On 4/6/16 4:04 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
> Instead, I think the problem to solve surrounds assisting the reader in using & understanding the stuff they find.
I'd like to see innovation a step before find, but I think in a sense
we're on the same wavelength. My take is that bibliographic information
should be the end of a process, not the beginning. Before arriving at
bib data, there's a lot of understanding and context that needs to be
clarified. Some of this involves authors and subjects, but not as they
are currently represented (mainly as text strings, and without
relationships). I think that one of the main questions a user has at the
catalog is "Where am I?" - where am I in the knowledge universe, where
am I in the collection of this library?
Note that Google does not give users an answer to this question because
there is no larger context, no inherent organization. Google does not do
knowledge organization. Libraries "do" it, but our user interfaces
ignore it (honestly, does anyone NOT think that the whole BT/NT
relationship in LCSH is completely wasted in today's systems?). Google
searches "work" best on proper nouns that are nearly unique. You cannot
do concept searches, and you cannot see relationships between concepts.
It's great for named people, organizations and products, but not great
for anything else. Also, without the links that fuel pagerank, the
ranking is very unsatisfactory - cf. Google Book searches, which are
often very unsatisfying -- and face it, if Google can't make it work,
what are the odds that we can? We do have knowledge organization
potential; it's a bit out of date, it hasn't been made truly actionable,
but it's there.
 Except where there's a Wikipedia article using the concept term.
Basically Wikipedia provides the only knowledge organization that Google has
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net