DE Conferentie 2006 Elaine Peterson

465 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
465
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
92
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

DE Conferentie 2006 Elaine Peterson

  1. 1. Cataloging and Web 2.0 By Elaine Peterson
  2. 2. 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)
  3. 3. Typical Catalog Display
  4. 4. Traditional Cataloging• Strengths & Weaknesses: * Detailed, powerful searching capabilities * Restrictive (exclusionary) & hierarchical * Costly * One objective viewpoint, but only one viewpoint * Not interactive
  5. 5. www.oreillynet.com
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. //flickr.com
  8. 8. Folksonomy• Interactive• Multiple viewpoints (cultural, linguistic)• Relativism (not exclusive)• Inexpensive
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Both systems?• Use standard cataloging, but encourage interaction with patrons.• Three examples: * Minnesota Arts Institute * Purdue University E-Scholar * MSU Indian Peoples image database
  11. 11. www.artsmia.org
  12. 12. www.artsmia.org
  13. 13. //e-scholar.lib.purdue.edu
  14. 14. www.lib.montana.edu/epubs/nadb
  15. 15. 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.

×