What's so different about the net?

[Michael Haseltine]

>1) Question of catalog's usefulness -- if we users can
>   get directly at an item through a variety of methods,
>   including traditional as well as emerging kinds of
>   access points, why should we want to go through an
>   itermediary step of accessing a catalog entry?  We do
>   not want the catalog entry; we want the actual item.
>   Catalogs were useful when books had to be stored in a
>   different location from the access point that helped
>   locate the book.  What we need for online resources,
>   in my opinion, are directories and subject guides --
>   that lead directly to the item, not to a catalog entry.
>   Subtle difference, but a fundamental one.  (What basis
>   do you have for assuming that the catalog you build is
>   going to be used?)

How are you distinguishing between a catalog and a directory? How can you
get the actual item if there is no directory or catalog to show you where it
is, whether it's on a shelf in your own library or on the net somewhere? I
really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.

>2) The "What is a document?" problem -- OCLC in its sample
>   WWW catalog entries appears to be only cataloging main
>   pages, not sub-pages.  But what is a  main page?  Who 
>   decides what is THE main page for a site?  Further on
>   this problem, is a document always its whole self if
>   the hyperlinks it points to have gone away?  Are you 
>   sure?  What about documents that are composed entirely
>   of other documents, assembled on the fly?  This is not
>   just angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff; these are
>   realities of the current Web.  How about multimedia:
>   is a video a catalogable item?  How about a 5-second
>   video with no title, author, date, publisher, or
>   discernable topic?  Where do you draw the line between
>   what can or should be cataloged and what cannot or
>   should not be?  As time passes this question is
>   getting more difficult, not easier, to sort out.  Even
>   laying aside multimedia items, text items are also
>   often poorly defined on the net.  Not so with books.
>   Which leads to:

IMHO it *is* angels on the head of a pin stuff! As others have pointed out,
it's only a matter of selection--choosing what you are going to give access
to and at what level of detail can you afford to give it, top page or in
more detail.

>3) Ephemeral nature of material -- cataloged today, gone
>   tomorrow.  Not only does material disappear and move,
>   it also evolves and sometimes even changes drastically.
>   How can you catalog something that doesn't have a set
>   identity, date, or version number?  Many web resources
>   are of this nature, but they do not necessarily proclaim
>   this fact with any aspect of their appearance.  Books,
>   on the other hand, almost always come with built in 
>   clues about their publishing status, are real things
>   rooted in a physical embodiment, and do not change as
>   often and unpredictably as online documents.

Books are not the only thing in the library, and some of what's in our
collection is just as messy to deal with as what's on the net. I constantly
have to figure out how to catalog paper items that have only a title, no
author, publisher, or date. Or some other part of the information really
helpful to knowing what a librarian wants to know about a resource is
missing. Yet the item is worth giving access to because it has something of
value to our users in it. We do the best we can with what we have.

And it's just as ephemeral. What if I have the only copy? It's easier to
drop in the circular file than to catalog.


Michael Haseltine -- Office of Arid Lands Studies, University of Arizona
haseltin at ag.arizona.edu