Cataloging and Web 2.0

By Elaine Peterson

Outline

• Traditional cataloging • Web 2.0 and folksonomies, etc.• Can we have both?

“One gathers, collects, and shares resources, making the organization of databases and websites crucial. Items that are different or strange can become a barrier to networking.”Peterson, www.dlib.org (November 2006)

Typical Catalog Display

Traditional Cataloging

• Strengths & Weaknesses: * Detailed, powerful searching capabilities* Restrictive (exclusionary) & hierarchical* Costly* One objective viewpoint, but only one

viewpoint * Not interactive

www.oreillynet.com

Web 2.0

• Web 1.0 Brittanica online • Web 2.0 Wikipedia

• Web 1.0 directories (taxonomy)• Web 2.0 tagging (folksonomy)

• Web 1.0 personal websites• Web 2.0 blogging

//flickr.com

Folksonomy

• Interactive• Multiple viewpoints (cultural, linguistic)• Relativism (not exclusive)• Inexpensive

Why interact with patrons?

• Sense of ownership• Innovation amongst themselves and

between repositories• Give us feedback about our work and how

our sites work• Our data will be placed into new contexts

and expand its use

Both systems?

• Use standard cataloging, but encourage interaction with patrons.

• Three examples:* Minnesota Arts Institute * Purdue University E-Scholar* MSU Indian Peoples image database

www.artsmia.org

www.artsmia.org

//e-scholar.lib.purdue.edu

www.lib.montana.edu/epubs/nadb

Conclusions

• Maintain cataloging standards, but encourage interactivity.

• Interact with the personal (blogs, folksonomy), but keep separate from the organization of repository collections.

• Allow for multiple access points to heritage collections such as libraries & museums.