Library Views 圖書館觀點 - OPAC 2.0 近況
Library Views 圖書館觀點 - 向 OPAC 2.0 邁進
秋聲 Blog - 檢視圖書館自動化系統(ILS)
OPAC/ILS 最大的問題可在 LibraryThing 和 WorldCat 中看出來，那就是後者的封閉架構，不提供人手輸入的功能，為的可能是維持書目資料的標準和準確性，但就排除了用者向書目作有用補充 (絕版、過時書；主題、相關、推薦、年份、ISBN 等) 的可能性。
The major problem of OPAC/ILS can be seen from the comparison between LibraryThing and WorldCat. That is the latter one using closed system which does not allow manual input function. The reason may be wanting to maintain the standard and accuracy of the book data. But it excludes the possibility of given additional book information by users, such it out of print, outdated, topics, similar books, recommendation, year, ISBN, etc.
它跟 WWW (World Wide Web) 不接軌更是致命傷，試問人人都在用搜尋引擎搜尋資料，偏偏圖書館最龐大的資源竟不會給搜出來，圖書館淪落成資料的二線提供者不無道理，就是因為不方便吧。
It does not connect to WWW (World Wide Web) is fatal. While everyone is finding information using search engines, it happens that richest resources from libraries cannot be search out. No wonder libraries fall to be a second line information provider. Thanks to the inconvenience.
Outdated AACR2 cannot handle electronic resources; the profession of cataloguing restricts the participation and sharing of outsiders; classification has not been made the best use for organizing and managing interest resources. Library is like a person owning very good knowledge and skills, but just cannot put it into practice due of disability. No one will remember him unless people want to learn something from him. However, he is forgotten in many cases.
In the near future, all information are very likely to be published in digital format. If this "person" wants to regain the reputation, the best is learn to use "gun" before anybody else. If he fails, he may unite others and contribute his experience and wisdom to assist them to be the leader. The success could at least earn him well treatment better than he is right now. Knowledge and skills could be left for strengthening the body, making it healthy and cultivating himself.
延伸閱讀 (Further readings)
ALA TechSource - How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It)
ALA TechSource - How OPACs Suck, Part 2: The Checklist of Shame
ALA TechSource - How OPACs Suck, Part 3: The Big Picture
ALA TechSource - Out of the Secret Garden: The RDA/DC Initiative
ALA TechSource - Toward the Next Gen Catalog
ALA TechSource - What Is New about Library 2.0
補充 [Supplement] (Feb 24, 2008)
Cataloging Futures - Library 2.0 and the cataloging community
Web is the communication device of choice for our users.
補充 [Supplement] (Jun 8, 2008)
UW-Madison Libraries Staff - Resource Discovery Exploratory Task Force Final Report
Resource Discovery at UW Libraries - Executive Summary of Our Final Report
Lorcan Dempsey's weblog - Institutional discovery systems
有涯 | email@example.com | taogate.wordpress.com
未知 Alan 對於圖書館系統的發展有何憧景？
Jul 6, 12:29 AM
Alan | firstname.lastname@example.org | alanpoon.wordpress.com
In fact, Library management has been improving to meet the patron's demands. However, the development of internet is so fast. Their falling behind is like law, both are restricted by layers of regulations and rules.
Libraries have long been the only resources/knowledge centre except private collectors. Their using close system was that they did not expect today's flourishing development, also not want to be interfered by outsiders so that their management remains professional and consistence.
在資訊全面開放的情況下，圖書館的系統實在不宜緊閉，但又不應將編目、分類等需要相當技能和知識的工作給予所有人參與，有涯兄你見到 social bookmarking 的 tag 有多混亂、不統一就會了解我的論點。現時大多數的 tag 對搜尋資料的幫助相當有限，就是因為這樣，「搜字型」的搜尋引擎才會繼續受人歡迎。
As information is open to reach, library system should not be kept closed anymore. However, it is unsuitable to open cataloguing and classification those requiring rather skills and knowledge to all to participate. Phgod, as you can see how chaotic and inconsistent tags in social bookmarking are, you would understand my point. Presently, most of the tags give limited help in searching information. That is why traditional "word searching" search engines are still popular.
但若從另一個角度來看，排除混亂其實會導致有用資訊的流失，這又不是我所樂見的。例如 Social bookmarking 是混亂，但分享的貢獻是不容否定的。所以我就在想系統仍舊由專業的館員管理，但就容許所有人貢獻，不過就要標明權威性，讓使用目錄的人自行評定可參考性。在這方面，融合了 LibraryThing 主題和推薦項的目錄就是很好的先驅。
But from another point of views, excluding disorder would result in the loss of information, that is not what I am pleased to see. Say for example, social bookmarking is chaotic, but the contribution from sharing is undeniable. Hence, I think the system should still be managed by professional librarians, but allow any contribution. The authority has to be indicated so that users can evaluate the value of it. In this aspect, the OPAC contains LibraryThing's subjects and recommendations is a very good example and pioneer.
其次就是如何讓人發現圖書館擁有他們需要的資料。礙於搜尋引擎已深入民心，我看圖書館的目錄無可避免地要進入互聯網，而且圖書館界要好好地跟搜尋引擎合作，因為各地館藏的加入會大大充實網上的資訊，使已夠混亂的網絡更形不堪。我的想法就是 WorldCat、Google Book Search、Google Scholar、Library of Congress、書商、出版社等結合，推出一個全球性的書目 (另外又設一個專屬 non-print material 的)。書目的資料會出現在一般的搜尋引擎，不過為提高搜尋效率，最好用 clustering 的形式編排，使用家能過濾不乎所需的資料，如找書的找書；找碟的找碟，根據讀者的所在地、權限等引導他們到可取得資料的目的地 (借、看、租、買，什麼都好)。
The next thing is how to let people discover libraries have the information they need. As search engine has been commonly used, library catalogs must enter WWW. In addition, libraries have to cooperate with search engines. Because collections from libraries all over the world will solidify the online information greatly, which may cause the disorder more chaotic. My thought is unite WorldCat, Google Book Search, Google Scholar, Library of Congress, book stores, publishers, etc to launch a global catalog. And an exclusive one for non-print materials. The information in the catalog will appear in normal search engines. In order to enhance the search efficiency, it would be better to be clustering, so that users can filter information they do not need. For example, book searchers find books, discs' find discs, and lead users to where information are placed according to users' location and authority. No matter it is for lending, reading, renting or purchasing, whatever.
至於只供館內用的電子資源/數據庫 (其實我不喜歡，因為太不方便了)，就可將摘要輸入書目，提高人們找上它們的機會 (暫別理版權)。
Regarding electronic resources/databases only available for library use (Actually, I do not like them. It is too inconvenient), libraries can input the abstract into the catalog so as to increase the chance people can search and use them (Ignore the copyright temporarily).
到最麻煩的書藉電子化，我能感受到有涯兄對不便的無奈。不瞞你說，當臨時要了解一件普通的事/物，我是少有會使用圖書館的，網上資料多的是，誰會特意去圖書館找書看呢 (網上找不到時例外)；就算是實習時準備教材，我也是很依賴網上資源的 (網上資料、影片 vs. 書藉、影碟)。圖書館的資源普遍比網上的更豐富、更有價值，非電子化是它們受到冷落的主因，實在是十分可惜。不過我很有信心，全面書藉電子化最終應該會成事。我可沒說過紙本會成為歷史，我認為 e-book 和 print 版會一同推出，甚至會好似英英字典那樣，隨書附上光碟 (到時應該會係一個密碼之類，供用家使用網上版和下載版)，三版齊下，讀者在任何環境想怎樣看就怎樣看，全是他們的自由。將情況放在圖書館，讀者也會有這些選擇。到時應該可以減少想看但因貪方便而捨棄較好資料的情況。
Come to the most complicated thing, digitalizing book materials. I can feel how frustrated to you due to inconvenience caused. To be honest, when I want to understand an ordinary thing, I seldom use library for information. There are a lot information on the internet. Who will visit library to read books, except that internet does not give you any answer. Even when doing research in practicum, I still rely so much on internet resources. It is internet materials, videos vs. books and discs. Materials in library normally are richer and more valuable than on internet. They are used less frequently than ever is because they are not digitalized. It is really a pity. But I have strong confidence that complete digitalization will come true in the end. I did not say print materials will become history. I think e-book and print version will be published together, even like English dictionaries, sold with a CD. At that time, it would be sort of like a code for user to use online version or download version. With 3 versions, users can use whatever wherever and whenever. It is their freedom. In the library, users will be given the same options. At that time, giving up looking for better information because of inconvenience should be decreased.
最後，你提到「引用書中資料時，也無法即時連結到原文的相關段落中去」，這種引用連結我還沒有想過，你比我想得更前更深，實在佩服。我認為這個在電子化後應該是沒有問題的 (技術上，視乎格式)，但有 2 個棘手的問題，就是 membership 跟版權。我想你也知道，如果資料屬圖書館的財產，不同的讀者又有不同的權利，而且不是每一個人都可以申請入會，就算提供連結也未必可以連結到原文處。我以上所說的是一個開放的目錄，要真正 access 到館藏是另一回事。現在 e-book、database 用的登入系統應該會存在，隔阻無權的瀏覽。當然，如果可以暢通無阻、世界通行，那就什麼都可以啦。
At last, you mentioned that "when quoting information on books, it is impossible to connect to the paragraph in the original article". I have not thought about the quotation link. You have thought deeper and further than me. Well done. I think it would not be a problem after everything is digitalized, technically, depending on the format. But there is two isses, which are membership and copyright. As you know, library resources are library's properties. Different readers have different rights, moreover, not everyone can be the reader. So, even the link is there, he or she may not get connection to the orginal article. So far, what I have said is an open catalog. It is another thing to get access to the library collection. The login system used by e-book and database would probably be existed to block the unauthorized access. Of course, if there is no block, the whole world is connected, then you can do whatever.
What do you think, Phgod? Please share your perspectives.
補充 [Supplement] (Dec 4, 2007)
老貓學出版 - 如何用ISBN資料庫催化出版產業的新動力
補充 [Supplement] (Dec 14, 2007)
OCLC News - OCLC to conduct new cataloging and metadata pilot
補充 [Supplement] (Jan 11, 2008)
On the Record: Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (January 9, 2008)
Jul 6, 11:19 AM
Alan Poon's Blog - Library 2.0 & Web 2.0
2007-07-03 3:10:15 pm
http://alanpoon.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/library-20-web-20/ Sphere: Related Content