Date post: | 29-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | digitaal-erfgoedconferentie |
View: | 454 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Cataloging and Web 2.0
By Elaine Peterson
Outline
• Traditional cataloging • Web 2.0 and folksonomies, etc.• Can we have both?
“One gathers, collects, and shares resources, making the organization of databases and websites crucial. Items that are different or strange can become a barrier to networking.”Peterson, www.dlib.org (November 2006)
Typical Catalog Display
Traditional Cataloging
• Strengths & Weaknesses: * Detailed, powerful searching capabilities* Restrictive (exclusionary) & hierarchical* Costly* One objective viewpoint, but only one
viewpoint * Not interactive
www.oreillynet.com
Web 2.0
• Web 1.0 Brittanica online • Web 2.0 Wikipedia
• Web 1.0 directories (taxonomy)• Web 2.0 tagging (folksonomy)
• Web 1.0 personal websites• Web 2.0 blogging
//flickr.com
Folksonomy
• Interactive• Multiple viewpoints (cultural, linguistic)• Relativism (not exclusive)• Inexpensive
Why interact with patrons?
• Sense of ownership• Innovation amongst themselves and
between repositories• Give us feedback about our work and how
our sites work• Our data will be placed into new contexts
and expand its use
Both systems?
• Use standard cataloging, but encourage interaction with patrons.
• Three examples:* Minnesota Arts Institute * Purdue University E-Scholar* MSU Indian Peoples image database
www.artsmia.org
www.artsmia.org
//e-scholar.lib.purdue.edu
www.lib.montana.edu/epubs/nadb
Conclusions
• Maintain cataloging standards, but encourage interactivity.
• Interact with the personal (blogs, folksonomy), but keep separate from the organization of repository collections.
• Allow for multiple access points to heritage collections such as libraries & museums.