The text is tiny, though, so I’ll have to play with it. I’ll also try and make the comment box larger, but they both have to wait. My brain is not up to it. In fact, it is starting to really hurt so I’m going to step away from this machine that I’ve been enslaved to most of the day.

I’m going to have to get back to you on your real content. Soon I hope. I’m really pretty wore out from today. Even though I feel bad I went to Metadata Roundtable. Probably should’ve just stayed home.

I’ve also been struggling with my CV, which is a whole ‘nuther ball of sickness for me.

I”ll look into the comment box preview and size issues. I agree that both would be nice. I’ll take a look at Jessamyn and see what she’s got and maybe a few others and ask what they’re using. I don’t think WP has anything much I can do by default, but I’ll look there 1st.

I don’t like making Socrates self-references because it seems kind of pretentious, to say the least, but I’m really down with his idea of not knowing anything. And the older I get the more I “get it.”

Of course, he had an oracular reputation to live up (or down). Me, not so much.

The struggle to keep learning is tough. Especially with so much to learn anymore. I know it’s getting me down quite a bit lately but I’ll manage to pull through; especially as I (very slowly) grow more comfortable with the knowledge that there is no way I can even learn the things I’m interested in.

*Collins, H. (2004). Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3, 125-143.
P.S. – could you make the comment box bigger? and/or let us preview? TIA

Growing older has taught me that there are more and more things out there about which I know less and less. After spending a few weeks trying to mess around with Greenstone, I can tell you that I know almost nothing about database structures, linguistics, computer science, etc., etc.

And yeah, I wish more people would admit that they don’t know much, either–and I wish we learned more in library school.

Sigh.

(I know, I know–I should just take the learning upon myself–but realistically speaking, that’s not going t happen any time soon.)

You never make me feel that way, Mark. I just didn’t want to disrespect your excellent and thoughtful and completely correct post by taking it off-topic.

The library world needs more people like you.

Ok, Peace Out!

Thus, it’s probably more accurate to say I’m incapable of addressing those issues at the moment than that I don’t want to.

As it is, I seem to be physically ill again this morning. Connection, you think? I do. At the moment, the only answer I can come up with to stop this cycle is to leave. I just don’t know what else there is to do.

Just please don’t apologize to me for what you care about!!!

Well, hon, as usual, you’ve started a conversation, and I’ve jumped off on a tangent of my own. I don’t want to hijack your topic, so I’ll just quickly say that I was alluding to what some ALA round tables and task forces occupy their time and resources with. SRRT, HHPTF, GLBT-RT, and the like. They fight for social justice, 1st Amendment freedoms, running libraries like the educational facilities they should be (and began as) rather than the entertainment facilities they’re turning into. But these entities are constantly accused of occupying their time with “non-library issues.” I heard it in Library school; I read it on blogs. But in my opinion, these issues are at the heart of what is going wrong in librarianship today. We must first repair these problems, and if/when we do, many of the others will go away.

But like I said, I’ve hijacked your topic. I’m sorry about that.

As far as library literature goes, I wasn’t complaining because it doesn’t read like Dickens. I was saying that too much of what’s being published today doesn’t–in my opinion–remotely address what’s really going wrong with libraries (and librarians).

The ones that do are being published by presses like Library Juice, See Sharp, and AK. These works aren’t showing up in library school.

I’ll offer some of my favorites who are though: Berman, Buschman, Gorman, Shera, Asheim. Too often however (and I’m not including our favorite teacher here), these men are treated as old fogies.

You wrote:
“Seriously. There’s just not a lot out there today that stimulates, or moves, or informs. At least there isn’t in regards to library “science.” There’s tons of literature out there that offers valid solutions to these problems, but they aren’t considered articles that actually address “library issues.””

First off, I’m not exactly sure what you are claiming here, specifically, which issues aren’t library issues but are solutions to our problems?

As for the “stimulates, or moves, or informs” comment … well, not generally. Lib lit (nor probably any other professional literature) is *not* quality literature ala Steinbeck, Zola, or … pick one.

But to be honest, and not to pick on you because I had had scores of students, librarians, and a few faculty members make the same claim, but I am sick and tired of this claim.

Sure, much of what gets published is crap. But there is some absolutely amazing stuff out there! At least in my areas of interest. Do I read some mediocre stuff? Sure. But I try to avoid crap. Do I sometimes mercilessly pick on an author in my little write-ups? Sure. But they certainly moved me, whether or not I think they’re full of it.

But to the topic at hand (LC Wkg Gp), the subject matter is narrower than the literature as a whole, although still quite broad. And there is quite a lot out there–a good 50-60 years worth in some cases.

User studies exist, indexing studies of various kinds, efficiency & efficacy (quality) of metadata crosswalking, mapping of vocabularies, and on and on regarding many of the statements of “user ecology,” comments and “solutions” that got thrown around during the meetings.

Many of these have flaws, methodological issues, etc. Some of this needs to be redone, some needs to be done for the 1st time.

Yes, OCLC Terminology Services has done a fair amount of mapping of indexing languages and classification schemes. But for Calhoun to just say that perhaps OCLC can do more and then we can use this stuff automatically to do assignment of subject headings or classification numbers is insane (without real, large-scale studies that show how effective and that the community can agree is acceptable).

But we use these tools every day and we know how frail they truly are. Sure, they do a decent job of pointing us in the right direction, but we still need to use real human judgement to ensure those are the correct class #s and/or subject headings for the item in hand.

Despite my widespread misgivings just 2-3 years ago even, I do feel that much can and needs to be automated. Some can be fully automated, and more can be semi-automated. But we need empirical evidence for what works–how well, how frequently, exception cases, at what cost, ….

There is a lot of literature out there on some of these things. There is even enough of it that there are overview and lit review articles available in places like ARIST.

I have read, at a minimum, 40 articles on mapping vocabularies. Some are purely theoretical, some have actually done the hard work on some scale. Almost no one makes the claim that it is easy OR cheap. In fact, most & particularly those who have done the actual mapping, claim that it is excruciatingly hard, tedious and quite costly. There is some work showing that it can be partially automated, but that it still needs human judgement. Automation helps but does not “fix” the hard problems.

I could go on and on about all these areas.

Back to Nathan’s question about just who it is I’m mad at. Lots of folks, but perhaps I’m mostly mad at myself. If I only knew more. If I only had some real experience at some of these things. (As you know, I have some experience at a lot of them, but very minimal.) If only I believed in myself more. If only I could be as hubristic as some of these folks. Then I’d be in their faces reminding them that they aren’t quite as knowledgeable as they seem to think about some of these things.

But I’m young in this profession. I’ve read an immense amount and done a very little. In my own personal estimation I do not have the qualifications to do so. I would laugh myself out of the room.

Anyway, back to your main point as I take it. Yes, a lot of our literature is crap. I maintain that many professions is, too. Much of it is of little relevance to me (for now). Nonetheless, I do maintain that there is a lot of amazing stuff in our lit. And I do go outside our field for a lot of what I read. But I don’t really care so much for disciplinary borders. Nor do I necessarily think that this stuff is not LIS.

As you know, I reading LOTS of Roy Harris, thanks to David Bade. It’s linguistics and philosophy and history, basically. And it is LIS. Language(s) and the use of language(s) are our foundation. Without language we have no recorded knowledge. How is it NOT LIS?

Lots of the more current indexing & retrieval and related stuff is in computer science. So? It is LIS.

Disciplinary walls are political entities that need to be learnt so that one may bypass, subvert, ignore or respect them based on one’s purpose of the moment. My purposes are myriad, but they are rarely to maintain the political status quo of any discipline. That’s not a game I play.