Comments on: The Failure of Middleware, Part 1: What’s the Problem? http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2005/04/04/the-failure-of-middleware-part-1-whats-the-problem/ A librarian, writer and tech geek reflecting on the profession and the tools we use to serve our patrons Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:59:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jill Hurst-Wahl http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2005/04/04/the-failure-of-middleware-part-1-whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-158201 Jill Hurst-Wahl Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:35:55 +0000 /?p=193#comment-158201 Meredith, When you first wrote these, I thought "how wonderful" and I saved the links in my Bloglines clipping folder. I want you to know that I'm now re-reading these posts because they are relevant to a project I'm doing (1.5 years after you provided these words of wisdom). I also want you to know that over the months since you wrote these posts on middleware that I have pointed others to them. Thank you for doing them. Jill Meredith,

When you first wrote these, I thought “how wonderful” and I saved the links in my Bloglines clipping folder. I want you to know that I’m now re-reading these posts because they are relevant to a project I’m doing (1.5 years after you provided these words of wisdom). I also want you to know that over the months since you wrote these posts on middleware that I have pointed others to them. Thank you for doing them.

Jill

]]> By: shpilman http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2005/04/04/the-failure-of-middleware-part-1-whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-41580 shpilman Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:54:47 +0000 /?p=193#comment-41580 Jeg hilser til klovnen. Jeg liker klovner veldig godt! Jeg har vört põ sirkus og sett klovner.

]]> By: Ryan http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2005/04/04/the-failure-of-middleware-part-1-whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-1698 Ryan Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:00:26 +0000 /?p=193#comment-1698 I think the issue goes beyond Google, and has more to do with librarian culture. Working in a public library, I can attest that to many people Google is not "easy" -- its a mess. Google is easy to students because they grew up with it, evolved with the Internet and have a group of bookmarks that have been trustworthy to them. To someone well-versed in tradition library thinking -- that is, they expect subject authority and control -- Google is just a frustration. This is not to slag Google -- I love Google -- just to say that "easy" is in the eye of the user. When I worked the desk, I always noticed how the reference interview often appeared to have one purpose -- find a call number corresponding to the pertinent subject area. This approach definitely has its advantages -- for instance, it supports "serendipitous searching" -- but it really presumed that the person in front of me would be learning something that fit into one of the LC (or Dewey) subject areas. But now there are a whole new group of people -- interdisciplinarians, cross-overs, knowledge synthesizers whose desired information not only crosses call numbers, but also requires a solid understanding of the culture of the discipline to go along with it. For instance, you can't just lead the English major to the HDs for an understanding of economics, because they need to understand what all those Greek letters stand for. And while the dictionaries and encyclopedias are helpful, they are often expensive for the amount people actually use them (and therefore often out of date) and they are sometimes too general to be helpful. I think a future model of information organization is anthro-institutional subject models. That is, subjects are not objective areas of study, but "artifacts" left by disciples belonging to various institutions. Google is already organized this way to a large degree. Consider the way URLs are structured -- the most standard tag is the .com, .org, .net, .ca, etc. -- these all represent broad institutions (the business world, not-for-profits, countries etc.) , not subject disciplines. The problem is that re-organizing LC is not something current libraries can afford to do en masse, so they are left somewhat making a choice between preserving the integrity of print materials or joining in on the electronic world. Most libraries do both and therefore fail to provide "perfect" service to their clients. But that's just my opinion on the whole thing. I think the issue goes beyond Google, and has more to do with librarian culture. Working
in a public library, I can attest that to many people Google is not “easy” — its a mess.
Google is easy to students because they grew up with it, evolved with the Internet and have
a group of bookmarks that have been trustworthy to them. To someone well-versed in tradition
library thinking — that is, they expect subject authority and control — Google is just
a frustration. This is not to slag Google — I love Google — just to say that “easy” is
in the eye of the user.

When I worked the desk, I always noticed how the reference interview often appeared to have one
purpose — find a call number corresponding to the pertinent subject area. This approach
definitely has its advantages — for instance, it supports “serendipitous searching” —
but it really presumed that the person in front of me would be learning something that
fit into one of the LC (or Dewey) subject areas.

But now there are a whole new group of people — interdisciplinarians, cross-overs, knowledge
synthesizers whose desired information not only crosses call numbers, but also requires
a solid understanding of the culture of the discipline to go along with it. For instance,
you can’t just lead the English major to the HDs for an understanding of economics, because
they need to understand what all those Greek letters stand for. And while the dictionaries
and encyclopedias are helpful, they are often expensive for the amount people actually use them
(and therefore often out of date) and they are sometimes too general to be helpful.

I think a future model of information organization is anthro-institutional subject models.
That is, subjects are not objective areas of study, but “artifacts” left by disciples
belonging to various institutions. Google is already organized this way to a large degree.
Consider the way URLs are structured — the most standard tag is the .com, .org, .net, .ca,
etc. — these all represent broad institutions (the business world, not-for-profits, countries etc.) , not subject disciplines.

The problem is that re-organizing LC is not something current libraries can afford to do en
masse, so they are left somewhat making a choice between preserving the integrity of print
materials or joining in on the electronic world. Most libraries do both and therefore fail to provide “perfect” service to their clients. But that’s just my opinion on the whole thing.

]]>