It's a very simple choice. You can have a horizontal touch sensitive surface, or you can have a cat. My gut feeling is that the Microsoft Surface is only being demoed as a attempt to distract attention from the launch of the iPhone. It's a total rip on the stuff from NYU, and as a friend said, Han shot first.
Ted, Unless LibraryLand intends to become the arbiters of culture again (our version of "in loco parentis"), we are in no position to tell people - the taxpayers - what they "need." The best we can do is remind people what libraries offer that no one else does. Come to think of it, that'd be a fair use of the entirety of ALA's budget for a year. Or more. "Need" didn't prevent a county public library system in Oregon from closing due to lack of a Federal logging subsidy in lieu of local property taxes in the last month. Those good folks did not want a library. They did not want to pay for it. The Federal bucks dried up and there you are. We probably disagree less than it appears on needs vs. wants. As for a tangible inventory of library holdings, raise your hand if you work in or know of a library that still keeps a shelf list, though it may not be up-to-date. I did, years ago. I still hear stories of libraries with staff lounges and break rooms (hopefully not the restrooms) where the shelf list sits because people are afraid to scrap it. If that medical library has an ILS worth a darn, they can get a heavy-duty printer, some tractor feed 3 x 5 card stock, and print themselves a catalog again, or a shelf list. Now there's a dirty library secret - how many libraries secretly maintain a card catalog or a shelf list? Nicholson Baker will be pleased. Mark Andrews -----Original Message----- From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Ted P Gemberling Sent: Thu 5/31/2007 11:37 AM To: NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] The Situation We're In (was Re: [NGC4LIB] Authority maintenance) Mark Andrews wrote:(Continue reading)
On 5/31/07, Simon Spero <ses <at> unc.edu> wrote: > My gut feeling is that the Microsoft Surface is only being demoed as a > attempt to distract attention from the launch of the iPhone. It's a total > rip on the stuff from NYU, and as a friend said, Han shot first. > In my mind, the interesting part is not the multi-touch interface (maybe it's my stubby fingers writing here), but the notion of the (bluetooth, presumably) devices automagically regurgitating their contents upon contact that's interesting here. I look at MS Surface as a Detroit concept car. The ventless climate control might make it into my Accord (ok, Tokyo concept car, then), but the triangular steering wheel is just a distraction. The 'golly!' factor isn't the technology that 'matters', but keep your eye on the sideshow. -Ross.
Next generation catalogs for libraries <NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu> wrote on 05/31/2007 04:13:35 PM: > I'm interested in how this works out, too. I am assuming this is a > small branch of the library. Our cookbook section, for one example) > takes up an awful lot of real estate - I would hate to be looking > for one particular book without a good identifier. I am very > curious about how shelving and paging will work. It's great for > browsing, but it seems like it will cause difficulties with getting > the one book you are actually looking for. Still, if the branch is > small enough that their sections aren't any bigger than those at > Borders, it may work well for them. My first thought when I read that (about a public library abandoning formal classification for a bookstore arrangement) is that it will be a disaster for them. That's not because I'm in love with Dewey. That's because when I go to Borders or Barnes & Noble looking for anything in particular, I often have trouble finding it. (Although the last time I had a big problem, it's because someone told me the wrong title and I had no idea who wrote it.) So I hunt for a clerk--not necessarily easy to find, either--and s/he looks it up in the computer. Usually that's good enough for the clerk to find the item. But a couple of times it hasn't been. Oh well, maybe that library has discovered a way to get people to ask the librarian questions. ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* David Guion Music Cataloger University of North Carolina, Greensboro Jackson Library(Continue reading)
Karen Coyle wrote: >I think his criticism of LCSH is that it is atomistic -- it gives you an >entry into a topic but it doesn't relate items in the library to each >other. Call numbers do that but for some reason we haven't played much >with giving people an interesting navigation of the classified catalog, >something that I think has potential. It would undoubtedly be easier to >do with Dewey, which is more hierarchical than LC classification." And >I guess I'm saying that if you don't know what the numbers mean > you can still find a book but you can't really understand why it's on > the shelf it is on. And, yes, there might be some similar books near it, > but similar HOW? Couldn't we do a better job of revealing the > information in the classification system? You might be interested in our modest efforts to do something about this situation. See our catalog at http://wncln.wncln.org and click on the "Browse" tab. We've set up a classified search interface using LC classification and the related LCSH headings. It's highly experimental at this point, but our faculty and advanced students have been quite positive in their feedback. Feel free to have at it, positive or negative. I've been lurking for awhile now, and have been using some of the issues discussed on the list in a graduate LIS cataloging course I'm teaching. It's encouraging to see how many of my students are interested in these(Continue reading)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Next generation catalogs for libraries > [mailto:NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Bernd T. Wunsch > Sent: May 31, 2007 1:39 PM > To: NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu > Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] A Next Generation Tool for Libraries. > > Mark writes: > >"There's no effective way to initiate a search without typing > >something in. It doesn't need to be that way, though. And when we > >think of the OPAC as a discovery tool for research, I think browsing > >is more effective. " > > The basic notion that I had in mind was more the idea of an "alternative > technological" approach to our opac's. Microsoft Surface might just be one > of many ways in which it can be done. But as pointed out earlier the > caveats of the MS product might heavily outweigh the benefits. > > What I really think is interesting though is to let the actual books cross > over into your OPAC. If you would actually be able to initiate search and > browsing simply by putting a book on a table. You could even take it > further and let people put a few books on the table, and create an > "instant bookshelf" and have the system provide "LibraryThing Style" > recommendations. > > My initial point wasn't that "MS Surface" is the way to go, but rather(Continue reading)
Karen, Very good points. Karen Coyle wrote: "The problem I see with Dewey as we use it today is it is so very linear/one-dimensional that I think many persons standing before a shelf that is classified in DDC may fail to see the connections." and "I guess I'm saying that if you don't know what the numbers mean you can still find a book but you can't really understand why it's on the shelf it is on. And, yes, there might be some similar books near it, but similar HOW? Couldn't we do a better job of revealing the information in the classification system?" ____________________________ Certainly, virtual tools which increase resource findability (because one is not limited by physical space) should be utilized as much as possible. Regarding the physical limitations of Dewy or LCC, of course, the same thing could be said about Barnes and Noble's stores or anywhere physical :) As for people not understanding how books are similar by Dewey (or LC) numbers (and hence why one book is placed next to another in the system, which again occurs because we must put the item in one "best" place due to phsycial arrangements) that is a good point, and it would be great if that could be made more transparent online for those who were curious about searching in that way. ________________________________(Continue reading)
I was recently turned on to this listserv by Karen Schneider and think these are all very interesting comments. I work as the lead OPAC developer for the Phoenix Public Library and have served as one of the primary drivers in changing the way we interact with our customers online. Although I serve a public audience, I think the implications of the work we have done may apply in other areas. Phoenix recently completed an overhaul of our public website with the integration of the Endeca search platform as our primary search engine. As part of the project, we piloted the use the Book Industry Study Group BISAC headings as a way to compliment the marc record in our database for nonfiction titles. The headings are visible from the home page under "Browse Books". There's far more to this than I can write here, but I would love to hear some feedback from the Library community at large. Our response so far from the public has been fairly positive. You can see the results at: http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org We are in the midst of integrating BISAC headings into our bib database for fiction titles as well. The initial pilot demonstrated an excellent way of mixing both the traditional approach to navigating our collection via LCSH, with a more retail friendly approach similar to BN, Borders, Amazon, etc. We also discovered that BISAC headings give us far more flexibility in targeting our catalog towards a specific audience, (See http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/business.jsp for an example). Thanks Jesse Haro, Web Services Manager Phoenix Public Library(Continue reading)
Does anybody know of a place where you can get a fairly comprehensive list of Dewey (TM) codes and their descriptions that won't get me sued by OCLC (R) and might actually be useful to non-librarians? I've been experimenting with using Dewey (TM) in our faceted catalog [1] and so far it doesn't seem tremendously useful as a way of finding things, at least compared to other faceting options available. Some of the descriptions are helpful but ones like "General principles & musical forms" or "Biographies of works from specific subjects" seem pretty much useless unless you're a librarian. And I am unclear on whether it is even legal to use descriptions like these [2] in a catalog without incurring the Almighty Wrath (SM) of OCLC (R). I remember Tim from LibraryThing was talking a while back about creating a "Melvil" or "Dui" classification system based upon an out of copyright version of Dewey (TM). Has anybody done any work along these lines? --Casey [1] http://catalog.spl.org/catalog/ [2] http://www.marcont.org/ontology/marcontddc.rdf Dewey is a trademark of the Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Almighty Wrath is a registered service mark of YHWH. ________________________________ From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Karen Coyle Sent: Thu 5/31/2007 4:32 PM(Continue reading)
Mark, You're right that the public is their own arbiter of culture, and they can close libraries if they want to. But as I've said a few times, I think we have to be real careful about which "users" we base our decisions on. In academic libraries, is it the freshmen or the seniors or grad students we want them to grow into? I think we are in *some* position to tell the taxpayers what they need. In particular, I hope Thomas Mann, at LC, is having some success convincing members of Congress that cataloging is more important than Librarian of Congress James Billington or Deanna Marcum think. He might be able to do that indirectly, via constituents who are sympathetic to his work. I notice that recently, Congress declined to fund digitization projects as fully as Billington wanted, and maybe that could have something to do with Mann's work. Or maybe it was just stinginess on the part of Congress. But that's one way to state what the debate in libraries is now: digitization vs. cataloging. I'm not saying there can't be a "both/and" there. There should be. We need both. But with limited resources, digitization vs. cataloging is where the battle lines for funding seem to be shaping up in many cases. As for library closings, this gives me an opportunity to express my opinion about one recent case. Probably most people will agree with me here, but it's worth emphasizing. It relates to the man who went to court in Michigan, demanding to get a library card in a neighboring community's library because his community had decided to close its own. I don't know if the case has been resolved, but I really believe that's where we have to "draw the line." This is not to say I don't feel sorry for the guy losing his library access. Everybody should have public(Continue reading)
RSS Feed9 | |
|---|---|
33 | |
17 | |
21 | |
38 | |
44 | |
143 | |
88 | |
62 | |
127 | |
32 | |
103 | |
85 | |
47 | |
165 | |
59 | |
70 | |
95 | |
125 | |
161 | |
257 | |
121 | |
311 | |
212 | |
77 | |
90 | |
100 | |
252 | |
285 | |
258 | |
41 | |
102 | |
83 | |
287 | |
138 | |
389 | |
186 | |
39 | |
37 | |
29 | |
49 | |
189 | |
106 | |
69 | |
96 | |
117 | |
122 | |
86 | |
139 | |
227 | |
196 | |
79 | |
77 | |
335 | |
337 | |
175 | |
121 | |
507 | |
192 | |
97 | |
124 | |
144 | |
207 | |
173 | |
177 | |
286 | |
92 | |
99 | |
269 |
