 |
 |
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.[1] 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 We do have knowledge organization potential; it's a bit out of date, it hasn't been made truly actionable, but it's there. kc [1] Except where there's a Wikipedia article using the concept term. Basically Wikipedia provides the only knowledge organization that Google has -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600