12 Comments

  1. Kevin M. Randall said:

    You say: "Even with linked data, why should the public want to manipulate bibliographic data that has no meaning for them? Our catalogs will still be based on the principles of a 19th century dictionary—not even on a 21st century dictionary! The problem is not our records or even the information in them—it is the reliance on alphabetical order that has become obsolete in our new environment

    February 18, 2013
    Reply
  2. The goal should be the end user, not the machines. As I said in the podcast, what parts of the catalog record do the <b>users</b> want to manipulate when they are looking for information of interest to them? Are they interested in the &quot;associations between resources, concepts, etc. that are inherent(?) in the descriptions, thesauri, classification schemes, etc.&quot;? I don&#39;t think so

    February 18, 2013
    Reply
  3. Kevin M. Randall said:

    You&#39;re still not getting it. The users aren&#39;t doing the manipulating, the machines are. And this doesn&#39;t mean that the focus is on the machines. Catalogers writing bibliographic descriptions on 3×5 cards were not focussed on the machine (card catalog); they were focussed on the user, using the technology of the card catalog to meet the user&#39;s needs. Catalogers putting

    February 18, 2013
    Reply
  4. I think I have demonstrated as much or more than anyone else that I &quot;get it&quot;. I just question the final product and the focus. I realize that it is all for machines and that once it is good for machines, it will be good for people. I disagree with that mindset.<br /><br />In theory that may be OK, but <b>in reality</b> what will be the final product? As I showed in the podcast, it will

    February 19, 2013
    Reply
  5. Kevin M. Randall said:

    You obviously do not get it at all, because I keep trying to explain that the point is not to have people manipulate bibliographic data. The point is to have bibliographic data that the machine can manipulate. The FRBR study showed how our bibliographic records have all along contained the details of the resources: titles, authors, subjects, relationships with other resources, etc. Tagging those

    February 19, 2013
    Reply
  6. What a strange argument this is! Of course it is the machines that actually do the manipulation of the data, just as I mentioned with the chess program in my podcast. The &quot;manipulation&quot; of that chess data I used to do manually, myself. People &quot;tell&quot; the machine what they want, just as they do in the chess program, (if you haven&#39;t looked at that video, see how the program

    February 19, 2013
    Reply
  7. Kevin M. Randall said:

    &quot;Almost nobody needs bibliographic information, except a librarian.&quot; Oh dear me, I guess I don&#39;t need the catalog to contain the title of the thing I&#39;m looking for. Or the name of its author. Or when it was published. Or what other works it&#39;s related to.<br /><br />&quot;All the public needs from the catalog record is where an item can be found, and where are other, similar

    February 19, 2013
    Reply
  8. No. I am being honest and realistic. Remember that from the very beginnings, the public has come to the library to use the resources in the collection, and the catalog has been their way into the collection. How many people have you heard of–other than (maybe) catalogers–who enjoy searching the catalog? And reading a catalog record? The information people want is in the collection. That is

    February 19, 2013
    Reply
  9. Kevin M. Randall said:

    You are repeatedly failing to grasp the most basic point that I have been trying to make: This has nothing whatsoever to do with giving data to the end user to manipulate in one way or another OTHER THAN as a means of finding the resources they are after. You say &quot;Show me how manipulating the information in the catalog records can help me understand the causes of the Cold War.&quot; How can

    February 19, 2013
    Reply
  10. It is truly unfortunate you take these matters so personally and resort to ad hominem attacks. It makes it difficult to reach any kind of understanding.<br /><br />But at least you appear to agree that manipulating the information in catalog records will not help someone understand a topic that interests them. So, you seem to agree with my point that the catalog records are actually <b>signs</b>

    February 20, 2013
    Reply
  11. Kevin M. Randall said:

    What I find unfortunate is that you continue to argue against a description of RDA and linked data that does not fit anything I have seen anywhere else but in your messages.<br /><br />You say: &quot;So, you seem to agree with my point that the catalog records are actually signs that lead people toward the resources that may contain the information they want.&quot; Yes, yes, yes!!! That&#39;s

    February 20, 2013
    Reply
  12. I believe I am among the first to ask many of these questions, such as when I questioned whether the FRBR user tasks are all that relevant to the world today. Is that really what people want? The accepted answer today seems to be that it is not the main tasks that people want in the modern information universe. Certainly we can have a tool that lets people find, identify, etc. by their authors,

    February 20, 2013
    Reply

Leave a Reply

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