[Sigia-l] integrated catalogues?

[Alexander Johannesen]

Hi,

Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> > Libraries have a long tradition of designing things that are hard to
> > use, cryptic to understand and generally produce sub-par results. But
> > the good news is that they're coming around. Death to Z39.50 and
> > functional specifications!!

A.F. Cossham <cossham00 at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I'm skeptical. Sub-par? What par? Compared with what?

The library vs. the real-world,  mostly. Perhaps a bit
tounge-in-cheek, but when we normally compare things like search,
commercial search-engines seems to be the comparator. And compared to
Google I have yet to see a single library-search come close. In fact,
I've yet to see them even in the distance; mostly they're not there at
all. But hey, examples are *most* welcome.

> MARC, for example, may
> be - IS - a dinosaur, but it enabled libraries to do what was not possible
> in other ways. It is undoubtedly time for a change, but please think
> realistically - we're talking about an 'industry' (for want of a better
> word). Standards and specifications have enabled libraries to do what they
> do, sharing information internationally. Sharing is a significant component.
> Silos of information does not work.

Hmm, I could break into song about MARC, Z39.50 and the
design-by-commitee that somehow still is embraced by librarians as
something of great value. Now, I'm not going to do that (my singing is
not what it used to be), but I'll mention that even though MARC in its
past has enabled certain things there is nothing that says that others
didn't do similar things based on different technology. Meaning; even
if you could do certain things through MARC it still doesn't make it
the best solution. I could at this stage go into the incredibly
hopeless situation of international saturation of basic MARC
handling/tagging/cataloging (heck, even between catalogers themselves
within the *same* library don't tag consistently), maybe I should if
you want me to. It is not about what MARC enabled libraries to do; it
is why did the library world decide not to involve or get involved in
/ with the rest of the world, and still why don't they want to? Ah
yes, the age-old song of "we're special with special needs". :)
Another song.

> Libraries still want to be able to share - so it's going to be a slow
> process to convert everyone to whatever new is replacing existing stuff, no
> matter how frustrating the existing stuff is. Sure, librarians need a better
> attitude too (some colleagues are going to shoot me).

I've been shot many times over; I work with this stuff at a huge
library, I know the legacy, but more to the point, I know what could
be done differently. I think attitude and know-how are show-stoppers
in the library world. For example, everyone in the library world look
to OCLC for salvation when quite often they haven't got a clue. It is
terribly annoying, and frankly, since I love the library world, I find
it rather sad.

> BTW, librarians have a long tradition of explaining to IT what they want
> done, and having IT ignore them, so the librarians have to put up with a
> less than ideal result.

You know, most IT people here *are* librarians, and sub-par systems
are designed all the time. Oh-oh, I feel like bursting into song about
how librarians design their systems ... but I'm strong, and I'm
holding back. But say the word, and I'll tell you a tale ... :)

>  I don't know that librarians actually design the
> systems they use ...

You bet they do. But it may not be what they want.


Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________