Earlier this week, Bill Thompson and I finished (we think) “Ubiquitous cataloging,” which will appear in the McFarland volume Radical Cataloging: Challenges and Possibilities edited by K. R. Roberto. Quick summary: Web 2.0 is doing damn interesting stuff which for all purposes is cataloging, and library catalogs need to both emulate that functionality and allow Web 2.0 sites like LibraryThing and del.icio.us to exchange information with OPACs.
This is not a new idea by any stretch. But I think our essay still has value for two reasons. First, I like the comprehensive definition of “cataloging” we begin with. Our exigence is, in part, Google et. al eclipsing OPACs for many information retrieval needs; just ask any undergraduate how she does research required in first-year composition. However, we also argue that OPACs need to change because cataloging is becoming a part of numerous applications of computing, if not daily life. So, we see five types of cataloging:
- The traditional sense: categorization and/or classification by trained ontologists guided by established standards. Think of libriarians maintaining their collections.
- Categorization and/or classification by people without professional training, operating ad-hoc. This is where the buzz is; Web 2.0, tagging, folksonomy, etc. We tried not to beat that into the ground. Enough people are talking about Library 2.0, for example.
- Catalog-networking: browsing catalogs, comparing them, and connecting all kinds of information systems. This happens more often given the increase in #2 above (ah, recursivity).
- Design of catalogs and cataloging interfaces. A surprising number of people are doing this, from managing archive pages on weblogs to building systems for managing their own information output. (And folks not only do this stuff, but share their methods as well; I’m thinking of LifeHackers documenting their email management habits.)
- Cataloging of catalogers: the collection, storage, and retrieval of information about catalog users. Privacy concerns kick in here, of course, but this is also about Google Maps mashups and visualizations made possible by data aggregation.
It’s one thing to say “cataloging is everywhere” but it’s another to break it down, and I wonder if we spent enough time doing that. Part of me wants to write a separate article (a back-article? barticle?) which flushes out this complex definition and the relationships between the five types. Pick any two and there are interesting synergies to discuss (and very possibly tools designed to address particular cataloging needs).
Secondly, using network theory, we offer an explicit explanation of the value of “unofficial” cataloging and the sites which facilitate it. Bill and I grappled with this (delete, delete, delete) since there are many ways to think about the net–work done on these sites. We settled on Mark Granovetter’s weak ties and Mike Robinson’s double-level languages (not exactly network theory, but we use it as such). Those ideas seemed the most important of the many we considered (actor-network theory, convergence, complexity). Again, this isn’t revolutionary, but we think folks who would otherwise “harumph” the inclusion of Library Thing, del.icio.us, and their ilk into OPACs might take it seriously given an explanation which shows OPAC-to-web connections are as profound as the researcher-to-researcher ties made possible by traditional catalogs.
Not to mention it was fun to write an essay slightly out of my field, and with someone who eagerly tackled the job.
Now, onto the next essay I should have finished a long time ago….