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)
Traditional Cataloging• Strengths & Weaknesses: * Detailed, powerful searching capabilities * Restrictive (exclusionary) & hierarchical * Costly * One objective viewpoint, but only one viewpoint * Not interactive
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
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.