NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/pacsl/2949

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 5.9 KB | 115 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!OCLC.ORG!EKJ
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Approved: [e-mail]
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:02:23 CDT
Sender:       Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <[e-mail]>
From:         Erik Jul <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Bibliographic Control, was Musings on the Infostructure
Lines: 100

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
[Alan Emtage writes:]

[text deleted]

> [Katy Silberger writes:]
> >      As my words will reveal, I am a professional librarian
> > and I truely believe in BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL. Alan questions
> > the need and wisdom of trying to control something so complex.
> > I believe that it is fundamental to the process of scientific
> > (in the old Latin sense) communication.  Scholars in any corner
> > of the world and at any point in time must be able to follow the
> > bibliographic trail mapped out in a document's bibliography.
>
> I certainly don't mean to imply for a moment that bibliographic control
> is any less important than it is today. Quite the contrary, I believe
> that in such a fluid and flexible environment as computer networks such
> control and tracking is even more necessary. My thought however is that
> the "objects" to which this control is applied need to be very carefully
> chosen. We have neither the resources nor the need to apply such control
> to for example, many of the USENET newsgroups. While there are valuable
> pieces of information to be found on such things as "alt.flame", I would
> suggest that the resources involved in tracking such a volatile animal
> would not be justified from the benefits that would result. With limited
> resources, let us choose those things which would maximize the amount of
> valuable information and let the rest fall where it may.
>

Alan: I feel that your point is well taken.  Libraries, working in concert
with their user communities, provide an added value to their users through
the skilled selection and collection of materials.  The natural result of this
practice is that not all items appear in all collections or all catalogs.
Moreover, for reasons of merit, utility, cost, or other factors, much that is
produced is not collected by libraries, and to view libraries as the
repository of everything ever printed is to unreasonably extend the role of
libraries in society (national libraries notwithstanding).

Thus, all information does not fall under bibliographic control, and
understandably so.  The need for bibliographic control for "electronic
information objects" (I like that phrase, too) does not differ in this
respect: not everything produced in an electronic format or accessible via
computer networks is deserving of bibliographic control.  The complement to
this is also just as true: some electronic information objects are
deserving of bibliographic control to facilitate their descovery, access, and
use.

We can therefore dispense with the notion of "cataloging the Internet."  By
this I do not mean dispensing with the search for, development, and
implementation of "finding services" for Internet resources, only that we
needn't labor under the unreasonable burden of thinking that all electronic
information objects are deserving of equal attention.

Following from this, several options come to mind:

1. Libraries could create bibliographic records (including description and
access information) for selected electronic information objects produced by
their home institutions.  This seems reasonable and doable with little
change to existing procedures, and naturally limits the task.

For example, department "x" at university "y" wishes to publish research
report "z"  (or scientific notebooks, or raw data, or whatever) on the
network in electronic form.  In addition to other means of advertising the
availability of these information objects (e.g., lists, newsgroups), the
institution's library could create a surrogate record, which could be entered
into a searchable bibliographic database.

This approach takes advantage of existing technologies, workflows, systems,
and standards developed within the library community over many years,
preserves and enhances the value of existing infrastructure, and
integrates electronic information objects into both local and union catalogs.

2. Libraries could catalog electronic information objects requested by
users.  A library may wish, upon fulfilling a user's request for a particular
information object, to create a record for the object (if none exists and if
the object meets other selection criteria determined by the library).  This
may be the case whether the object is local or remote.

Suggestions one and two only slightly extend existing workflows at libraries,
but would greatly facilitate the creation of description and access records
for many objects that currently do not benefit from bibliographic control.

My next two suggestions are far more problematic, but I shall let loose of
them anyway because they seem to fall along the continuum of description and
access any may provoke continued thought and discussion on this topic:

3. Computer-assisted record creation (remember, I'm talking about the future
here).  A system may evolve whereby individual authors may create a minimal,
standard descriptive record for electronic information objects.

4. Automated record creation.  A process which, upon submittal of an
information object, creates a minimal, standard descriptive record.

Regardless of the method of record creation, there must also exist widely
accessible, searchable databases that are integrated into (but, of course,
not necessarily local to) the user's local computing environment

For your consideration and response,

Erik Jul
[e-mail]