One thought on “QOTD 2: identifers again”

  1. “Think of the growing need to link data from discovery environments (google scholar, next generation catalogs, ****worldcat,**** …) back to various library fulfilment environments.”
    Tee hee… ain’t easy, is it?
    But are “we” really burdened with misconceptions about the uses of bibliographic data (thank you for repeatedly using “data” and not “records”)? Do we really not understand that the hip bone must connect to the thigh bone and that standards such as NCIP are not magic glue that mysteriously make bad data better?
    This is really just an observation about style and approach in this post… quite often we do very much understand it (depending on who you’re referring to). Just like it’s sobering to look in a WorldCat Local pilot and see the same poor book listed four or five times under different OCLC numbers, which is a viper we have nursed to our own collective bosom, a viper many of us said was a viper lo these many years ago. It’s like those libraries that poured their data into Endeca and were then shocked, shocked by the results.
    It’s still important to think about discovery. I wouldn’t rule out discovery-oriented methods patching over some of the backend (to use Jonathan’s term) issues. Is it possible that our data is so FUBAR that we should scrap trying to get it to connect the way you think it should be connected and look to other methods?
    It’s also important to realize that some of the way we connect data is so Rube Goldberg that it’s essentially broken. Oh why be polite… I mean metasearch sucks.
    I really wish y’all would stop calling them WorldCat Identities, by the way. You’re creeping me out, because that is so not my (writing) identity.

Comments are closed.