|Subject:||[gfsd] dairy cattle|
|Date:||Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:11:48 -0700|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Windows/20060909)|
These are of course major issues for research libraries everywhere. The report notes that the 'vast majority' of users will state that Google has a 'sparse selection of literature'.
I had seen mention of it before but had not tried it. This is a potentially useful service: it will be interesting to see if it lasts.
The Flickr staging post puts the entry process closer to the user flow, as potential users may already be familiar with it, and it provides other relevent services. This is done for purposes of searching, browsing, discovery, translation, mapping, semantic reasoning, subject indexing and classification, harvesting, alerting etc. Users tended not to turn to librarians for support in the search phase; they are most likely to ask for assistance in the retrieval phase. CURL, for non-UK readers, is the consortium of research libraries in the UK and Ireland.
"The Zotero sensors should work with most library catalogs, some popular dot-coms such as Amazon, and many gated databases. The second was that they were not seen as having academic expertise. They are working towards a wider range of 'research support services' of which the institutional repository may be a part, and towards a new sense of discovery in a very changed network world. I found it strange that the report's focus is one potential answer to this set of issues, rather than the issues themselves and a range of possible answers.
Indeed, institutions are already investing significant amounts in locally developed solutions given market failures, which leads to redundant effort.
This is not meant as a summary; it is a very selective sampling.
Given this distinction they argue that it is unlikely that the type of software they discuss - complex administrative systems - will be addressed by the community model. It utilizes a host of web services, including many from OCLC, and will take several paths depending on what it finds at various stages.
It utilizes a host of web services, including many from OCLC, and will take several paths depending on what it finds at various stages. This is not meant as a summary; it is a very selective sampling. This is a very helpful piece of work which reviews a variety of approaches.
Unless, again, it is qualified in use. It will be based on a database of people and organisations with records contributed from a variety of sources including the Australian Name Authority File.
Library staff tend to be disappointed that the drive-in users do not make use of other services; not unsurprisingly, they 'express delight' about library enthusiasts.
In one followup workshop, the idea of a personal contact for each unit was welcomed. User reviews were seen as less useful than expert reviews.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|