving on 
> the scene; better searching, visualization of data (put books on a 
> topic in a timeline), etc. You see some of this in WorldCat 
> Identities, in subject searches in the Open Library,[5] in the Agris 
> database[6]. Other communities are giving their users a rich 
> information experience, but we are not. We are not helping our users 
> understand what they've found. You get more information about a 
> refrigerator online that you do about a book in a library catalog. 
> That's what has to change to bring users back to the library as an 
> information source.
>

I think this shows a basic difference of opinion. From my point of view, 
my life has been inundated with a flood of all kinds of information: ads 
for almost every product, both conceivable and inconceivable, 
"suggestions" for reading or watching, "other people liked...," or "your 
friends liked ..." or "information" popping up on my smartphone. I have 
had a belly-full of "information" and I am far from alone.

So, it shouldn't be a surprise that when someone mentions a tool, I 
immediately wonder how useful it *really* is. Take Worldcat Identities. 
This was a truly new idea: to mine the Worldcat database to find out new 
kinds of "information." There may be nothing wrong with it but we have 
to ask seriously: is it genuinely useful for people? To be honest, when 
it came out I was really impressed and I showed it to all kinds of 
people, from undergraduates to senior faculty. All agreed that it was 
pretty cool, but they couldn't even imagine how they could use it for 
anything. Nobody was interested in the information it provided: genres, 
the alternative names were bizarre, a publication timeline(?), most 
widely held books and so on, they saw no use in any of it. The links 
labeled "useful" they thought were not useful at all.

I thought the most useful, and most novel part of Worldcat Identities is 
the word cloud of subjects at the very bottom. I remember looking with 
someone at Taylor Swift's record, who I knew, and continue to know, very 
little about (http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2007053238/). In the 
subject cloud at the bottom, I saw terms like "Ecology" 
"Environmentalism" "Utopian plays" that surprised me and I thought this 
would be interesting for someone. Strangely enough, nobody I showed 
Worldcat Identities to thought the subject word clouds were useful in 
any way at all. I figured this was because the concept of a "subject" is 
becoming increasingly strange among 21st century society. I still think 
they could be useful but perhaps my positive opinion just makes me an 
anachronism.

In any case, nobody except me--a librarian--was interested in actually 
using Worldcat Identities. That told me a lot.

The Agris database is another interesting point. It's pretty amazing how 
it searches all of these different sites and brings it all together, but 
we must ask: does a searcher of Agris, who is most probably an expert 
agronomist or skilled agricultural technician (among the main users of 
Agris) and is interested in this (random) record: "Intercropping Spring 
Wheat with Cereal Grains, Legumes, and Oilseeds Fails to Improve 
Productivity under Organic Management [2008]" 
(http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201301549367) 
need information from Wikipedia about "Field experimentation" 
"Intercropping" "Weed control"? Wouldn't they have already known the 
relatively elementary information found in Wikipedia? Do they need a map 
or chart from the World Bank or does it just get in the way? The Google 
related articles may be genuinely useful, I don't know. Only an 
agronomist could determine that and I am not an agronomist. In any case, 
I know that many users of Agris have complained about all of this 
extraneous information.

The point about adding maps. In a book chapter I wrote a few years ago 
(http://eprints.rclis.org/15838/1/weinheimerRealities.pdf), I copied the 
entire "metadata record" for a Google Book and you can see quite clearly 
that it includes an interactive map (p. 197-198. Apologies that my 
finger covers up one of the page numbers!). It turns out that in the 
current iteration of the metadata page for this same book, the map is no 
longer there (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OHtKvgAACAAJ). In 
fact, I haven't found any Google metadata records (i.e. "About this 
book" page) with maps. I assume this means that Google discovered no one 
was using the maps so they got rid of them. But we are supposed to 
believe that maps in a metadata record are exciting and useful.

The point of all of this is that I think librarians today must be *very, 
very careful* to introduce even more "information" to our users who are 
already in danger of drowning in the flood of information they currently 
find themselves in. People think our catalogs are too complicated as 
they are now! Why will adding even more make it easier for them? Allow 
me my skepticism.

Librarians, developers, IT people and administrators absolutely *cannot* 
be the ones to determine if what we are making is useful or not. Each 
group has far too much invested in it. There must be serious attempts to 
do honest "market testing" among the potential users of whatever is 
being made and marketers know that it is far from easy to get honest 
answers from people. Just because we can add something doesn't mean 
anyone will find it useful (such as Worldcat Identities) and it may 
clutter things up so much that the parts the catalog/finding aid is 
supposed to do gets lost, or at least becomes so difficult it irritates 
the searchers. Irritation is probably the most worrying of all: those 
are the people who will leave in an instant for something that is less 
irritating.

I do believe that there are many things we could do to improve the 
public's experience of the catalog, which in turn would improve their 
experience of a library's collection, and some of those improvements 
could include things like linked data.

-- 
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/

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

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