Laurabelle's Blog

LIS 530 yesterday (course title Organization of Information and Resources = cataloging and indexing) was a discussion about bibliographic control and the elements which are actually useful and desirable to include in a library catalog. What really struck me in our discussion was that we have certain expectations about the role of a library catalog, but that that role is changing. For example, the primary role of a catalog used to be an inventory of a library's collection. These days that role is changing, but I'm not sure anyone really knows what it is now, or what it will become.

For one thing, sites like Amazon.com are leading book-consumers to expect more features from book catalogs; book-cover scans and reviews are appearing in library catalog systems. This is disturbing to me for several reasons. One is that this change is partly vendor-driven, in that these features are added by the system vendor. The other is that the body of library users are increasingly judging libraries by the standard of commercial sites. Although I know that public libraries need to sell their services to the public in order to be considered a useful investment of tax money, I'm concerned about this mingling of commercial interests with a profession whose core is user support. A librarian's job is to connect a user with information, however that may be. Unlike a commercial institution, if a user leaves with no unanswered needs, the library's task is fulfilled, even if the user does not buy (read: check out) any products. Features like book-cover scans can influence users' decisions in ways which are irrelevent to their information needs, especially when only certain books (newer or flashier perhaps?) feature scans.

The other issue is defining the boundaries of a collection. It used to be that a catalog in some sense defined a collection by listing every item in it. However, these days I can search UW's catalog for a journal title and find a link to that journal's website. Is that online journal then in the collection? What is the real meaning of the concept of collection in this day and age?

On some web sites, particularly commercial or official sites, use elaborate measures to make sure that users know that a link is off-site and that the group affiliated with such-and-such site is not responsible for it, yadda yadda. I've always found that sort of thing extremely absurd, and I still do, but it makes sense in relation to the concept of defining the web-territory under one's control (one's collection, as it were). Where are the boundaries? Once I link to another site, I have made it either possible or easier for my users to get there. Furthermore, I am in some part responsible for that content, or at least for those users who use my link to get there. Is that site part of my collection? What does collection mean in a world where intellectual content has become so separated from its physical embodiment that no one but the publisher can be said to own or control any digital document?