Bibliographic Wilderness

We hear all the time “FRBR is untested, FRBR is incomplete, FRBR needs work.” One version of this is in Karen Coyle’s summary of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control report. [ I'm waiting for the official written report before really responding to these reccommendations, but I'll respond now just to the informal comments here as one point of view, regardless of whether it accurately represents the working groups'.]

“The framework known as FRBR has great potential but so far is untested.”

Now, as it happens, I in fact agree with this completely so far as it goes. However, that doesn’t change the fact that we desperately need what FRBR is trying to do—a formal and explicit schematic of how we
model the ‘bibliographic’ (or ‘information resource’) universe. Some agree that we desperately need this, some don’t and think it’s all a bunch of hot air. I’ve made my case for why we need it before, and probably ought to do so again in more polished form.

But those of us who agree that we desperately need this, AND that FRBR is an untested and imperfect attempt to do this—then what? Either we: (more…)

I attended the DLF Fall Forum a couple weeks ago, and found it to be a very rewarding experience, even more so than I expected. It is always nice to be with so many people who are more or less on the same page when it comes to where library services are headed and the work we need to do (and are doing) to get there. I’ll provide a round up of some interesting presentations and things learned below, but first a word on the concept of the ‘digital library’.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that all (or anyway most) of our libraries are “digital libraries”. Every area of our library now involves digital resources and digital services–and this will only increase. From licensed ebooks to scanned books to licensed electronic scholarly content; from email reference to the OPAC to document delivery to federated search and licensed databases. There’s digital content and services everywhere. Our libraries are already digital libraries–the future is here (and probably always was, paradoxically). Our task is making them better, improving and adding digital services, improving access to and adding digital content. There is no reason to reserve the phrase ‘digital library’ to any particular programs, services, collections, or technology platforms–and there is no reason to segregate to particular organizational units attention to our digital future or our digital present (and the two better be related if we actually plan on moving from the present to that future). Digital content, access, services, and strategy need to be coordinated across the library. The “single business“.

I am certainly not alone in thinking this way, but it’s not clear to me if it’s yet the majority perspective among either DLF-community type people or the library community in general.

So, that rant aside, how about a DLF fall forum 2007 roundup? (more…)

When selectors are evaluating electronic content providers, they may or may not consider some of the more technical issues that can end up plaguing those of us working to make library services work well in a unified way for our users–and thus plaguing our users too.

Do any of my readers have standard questions to ask potential content providers, or ways of evaluating them on more technical grounds? What do your libraries do to try to ensure content providers have the technical infrastructure we need, or to pressure them to get it? If the people with the primary responsibility for selecting don’t neccesarily have the technical background to understand/evaluate these things—then what, what’s your ‘workflow’ here?

Here is a sketched out draft of questions I came up with to ask content providers prior to signing a contract, specifically related to link resolver and federated search products I work with–although the issues related to federated search pretty much carry over to other fancy ‘2.0′ things too. Would appreciate any feedback. (more…)

At the DLF forum, I saw a presentation from someone who’s name I forget from Bowker, where I learned two simple things very interesting to me.

I learned about the plans for an International Standard Text Code (ISTC), sort of like an ISBN but applies at the FRBR “expression” level, grouping a set of ISBNs. (Although Bowker seems to call what it applies to a ‘work’, it is in fact meant to apply only to things that are ‘textually identical’, which is what we call the expression level. It is also only meant to apply to textual material, not audio, video, etc. She claimed that audio and video already had something similar, although it wasn’t widely adopted. I know nothing about this?) This would potentially be quite useful, of course, to have an expression level identifier from the ISBN people. It also makes me think of how it might harmonize or not with the library world’s plans for ‘frbrization’–it’s being done for the needs of the publishing and sales industry, like ISBN. Of course, right now there’s not much for it to harmonize to in the library world, just talk.

I’ve been having writer’s block on writing the essay I intend about identifiers and ‘access points’. I think I need to stop thinking of trying to write the perfect essay and just put my unfinished sketchy notes on the blog, because I think it is a important topic–especially for talking about how what we’re doing relates to what everyone else is doing. We need to use compatible language and compatible mental models.

Anyway, the second interesting thing I learned is that a few months ago Bowker released a web service for accessing ISBN metadata. Which is packaged with Books in Print, meaning it’s free to anyone who already has an online Books in Print subscription (many if not most of us). I don’t know the details, but am eager to find them out and play with the service.

I like that pricing idea–hey, they’re already paying lots of money for BiP, they shouldn’t need to pay even more to get 21st century methods of access to that same content they are already paying for, we should instead improve the service to 2007 levels. If only more of our library vendors worked like that. Instead, we are often in the situation where the software we pay a fortune for is stuck in 1985, and if you want modern software you’ve got to purchase and continue to pay licensing and support for an additional add-on “product”. Ridiculous, and almost all of our vendors do it. (Perhaps the market requires them to do it that way to stay in business–if so, the market is doomed and their time in business is limited anyway. Hopefully not along with ours.)