Elaine Svenonius suggests that a fifth objective of navigate should be added to the existing four (FISO), where navigate is about moving through the bibliographic universe, as expressed in a database, to find works related to a given work. She bases this on what research into information seeking behaviour tells us users want to do, and on the fact that 'the bibliographic codes of rules used to organise documents assume its existence' (p. 18-20) Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
I continue to be concerned that the extensive published research into information behaviour (including information seeking) is ignored, or at least frequently overlooked, by the cataloguing community in these discussions. To take one prominent, Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. E. F. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Published for the American Society for Information Science and Technology by Information Today. Or consider much of what Tom (TD) Wilson has written (among many dozens of others). And there is a lot written in languages other than English which does not get noticed (thanks to David Bade for making this point on other occasions). In the light of information behaviour research, I think we could unpack the ideas behind 'find' considerably more than we have. Identify and select are not necessarily separate processes either. Amanda Amanda Cossham Principal Lecturer, Programme Leader (ILS Majors) School of Information Science and Technology [cid:image001.gif@01CE8D06.C6295200] Phone +64 4 9135518 or 0508 650200 ext:5518 | Fax +64 4 9135948 3 Cleary Street, Waterloo | Private Bag 31914, Lower Hutt 5040 http://www.openpolytechnic.ac.nz Please consider the environment before printing this email. Kevin M Randall wrote: Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these "other types of tasks" users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu> (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! James Weinheimer wrote: I think that very few catalogers today would maintain that the FRBR user tasks are what people really and truly want more than other types of tasks.
<<inline: image001.gif>>
