On 08/04/2011 22:19, Stephen Early wrote:
<snip>I agree that this is an interesting discussion, but how about something a bit more realistic in this "new universe" of information? I have taken a position as consultant to FAO of the UN and we are discussing online statistical databases. What is the WEMI of something like Google Public Data, e.g. here is a database, *held at Eurostat* but accessed (in real time) through the incredible Google statistical tools, that allows the user to see the relative minimum wages in Greece, Netherlands, and Great Britain (I selected these countries myself). http://tinyurl.com/3bbqrh3. Here is another interesting dataset: unemployment in the US since 1990 http://tinyurl.com/3uom8fs, the database held at the US Dept. of Labor Statistics. Click on the arrow and watch the "movie".
Which reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (Mona Lisa with a mustache) and the Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Mona Lisa. How would these fit into the FRBR model? (enjoying this very interesting discussion)
Individuals can now add their own statistical tables, too.
Or, here are Craiglist apartment listings on Google Maps. http://www.housingmaps.com/.
You can use Google Earth to map archaeological findings; Google maps again, to plot the protests in the Middle East http://tinyurl.com/4crzdzg
These are just some of the tools that are genuinely new, i.e. they have never existed before, that people are finding very useful, and I am sure there are far more complex tools than these. What is the value of WEMI to our users or even to librarians, in these cases? Do we ignore the resources that don't fit, or are we forced to shoehorn everything into a WEMI structure, which I personally believe is based on printed materials? Catalogers also can't spend "all day" on one record, as many people think we do.
WEMI is based on a physical view of the information universe and the world is moving away from the limitations of the physical.