Note: I didn't get good notes on all of the recommendations (controversial and not) that he mentioned; but it would be worthwhile looking at the slides after they get posted.
questions for Brian...
q) As much as Google was involved, did they focus on things that were not text?
a) They actually focussed a lot on text, particularly the implications of millions of digitized texts (google books)
It was really OCLC that was pushing the non-textual issue
q) Regardless of LC's approach, are there any implications for local or UC actions?
a) taking fuller and earlier advantage of acquisitions vendors biblibliographic info (e.g. onix data). How do we produce native XML?
Integrating acquisitions and cataloging depts more is natural; and parsing the overall responsbility for particular kinds of materials is something we've flirted with but never really done well. SCP might help us with that.
q) could you comment on the recommendation to strengthen the LIS profession via library schools?
a) the head of the committee was an LIS professor... we went back and forth about recommendations on teaching cataloging; the ALA office of accreditation included a requirement that "information organization" broadly construed be a requirement for accreditation. Also: wouldn't it be nice if we worked with the LIS researchers to work on research projects that were actually helpful in the working library world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment