Forwarded message 1
On 17/07/2011 18:13, Karen Coyle wrote:
<snip>
> Friends,
>
> we have gotten very few comments on the W3C LLD report [1], yet there
> are very clearly things that merit discussion in that report. I would
> really hate for the report to be finalized "unexamined" by a wider
> audience.
</snip>
I have done some thinking about the report and I am not sure how to
include these comments on the site, so at least I'll do it here.
First, I very much appreciate this report and agree that linked data
could be one of the main solutions for libraries, yet I think the report
itself lacks a certain reality. One of the main problems that I see here
is the apparent assumption that the "library community" really is some
kind of a single entity, when actually, it is not and has never been a
single community. There are huge differences in the skills, labor and
system needs among different kinds of librarians, from selectors to
acquisitions librarians, to catalogers, to reference librarians, to
special collections, to conservation; from librarians in public
libraries vs. those in academic libraries vs. special libraries; from
librarians in big libraries vs. smaller libraries vs. very small
libraries; RDA libraries vs. non-RDA libraries (perhaps); U.S. libraries
vs. European vs. the rest of the world, and so on. In my own opinion,
even considering that this incredible number of communities, who often
do not talk with one another and when they do, rarely understand one
another very well, can constitute a "single community", simply beggars
the imagination. This single "library community" exists only in utopian
dreams.
Strangely enough, it is probable that the librarians who have the best
understanding of the entirety of the library field are those in the
smaller libraries because there are less opportunities (some may prefer
substituting "fewer pressures") for the specialization that occurs in
the largest collections. Considering that all of these communities are
the same is a similar mistake made by FRBR that lumps all users together
("user tasks").
Another point I would like to make becomes clearer from a short
understanding of some history. In the beginning of computerization,
there were no off-the-shelf library systems, and consequently libraries
had no choice except to try to create their own catalogs. Some of these
latter became for-profit companies such as NOTIS, but even though some
of the local efforts were good and had energetic people behind them, far
more often the difficulty and expense to libraries that created their
own systems slowly forced them to abandon their own efforts and buy
ready-made systems--in other words, libraries have been seriously burned
when they have tried to do their own development.
It's true that the situation of open-source, cooperative development
going on today is a totally different story and it has been proven to
succeed, but memories are very long in librarianship and even a lot of
the younger librarians have heard the highly painful recollections of
those earlier times. As a result, many are extremely reticent to begin
such a terrible process again. In any case, out of the aggregate, very
few libraries have ever been able to afford any kind of development and
the vast majority have been more or less forced to rely on others.
Buying a ready-built ILMS was also always a good solution for
bureaucratic reasons: you could say, "if it's good enough for LC [or
Columbia, or the Bibliotheque National, etc.] it's good enough for us!"
Libraries are now expected to be creative and innovative in areas of
cataloging rules and system development--a rather new mentality, and
without any tangible benefits as yet. Of course, staffing levels will
remain flat at best for a long time to come and catalogers are already
overwhelmed. Therefore, libraries present a very difficult environment
to expect a great deal of development.
I suspect that the locale for genuine, open source library system
development may--strangely enough--wind up taking place primarily in the
smaller libraries, who will be forced by budget crunches to give up
their expensive ILMSs and to give open source catalogs a genuine chance.
Once they see the many advantages, development may really take off.
Finally, the problem of rights becomes incredibly important in a linked
data environment, but I see it somewhat differently than what I read
here. Linked data is, in traditional library terms, a disassembled
record where information can come in from anywhere. As a result, if an
essential part of the record that is to be finally assembled disappears,
the entire structure becomes useless. Therefore, whoever controls those
essential parts will have a certain amount of power and it will be vital
to determine the rights for those parts of the data. To put this in
concrete terms: in a WEMI/linked data environment, the (W)orks and
(E)xpressions parts absolutely must be available, since otherwise,
everybody's (M)anifestation and (I)tem parts would become useless and
could be held hostage to monopolistic practices: "Pay me x amount of
money or I will shut off access to the Work and Expression records." The
Google Book project already has taken library materials, digitized them,
and if matters work out (perhaps), they could end up charging the
library community to access its own materials. Something similar could
happen with linked data.
Creating a linked data system for WEMI-type records will be expensive
and if this may demand payment, it could easily morph into a "linked
data rupture" between those who can pay and those who cannot. Those who
cannot or will not pay must understand their rights because once in, it
may be extremely difficult to opt out.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/