Maybe it's the bachelor's degree in a
joke major from a
football factory school talking here... but why must libraries
constantly overthink themselves into obsolescence?
Why must the only search that brings back relevant data be an "
exact search"? And, even then, why can't that search include the leading article?
I realize metasearch isn't the solution to every problem. But it would solve a vast majority of them. And then I look at
A9's OpenSearch and I think, "Jesus Christ, what are these momos in the
NISO committee doing?"
That's, of course, not fair. OpenSearch will be nowhere near as sophisticated or as robust as NISO Metasearch. And that is, of course, exactly why it will exist
everywhere but libraries and NISO Metasearch will exist
nowhere but libraries.
Don't get me wrong. I love and embrace the rigidity of the MARC record. That being said, I want both authorities
and friendly, loose and sloppy interfaces. I want
Voyager and Amazon. I want
Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar.
And I want to be able to move around between simple and complex interfaces at will.And as a developer, I want
RSS and
SRU, not
OpenURL 1.0 and
Z39.50. I like
MODS. Hell, I like
Dublin Core. I also like knowing that a good MARC record is living behind it.
Why can't libraries cater to the information semi-literate once and a while?
1 Comments:
This is a good point. I think libraries could learn a thing or two from the Extreme Programming crowd. I think the XP folks could learn a thing or two from libraries, as well. Meeting in the middle makes for some nice partnerships.
Post a Comment
<< Home