Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting "Abbas, June M." <jmab...@ou.edu>:

But, in light of all of these insightful discussions, is linked data  
 even going far enough? Is it really providing users with useful   
representations of the objects in our collections?

Linked data is a way to structure data -- it says nothing about the  
content. One advantage to it is that it is easier to add new types of  
data to this kind of structure than to make changes to a record format.

Is MARC + FRBR  (encoded by whichever standard the community settles  
for) BUT  released from relational database structure constraints =  
Enough?  Are we yet capturing attributes that our users search for?  
that they  naturally use to organize their own collections (see  
Flickr,  YouTube, LibraryThing Common Knowledge project)? I humbly  
submit,  NO. Throw in years of user behavior research with an  
emphasis on the  newer research on Web 2.0 and libraries and  
user-centered design  with these users in mind, and what do we have?

I'm not sure what you think we *should* have, but the important thing  
for our future is that we have data that can be easily expanded to  
meet the needs of users.

As for allowing them to create their own collections, add their own  
tags, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be able to do that  
today, and there are library systems that allow that (cf.  
Bibliocommons). For those features, the technology is not all that  
difficult, but creating a vital user environment is the trick. Because  
there may not be a 'critical mass' around any one library (especially  
smaller libraries) and because many people use more than one library,  
it makes sense to provide a way to share user input across libraries.  
This is what Bibliocommons has done with a kind of consortial sharing  
approach to user enhancements of the catalog.

Cataloging rules and data structures are only the backbone of what  
should be a rich user environment, they are not sufficient in and of  
themselves.

kc


June

June Abbas, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Library and Information Studies
College of Arts and Sciences
The University of Oklahoma
401 W. Brooks, Bizzell Library
Norman, OK 73069
405-325-3921
jmab...@ou.edu

Check out this new publication from Neal-Schuman that explores this   
issue in depth.
http://www.neal-schuman.com/bdetail.php?isbn=9781555706999


________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and   
Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Karen Coyle   
[li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 12:43 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

Quoting Matthew Short <sho...@illinois.edu>:

I can definitely say from experience that the users I work with are
often >frustrated by our online catalog. They don't understand why
it is so >complicated to find, for example, a Spanish translation of
Camus' The First Man >or why there are so many different records for
what seems to them to be >essentially the same item.  FRBR might
make such things easier.  That said, it >is much too early, I think,
to tell if it actually will.


I don't think we need FRBR to accomplish this (although it might
help), just a better use of the data we already have. However, first
we have to define this kind of case as one of the ones we want our
data to address. Then we need to organize our data in a way that we
can derive these kinds of relationships. There's no reason why we
couldn't have:

Camus, Albert
   Premier homme
   (original text)
   (language: French)
   (ID:123)

   Primo uomo
   (language: Italian)
   (is translation of --> (ID:123)

   First man
   (language: English)
   (is translation of --> (ID:123)

   Primer hombre
   (language: Spanish)
   (is translation of --> (ID:123)

and have these display such that from any point you get a link to
"other language versions". (That is, anything with: "(is translation
of --> (ID:123)") A direct search for a Spanish translation would be:

((is translation of --> (ID:123)) + (language: Spanish))

Note that this is a "verbal" example of something that would be more
machine-like under the hood.

Why don't we have this now? In part it's because our data is locked up
in records, and the records are stored as units in our databases.
That's not because the people designing those databases are stoopid;
it has a lot to do with how we update our data (full record replace:
MARC doesn't allow any other option, by design) and related issues of
efficiency. It also simply because of our reluctance to give up MARC.

What I have given above is an example of "linked data" -- a way of
organizing information so that it is easier to pull out information
based on relationships. It is what some of us see as the current best
"next data carrier" for library data. It wouldn't have to change the
meaning of our data, but would definitely change its form.

kc



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet