Talk:Future catalogs: food for thought

From PLN

Excerpts from comments at NGC4LIB -- Walt Crawford 12:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Since the NGC4LIB archive is semi-private, that is, anyone can join NGC4LIB, but you can't see the official archive without doing so, I'm quoting and paraphrasing portions of comments without the names of those making the comments. Think of it as wikiality at its best.--Walt Crawford 12:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

• "When I look at the list, what comes to mind for me is a virtual librarian...a unique 24/7 artificially intelligent software application that mimics what librarians could do at their best..."
• "I like to think that the thing that distinguishes librarians from technology...is the librarian's ability to select and recommend. Librarians who provide support in highly technical scientific research areas, and librarians who choose the right book for a particular 8 year old in a particular community, provide the same service... Is it possible that, even if the traditional controlled vocabulary is not widely used by people who ask librarians for help, it is needed by librarians (more than ever)?"

Terminology comes into play--as some people find the term "catalog" too limiting for such visions. For example:

• "The catalog is an inventory of stuff the library has got in its collection. This notion in itself has caused all sorts of trouble when you want to do something with that metadata, where traditional librarianship don't include non-collection metadata in the catalog... Where does the definition of the library's intellectual property go between 'over there are some resources' and 'over there are some good resources we've selected'?... 'Catalog' is one of those words that needs to be redefined for a new millennium."
• "'Catalog' is mostly a hopelessly old, static, and unhelpfully ambiguous term... If the goal is to have a noun or name that does justice to what current library electronic resources can and do deliver, then my sense is 'catalog' ought to be jettisoned forever. Off the top of my head, I guess 'database' is at least much better... I do believe that actual functionality in any given catalog is what really counts, not what you call it, but I also think 'catalog' is inherently a stumbling block, lacks essential appeal, and mostly fails to convey appropriate expectations, especially to newer users each year."
• "People have very strong notions of what a catalog is that have been reinforced over decades, and I can see this as being one of the central conflicts when people express skepticism at next gen tools. My feeling is that it will be more difficult to redefine the word 'catalog' than it will be to create new terms and definitions for whatever these next gen tools are."
• "I'd wager that, to many, the 'catalog' is the place you go to search for books. I don't think we're well-served using a term that many assume is just limited to information in book format."

Others point out that this subject comes up every so often, so far "without a result or even the semblance of a consensus." And others, not enchanted with "database," aren't troubled by "catalog" and want to focus on functionality:

• "I have the answer when I'm asked 'on what shelf can I find the e-books?' It's our catalog. I'm expecting we will within not so many years have hundred of thousands of free e-books from many sources. With the help of OCLC WorldCat of course we will, as we always, make them visible through our 'catalog.'"
• "With the million book project (now called the universal library), Google books, MS Live Books, plus so many separate projects around the world, [that day] is already here. This doesn't even count all of the open access journals... My own opinion is that the traditional functions of the catalog of finding materials reliably by name, title, and subject, are just as important now as it ever was..."
• "Rather than spend time trying to come up with a new word...why don't we just spend time on discussing what 'the catalog' should do. I don't think the word is fundamentally flawed. I don't think our users have the same assumptions about the term referring to only limited functionality that some of us librarians have traditionally had... We need to figure out (through experimentation and analysis) what it is that 'the catalog' can and should do."

It may be natural for early discussion to worry about terminology more than substance. The last comment in the March 13, 2008 archive--but certainly not the end of the discussion, there or here--had a different take on language and substance.

• "So, what would we call something that contained a whole load of materials, and a load of finding aids? I'd suggest that we call this a 'library' [What to call all the new functionality?] I think I'd call these 'Library services.'... I agree that there is a need to supply the materials online, and that we need to build services around them - so in this sense, everything Eric says is very attractive, and I definitely see this as where we are going/need to go.. However, we shouldn't mistake this for a single system or environment. We need to build/provide tools that recognize the reality of the online world of information. We also need to recognize that 'information seekers' will bring their own tools to the environment, and our stuff needs to play nicely with theirs... [This would be] an ecosystem of resources and tools, and our role (as ever) is to help organize it and make it easily accessible and usable by those we are providing a service for."