headers
DrWeb | 1 May 01:12
Picon

Re: WorldCat Local beta

See
http://uwashington.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org&q=botany&submit=Search

Great news, Joseph.. so, how does that result differ from regular WC?
I can't tell anything from the first screen..

Best,
DrWeb

On 4/30/07, Joseph Kiegel <kiegel <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> The first public beta version of WorldCat Local is now available at the
> University of Washington Libraries and you are invited to try it.
>
> WC Local can be reached through a link on the UW gateway:
>
> http://www.lib.washington.edu
>
> or directly at uwashington.worldcat.org.  (Note:  the customized landing
> page for this address has not yet been installed.)
>
>
> The goal is to provide a single search interface for local holdings,
> consortial holdings (in our case, the Orbis Cascade Alliance), and all
> other WorldCat libraries.  WC Local also provides a number of article
> citations.  On the delivery side, WorldCat Local integrates local and
> consortial delivery options with interlibrary loan, and of course, online
> access.  By breaking down a number of silos, we hope to offer users easier
> and more convenient access to the quality resources we and other libraries
> hold.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Joseph Kiegel | 1 May 01:39

Re: WorldCat Local beta

In the Relevance sort, UW holdings float to the top, followed by
consortial holdings, then all other WorldCat libraries.  At the botton of
each citation on your results list, look for Held by: University of
Washington Libraries.

You did a very broad search, so this is not readily apparent.  Try
"cryptographer hill" for a better demonstration of the holdings.

Also, the interface has our branding and the links at the top go to our
proxy server, QuestionPoint service, etc.  In serial records, e.g., the
online access button goes to the UW link resolver.

Joe Kiegel

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, DrWeb wrote:

> See
> http://uwashington.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org&q=botany&submit=Search
>
> Great news, Joseph.. so, how does that result differ from regular WC?
> I can't tell anything from the first screen..
>
> Best,
> DrWeb
>
> On 4/30/07, Joseph Kiegel <kiegel <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>> The first public beta version of WorldCat Local is now available at the
>> University of Washington Libraries and you are invited to try it.
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alexander Johannesen | 1 May 02:52
Picon

Re: Niggly little bits

Hiya,

Me said:
> > [about cataloging] It's gone from being a thing
> > of passion (incentive) to a thing we do (process).

On 5/1/07, Sheehan, Kate <ksheehan <at> danburylibrary.org> wrote:
> That's less a tech problem than a training problem, no? When I was
> applying to library schools, I read somewhere that reference librarians
> were the rock stars of library training. Everyone was scared of
> cataloging because they thought it would be a. hard and b. boring.
> Neither was particularly true, but those stereotypes remain- it's seen
> as being about nitpicking and punctuation instead of building access to
> information.

Well, with the tools given to them, who could blame them? I had an
interesting experience a year or so ago. I was buying a drum-kit
second-hand (I need something to bash my frustrations out on :), and
went to get it, and it turned out that the guy who was selling the
drums (for his son) was a newly retired cataloger, and we ended up in
a 3 hour long really nice talk about how cataloging could have been
different. We talked about fuzzy searching, tagging as a means of
pre-ordained tagging (when you need to catalog something that doesn't
exist in LCSH, or is in waiting to be added), and systems that works
*with* the cataloger *over time* instead of the normal MARC record
"here and now" mentality our tools push. (Hmm, that mentality is
pretty much in all our tools, come to think of it.) All the technology
needed to make cataloging so much better are already here, but not in
*our* tools. So sad.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Alexander Johannesen | 1 May 03:02
Picon

Re: What library patrons really want.

On 4/30/07, Karen Coyle <kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net> wrote:
> The big
> question is whether we in libraries can afford to create metadata the
> way we have in the past.

Certainly not with the crappy tools we're currently using, nor the
"only by hand" mentality we're applying. I think the library world
needs to make a decision wheter quality metadata is seriously our
domain in the future or not, and then put more efforts into making
that superior in any way possible. The current tools are appaling (as
discussed elsewhere), and certainly not economical. I suppose copy
cataloging was an attempt to solve the economics of parts of this
problem, but I feel we've also become a bit sloppier because of it.
And - and this is something I've gone on about in the past - MARC, as
the defacto records format that we all use, doesn't support copy
cataloging; no proper versioning nor source control. (no, original
cataloger is *not* good enough, and in fact often has a negative
impact on the reuse value of the record, nor is versioning of the full
record only of any real value)

regards,

Alex
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Casey Durfee | 1 May 03:43

Re: Niggly little bits

Is the main purpose of the large metro public library to be a homeless
shelter?  Of course not.  But as long as nobody else is adequately
filling the needs of those people, we will continue to find ourselves
awkwardly taking that role on.  I think it's the same with
information/computer literacy.  If we don't teach these people how to
use technology, who the heck will?  If nobody else will, we don't really
have a choice in the matter.

I  personally think teaching basic technology skills is a very good use
of our resources (beats the pants off of trying to be the free
Blockbuster, at least).  However a dedication to teaching computer
literacy skills can lead to the attitude that we must offer in-depth
training on every aspect of every service we provide or we can't offer
those services at all, and the companion attitude that there's nothing
wrong with an internet-savvy person having to take a 1 hour training
course to know how to use the catalog, just so long as we offer that
training in some form.  Those attitudes greatly hinder the ability to
improve library services and cause both basic usability fixes and
cutting-edge stuff to be seen as a waste of time.

>>> Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen <at> GMAIL.COM> 4/30/2007
5:52 PM >>>
[snip]

Is our purpose in life to be helpdesk for
technology-deprived people? If we retrain ourselves in such ways, what
happens when the next generation have taken over and they're all
better than *us* with technology? Ouch.

> Plus, we've got to sell ourselves to the people who think they can
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
DrWeb | 1 May 04:22
Picon

Re: WorldCat Local beta

Thanks, Joseph.. I'll try some other search modes, too..
I did get the branding.. very cool.. nice envelope for the links "needed" to
facilitate research result pages, IMHO..

On the full page from results, I love the cite this, and link to this
links.. first-rate!

Can all Local adopters set the "default" sort to be relevance, so theirs are
"at the top"?

Good luck, keep us posted..

Best,
DrWeb

--
P. Michael McCulley aka DrWeb
mailto:drweb2 <at> gmail.com
San Diego, CA
http://drweb.typepad.com/

Quote of the Moment:
 All things come to him who waits... As long as he works like hell while he
waits.
Monday, April 30, 2007 7:11:01 PM

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Kiegel
>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:40 PM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
DrWeb | 1 May 04:38
Picon

Re: What library patrons really want.

On this thread, I find the discussion here about tags *and* subject headings
on LibraryThing relevant..
http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2006/05/tagging-meets-subject-heading
s.php

Most ILS/library catalog "systems" can only do one, correct? Though, OCLC is
experimenting (poorly so far it seems) with reviews and notes, unless I'm
missing something, notes does not equal "tags" (in the current
sense/user-added "subject")..

At minimum, shouldn't a NGC4LIB include a "tagging" function for users to
use, contribute, and then search?

Maybe I missed this in the prior discussions.. apologies...

Best,
DrWeb

--
P. Michael McCulley aka DrWeb
mailto:drweb <at> san.rr.com
San Diego, CA
http://drweb.typepad.com/

Quote of the Moment:
I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as long as a week
sometimes to make it up.
Monday, April 30, 2007 7:28:46 PM

>-----Original Message-----
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephens Owen | 1 May 12:53
Picon

Re: Niggly little bits

Alex wrote:

>> In fact, I'm not sure libraries are *so* special we shouldn't look to
non-library systems for much of our stuff. Why is aqusitions
>> (sp?) so important to all our ILS? Because ILS normally are terrible
at communicating and connecting with other systems. (Which
>> makes you wonder why that web-services initiative across vendors have
gone nowhere. Maybe they simply don't *want* to?)

My personal experience it isn't libraries (necessarily) who don't want
to work with other systems for acquisitions, and it isn't that this is
being held up by the library systems or their vendors. I'd like to see
our library system work with our Universities general ordering/invoicing
system - however, I've never got any feeling that our finance dept sees
this as a priority (or that their system would cope particularly well
with the level of ordering we do in the library - i.e. many unique low
cost items). I've also got other priorities, so I'm not forcing this
issue either. As our finance dept seemingly still requires everything on
paper, and we've had to get a 'special' agreement to be able to use EDI,
I'm not sure that they are ready to provide what we need...

I'm convinced the reason our ILS doesn't have an interface to an
alternative acquisitions system isn't because the system vendors have an
agenda here, but because we've (libraries) never prioritised this as
something we want.

Owen
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mark Sandford | 1 May 15:28

Re: Niggly little bits

Much has been said about the quality of catalog records in this
discussion, and the general idea seems to be that other people are
doing it better than we are.

I have to stop and question this.  Is anyone really doing this better?
 People regularly point to Amazon as doing this better than we do, but
I'm not convinced.  Amazon can be great if you want to find a specific
book.. but our catalogs are great at that too.  Amazon is far more
FRBR friendly, I'll agree.  But FRBR seems much more focused on the
known item search.

Try doing a typical keyword search for a topic in Amazon.  Are your
results precise? Probably not.  I just did a few searches that I'd
helped people with at the reference desk, using the terms they tried
in my catalog, and I didn't get any better results in Amazon than the
patrons got in our OPAC.

I wonder how much of Amazon's ability to impress is built on the sheer
number of items they have.  Any search will return something.  And if
you're just looking for something, that's good enough.  And what about
a scholarly, exhaustive search for literature on a topic?  Would the
search required for that in Amazon's catalog be any less complex than
in an OPAC? I would venture to say it would be more complex, because
you would have to work out ways to exclude concepts from a keyword
search that LCSH do by their very design.

Browsing isn't any better.  Clicking randomly through their list, I
went to Colombian history.  There are 1,353 and I can't drill down any
further.  My catalog doesn't have nearly that many items for Colombian
history, but there are at least a dozen sub-divisions that provide
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jonathan Rochkind | 1 May 16:20
Favicon

Re: Niggly little bits

Mark Sandford wrote:
> Much has been said about the quality of catalog records in this
> discussion, and the general idea seems to be that other people are
> doing it better than we are.
I'm not sure this is the general idea. I think (some but certainly not
all) other people are controlling their data in a way more amenable to
machine action, to machines using this data in flexible ways.  I
certainly didn't mean to say anything more than this.

I don't know if there are any other people that control the volume of
data that our community does, with as good control. The problem is that
our data isn't as useful as it could be because of the _way_ we control it.

I think people in our community have a tendency to get defensive and
hear "You're saying just replace us with Google or Amazon" when I say
things like this. I am not. Personally, I certainly don't have much luck
using Amazon for topical searches "find me a book on X", and don't
generally use it for this. Was anyone suggesting this? People are
certainly allowed different experiences, a conclusion comes only from
usabilty testing. But I agree with you.

> FRBR friendly, I'll agree.  But FRBR seems much more focused on the
> known item search.
What makes you think "FRBR seems much more focused on the known item
search." To me, in order to start controlling our data in a way that can
be best used by machines, we _need_ to start thinking in terms of a
formal and explicit model for our data. Instead of using the informal
and implicit concepts we have been. The FRBR Model is an attempt to
formalize these implicit shared (or somewhat shared) understandings into
an explicit model, and while it's certainly not perfect, I don't know of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane