And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement:
Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by "likes" of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that-all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) 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! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:40 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: <snip> 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. </snip> I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast "Problems with Library Catalogs" http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title "Works" came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to "W", so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: "Twain, Mark,[date]" and then scroll dozens of screens to "W". *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute that people will do it. Even I refuse to do it although I know how it works. Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by "likes" of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. I did an entire podcast on Search http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html. Plus there are all different new types of "items" that defy what anybody knew of before. To be blown away by new types of searching and new ideas, you can watch Daniel Russell's talk at Princeton University awhile back: "What Does It Mean To Be Literate in the Age of Google?" https://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/flash/lectures/20120228_publect_russell.shtml This is the reality for those who want to accept it. The FRBR user tasks, although I won't argue that some people may still want to do them occasionally (such as myself), are 19th-century conceptions and comprise the minority of what people want. Let's at least bring these tasks up to late 20th century, if not to really modern times. We can pretend that nothing has changed since Panizzi's days; that what he and the other greats of the 19th century spoke of are immutable and forever. But don't be surprised if libraries end up totally forgotten and remembered as curious remnants of times past. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
