Web-based cataloging

Thu Nov 20 09:40:33 EST 1997

Well put, Steve.  With the advent of web-based catalogs, there's no reason not
to build a catalog with links to Internet resources.  In fact, what if....what
if many libraries decided to cooperate in the effort to catalog and maintain
records for Internet resources, and built links to *each other's* catalog
records via the Internet?  Those libraries choosing to participate could agree
on a few basic cataloging standards (LCC and/or Dewey, LCSH - how universal are
these?) and even the "generic" catalog records produced would be far more 
valuable than no cataloging at all.  Each library could choose some particular 
subject area for which it would be responsible, and would have to maintain a 
powerful enough server to allow for the hits from other libraries.  Heck, I 
might catalog web pages just for the fun of it.  For a while, at least.  All 
right, so I don't have a life!  :^)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Lori A. Schwabenbauer               609-772-1636 x3336
Supervisor, Automation Services     fax 609-772-6105 
Camden County Library               lori at camden.lib.nj.us  
203 Laurel Road                     http://www.cyberenet.net/~ccl/
Voorhees, NJ  08043  USA            Opinions/ideas/gripes are mine.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

>At 07:52 AM 97/11/19 -0800, Karen G. Schneider wrote:
>>...  We keep saying in
>>our profession that we can't possibly have one catalog for the Internet...
>>we can't possibly organize the Internet... yada yada yada... but  how do we
>>know that?  ...   Why
>>haven't we started with the proposition that this was doable?  Why is it
>>that we accept a mammoth union database like OCLC but can't project this to
>>the online environment?  Why haven't we done our OWN Yahoo, sans the
>>McInternet stuff?
>>...
>>dreaming away in the Northeast... there are over 150,000 librarians in the
>>U.S.; we can't do this?
>
>
>Karen raises some good questions, and reasonable suggestions ...but I think
>(if I've understood her argument) that they may be the wrong questions.
>
>This discussion began with "what's wrong with Yahoo?" (or any of the net
>search engines, for that matter). As I see it, what's wrong primarily is a
>lack of selection ... the typical search bot just goes out and indexes
>everything it finds. Does a library collect everything that's printed (or
>even published) -- of course not. But the search engines do. [Yahoo at
>least claimed to make some effort at selection, but ...]  Add to that the
>fact that search engines typically convey little useful information about
>their indexed pages, and you have the current situation: basically, if
>these were libraries, you'd say their cataloguing was bad and their
>collection practices were indiscriminate.
>
>Now, long before the Internet, libraries were making a pretty good job of
>cataloguing and indexing published works. With the advent of computers,
>libraries were able to develop some pretty nifty systems for cataloguing,
>organising, indexing and retrieving information about their collections.
>
>Comes the Internet, then, and suddenly libraries are lost. First we ignored
>it. Then we abdicated our role to the likes of Lycos and Yahoo. Some of us
>panicked at predictions of the death of the library. But slowly, slowly, we
>seem to be coming to grips with the thing, with LC introducing the 856 MARC
>field, the PURL project and work on METADATA. 
>
>The other intersting recent development is in Web-interfaced catalogues
>(e.g. WebPAC), which makes it finally possible to make use of a traditional
>library catalogue as an indexing tool for Web pages. By including the URL
>information (via the 856 field), a Web catalogue displays the URL as a link
>that can take the user directly to the resource.
>
>So pretty soon now, I predict a large number of librarians are going to
>wake up and realise that all we have to do to index the Internet is to use
>our catalogues: determine which resources are of worth to our customers,
>and create catalogue records for them.
>
>Now of course, "indexing the Internet" is the wrong way to put it, if not
>impossible. But indexing (or cataloguing) the parts of the Internet which
>are desirable (by whatever collection criteria we wish to determine) is
>certainly possible, and most importantly, possible WITH EXISTING PRACTISE.
>In other words, libraries just continue to do what they've always done,
>with the only difference being that these things are electronic rather than
>paper or other 'traditional' media.
>
>To me, it seems that there are only two obstacles to overcome here:
>
>1. The 'startup' effort required is huge, even with good selection. I guess
>this can be solved by grant money (imagine for a moment if the money spent
>on Yahoo, Alta Vista etc had gone to libraries instead!), and by the usual
>cooperative effort that libraries excel at.
>
>2. Maintaing currency is a problem, on a scale not previously faced with
>traditional library collections. If you have a book in the collection
>today, you should expect to have it many years hence -- barring theft of
>course. But adding Internet resources to your Catalogue is different, to
>the extent that you're cataloguing something that you don't physically
>have, so its currency is out of your control. Good selection will overcome
>this problem to some extent, because sites worth 'collecting' are more
>likely to stick around. Initiatives like PURL are going to be critically
>important here though, since with the best will in the world a Web master
>cannot guarantee that a URL will never change. But maintaining URLs is not
>impossible, or even difficult if done right.
>
>
>Finally, and thank you for reading this far, a word about METADATA. Worthy
>as this idea is, I don't see this as a final answer to the problem (or even
>close, actually). While some page authors will go to the trouble of adding
>metadata to their pages, many will not. Are we going to limit cataloguing
>activity to those pages with metadata? I don't think so, therefore it
>really becomes a side issue. Additionally, even if there is metadata, are
>cataloguers likely to accept it at face value? Not the ones I know! E.g. if
>there's a subject heading, is it LC, or MeSH, or ... what? If its claimed
>to be LC, is it valid? So the use of metadata is interesting but not the
>main issue.
>
>
>To conclude then: we don't need another Web search tool. We have the search
>tools already in our library catalogues. What we need are the records.
>
>
>Thanks for listening.
>
>Steve
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Stephen Thomas, Senior Systems Analyst
> Mail : Barr Smith Library, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005
> Phone: (08) 8303 5190                                   Fax: (08) 8303 4369
> Email: sthomas at library.adelaide.edu.au
> URL  : http://library.adelaide.edu.au/ual/staff/sthomas.html
> ** Unless otherwise stated, the content of this message reflects only my **
> ** own opinion, and not the policy of the University of Adelaide Library.**
>
> "I must Create a System, or be enslav'd by another Man's" -- William Blake
>