9 Comments

  1. I agree with much of what you say. On the point of "This is why I believe people search library catalogs in the same way they search Google, and why they almost always get such poor results when compared to full-text searching" — I think we CAN make our library catalog search results a LOT better, even without full text. Our current interfaces are awful. Now, is the "lot better&

    November 21, 2010
    Reply
  2. This gives me a chance to illustrate a problem in FRBR perhaps a bit more clearly: Today, we must assume that people will do keyword searching and have pretty much ceased to browse as people did in the card and book catalogs. Now, the multiple display in a book catalog was very predictable, pre-determined by the filing rules, but display of multiple results from modern keyword searches are

    November 22, 2010
    Reply
  3. Yep makes sense. Having clearly modelled data is totally important for creating that &#39;intellectual microcosm&#39; around a record though. <br /><br />FRBR totally got the &#39;requirements&#39; part wrong, but I think it still got the _data model_ pretty much right. The kind of clear data model that FRBR provides, where it&#39;s clear what data is really saying and is really about in an

    November 22, 2010
    Reply
  4. [Just noticed your first comment. I disagree that our catalogs do a fine job of connecting people to books right now -- they do an AWFUL job, and are honestly embaressing, they appear to our users as anchient technology. While there IS a lot of room for improvement without any cataloging changes -- there is ALSO a lot of things that are ridiculously expensive or even infeasible for us to do

    November 22, 2010
    Reply
  5. As you, I have set aside FRBR and RDA because we cannot afford retraining our staff. But also, looking at a catalog, like (http://www.library.miami.edu) University of Miami´s Encore Catalog, I feel that we can make our catalogs a lot more friendlier using our old AACR2 and MARC 21. So what´s the deal?

    November 23, 2010
    Reply
  6. In reply to Johathan: You&#39;re right. Our catalogs do not do a &quot;fine&quot; job of connecting people to books now. That was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant &quot;adequate&quot; in the sense that this is what people have been using up to now.<br /><br />I also agree that someone looking at a specific record needs to know that a later edition exists. This was pretty easily handled

    November 23, 2010
    Reply
  7. Hi Jim, I listened to your Cataloging Matters podcasts today in one fell swoop. They&#39;re excellent. Thanks very much for sharing you&#39;re F-R-B-R journey in this audio format.

    November 29, 2010
    Reply
  8. said:

    At the public library reference desk where I work, the majority of our reference questions are from people looking to fulfill FRBR user tasks. And I see people using the catalog all the time with the same goals. We *occasionally* get a reference question of the kind you get at academic libraries, but probably not more than 2 or 3 per week. I&#39;m excited about FRBR, although less so about RDA.

    December 10, 2010
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *