<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Circulatable: a Librarian's Group</title>
	<atom:link href="http://circulatable.org/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://circulatable.org</link>
	<description>Because sometimes you need to trammel the editor and exorcise the rules of grammar...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:45:59 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Generation G by Steve</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=104&#038;cpage=1#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=104#comment-485</guid>
		<description>Dave, my guess (and it is at best a guess) is that your assumptions are correct. This also highlights a complicated licensing issue that would be negotiated between a company and a university.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, my guess (and it is at best a guess) is that your assumptions are correct. This also highlights a complicated licensing issue that would be negotiated between a company and a university.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Generation G by Dave</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=104&#038;cpage=1#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=104#comment-484</guid>
		<description>This comment is really a question: does a university (legal office) claim any &quot;ownership&quot; over the email that&#039;s kept in email systems supplied by the university? That is, is a proprietary email system (desktop plus web client) desirable from a legal point of view? Relocating an entire university&#039;s email to a company like Google would mean a forfeiture of any ownership or legal claims to the contents of anyone&#039;s email, right? I actually have no idea about this, but I feel like any email saved directly to a university-owned hard-drive or stored on university servers would be &quot;owned&quot; by the university, no? Or at least could be legally accessed by it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This comment is really a question: does a university (legal office) claim any &#8220;ownership&#8221; over the email that&#8217;s kept in email systems supplied by the university? That is, is a proprietary email system (desktop plus web client) desirable from a legal point of view? Relocating an entire university&#8217;s email to a company like Google would mean a forfeiture of any ownership or legal claims to the contents of anyone&#8217;s email, right? I actually have no idea about this, but I feel like any email saved directly to a university-owned hard-drive or stored on university servers would be &#8220;owned&#8221; by the university, no? Or at least could be legally accessed by it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on  by nate</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=102&#038;cpage=1#comment-463</link>
		<dc:creator>nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=102#comment-463</guid>
		<description>&quot;Reading between the lines, gentlemen, thereâ€™s an easy assumption that this time is near.&quot;

Well, I&#039;d say this time *is* near, but I&#039;d say &quot;near&quot; means &quot;within 30 years.&quot; I&#039;m saying that long-term, research is going to get easier, and the role of librarians as &quot;people who are really good at using Engineering Index&quot; won&#039;t continue forever. And we&#039;ll get new high school teachers within 30 years.

My main premise is that librarians *did* design card catalogs, which are very good at what they do within their technological limitations. Discovery tools *are* data. I&#039;m skeptical of the &quot;library as publisher&quot; concept, as libraries haven&#039;t been publishers, and anyhow, there are lots of publishers. However, we can still design and build new and better card catalogs; we just *aren&#039;t*. Well, except for Medline, which I love.

So... physical collections are one thing; I&#039;m more worried that we&#039;re ALSO leasing our discovery tools. Or, more exactly, the data behind our discovery tools.

Libstats and the Bibapp were both essentially built because, well, it was in Wendt&#039;s interest to do so even without larger collaboration.

And... enjoy Libstats!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Reading between the lines, gentlemen, thereâ€™s an easy assumption that this time is near.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, I&#8217;d say this time *is* near, but I&#8217;d say &#8220;near&#8221; means &#8220;within 30 years.&#8221; I&#8217;m saying that long-term, research is going to get easier, and the role of librarians as &#8220;people who are really good at using Engineering Index&#8221; won&#8217;t continue forever. And we&#8217;ll get new high school teachers within 30 years.</p>
<p>My main premise is that librarians *did* design card catalogs, which are very good at what they do within their technological limitations. Discovery tools *are* data. I&#8217;m skeptical of the &#8220;library as publisher&#8221; concept, as libraries haven&#8217;t been publishers, and anyhow, there are lots of publishers. However, we can still design and build new and better card catalogs; we just *aren&#8217;t*. Well, except for Medline, which I love.</p>
<p>So&#8230; physical collections are one thing; I&#8217;m more worried that we&#8217;re ALSO leasing our discovery tools. Or, more exactly, the data behind our discovery tools.</p>
<p>Libstats and the Bibapp were both essentially built because, well, it was in Wendt&#8217;s interest to do so even without larger collaboration.</p>
<p>And&#8230; enjoy Libstats!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on  by Dave</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=102&#038;cpage=1#comment-462</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=102#comment-462</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d pause a moment (Enter the brontosaurus) and reconsider this phrase: &quot;Teaching information literacy will be relevant only until incoming students have better information literacy skills than our instructional staff.&quot; 

Reading between the lines, gentlemen, there&#039;s an easy assumption that this time is near. 

As someone who teaches information literacy, I don&#039;t see it improving independently in its skin, and in fact I see very serious flaws in the understanding of our youngest students about how to look, where to look, and what to do. We assume that researchers who are &quot;born digital&quot; - that is, born after 1990, say - are excellent &quot;born digital&quot; scholars, which is a false assumption. We cannot depend on high school teachers to catch them up; we can&#039;t depend on them for grammar or composition, so why depend on them for information literacy?

I agree that librarians need to develop (an active verb) products, in the way that academic scientists and engineers develop products, but development (active noun) requires education for our users as well, and not a simple assumption that our users are skilled because they used to love to play Halo 8 and they have a MySpace page or whatever. And there is serious hubris in dependence on Google Scholar, at this point anyway.

One of the very real values of our physical collections is that we own them, as opposed to Nate&#039;s point that we lease digital products. But development is not a return to a lost role of the librarian. Librarians built collections that we own, yes, and we still do (dinosaurs roam the Earth, my friends). Librarians did not traditionally design the delivery mechanisms for these collections - the discovery tools yes, but delivery, no. The book, the bindery, the microfilm, came from elsewhere. The card catalog, alas, was ours.

Steve implies, I think, that the CIC needs to dedicate funds and - by extension - people-hours to the development of new products, and to do so cooperatively. I think this is a radical new model, not a return to something that &quot;librarians did for centuries.&quot; Maybe I&#039;m off-base here? 

I&#039;m curious to know: Is that how LibStats was developed? (By the way, my library is poised to adopt that product! Mazel tov!) Is that how BibApps was developed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d pause a moment (Enter the brontosaurus) and reconsider this phrase: &#8220;Teaching information literacy will be relevant only until incoming students have better information literacy skills than our instructional staff.&#8221; </p>
<p>Reading between the lines, gentlemen, there&#8217;s an easy assumption that this time is near. </p>
<p>As someone who teaches information literacy, I don&#8217;t see it improving independently in its skin, and in fact I see very serious flaws in the understanding of our youngest students about how to look, where to look, and what to do. We assume that researchers who are &#8220;born digital&#8221; &#8211; that is, born after 1990, say &#8211; are excellent &#8220;born digital&#8221; scholars, which is a false assumption. We cannot depend on high school teachers to catch them up; we can&#8217;t depend on them for grammar or composition, so why depend on them for information literacy?</p>
<p>I agree that librarians need to develop (an active verb) products, in the way that academic scientists and engineers develop products, but development (active noun) requires education for our users as well, and not a simple assumption that our users are skilled because they used to love to play Halo 8 and they have a MySpace page or whatever. And there is serious hubris in dependence on Google Scholar, at this point anyway.</p>
<p>One of the very real values of our physical collections is that we own them, as opposed to Nate&#8217;s point that we lease digital products. But development is not a return to a lost role of the librarian. Librarians built collections that we own, yes, and we still do (dinosaurs roam the Earth, my friends). Librarians did not traditionally design the delivery mechanisms for these collections &#8211; the discovery tools yes, but delivery, no. The book, the bindery, the microfilm, came from elsewhere. The card catalog, alas, was ours.</p>
<p>Steve implies, I think, that the CIC needs to dedicate funds and &#8211; by extension &#8211; people-hours to the development of new products, and to do so cooperatively. I think this is a radical new model, not a return to something that &#8220;librarians did for centuries.&#8221; Maybe I&#8217;m off-base here? </p>
<p>I&#8217;m curious to know: Is that how LibStats was developed? (By the way, my library is poised to adopt that product! Mazel tov!) Is that how BibApps was developed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on  by Steve</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=102&#038;cpage=1#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=102#comment-460</guid>
		<description>Nate, excellent point all around. I recently read a post by Lorcan Dempsey in which he &lt;a href=&quot;http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/001279.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviewed a paper on cyberinfrastructure&lt;/a&gt;. He pointed out that there are opportunities at the consortium level for supporting the kind of infrastructure we need to do this. For us it means getting the CIC to cooperate on these issues.

We can definitely do this...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nate, excellent point all around. I recently read a post by Lorcan Dempsey in which he <a href="http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/001279.html" rel="nofollow">reviewed a paper on cyberinfrastructure</a>. He pointed out that there are opportunities at the consortium level for supporting the kind of infrastructure we need to do this. For us it means getting the CIC to cooperate on these issues.</p>
<p>We can definitely do this&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Abstractness, FRBR by Can something be abstract and not have the property of being abstract? &#124; Off the Mark</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=95&#038;cpage=1#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>Can something be abstract and not have the property of being abstract? &#124; Off the Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:01:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=95#comment-447</guid>
		<description>[...] Steve at Circulatable offers some comments on their paper in a post entitled, &#8220;Abstractness, FRBR.&#8221; I really should leave it to Allan and Yunseon to reply themselves, and maybe they will. I don&#8217;t remember if it is one of their papers or if it only came out in the discussion at ASIS&amp;T, but one of the issues they knew would arise immediately is object-oriented programmers bringing in their idea of inheritance. These two forms of inheritance are not the same. In object-oriented programming it is my understanding that one gets to stipulate inheritance, in philosophy you do not. But those issues are beyond me at the moment. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Steve at Circulatable offers some comments on their paper in a post entitled, &#8220;Abstractness, FRBR.&#8221; I really should leave it to Allan and Yunseon to reply themselves, and maybe they will. I don&#8217;t remember if it is one of their papers or if it only came out in the discussion at ASIS&#38;T, but one of the issues they knew would arise immediately is object-oriented programmers bringing in their idea of inheritance. These two forms of inheritance are not the same. In object-oriented programming it is my understanding that one gets to stipulate inheritance, in philosophy you do not. But those issues are beyond me at the moment. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Abstractness, FRBR by The FRBR Blog</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=95&#038;cpage=1#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>The FRBR Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=95#comment-446</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Another one on Renear and Choi...&lt;/strong&gt;

A chap who just goes by &#8220;Steve&#8221; posted Abstractness, FRBR on the Circulatable blog, in which he comments on that paper by Renear and Choi that people have been pondering.
......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Another one on Renear and Choi&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>A chap who just goes by &#8220;Steve&#8221; posted Abstractness, FRBR on the Circulatable blog, in which he comments on that paper by Renear and Choi that people have been pondering.<br />
&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A book is not forever by Steve</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=94&#038;cpage=1#comment-445</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:02:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=94#comment-445</guid>
		<description>This article illustrates to me the fact that librarians are poor at communicating what we do with our collections and services. The librarians interviewed should have impressed upon the the article&#039;s author the significance of our modern solution to &quot;aggregating the long tail&quot; as the information scarcity problem is beginning to be called: Interlibrary Loan. 

We deal with the demand for scarcity by participating in consortial, regional and national borrowing systems. It is not all doom and gloom for rarely requested titles. We can still get the materials if they are requested. And I would expect that a library who pays as much attention to circulation stats as the article suggests would also say, &quot;Hmm, this has been requested through ILL 3 times this month. Wouldn&#039;t it be cheaper to buy a copy?&quot;

The thing that boils my blood is the closing quote: &quot;That&#039;s the English major in me.&quot; This, I think, risks alienating the majority of the public and importantly the people who control a library&#039;s budget because the majority of people were not English majors. It is blatant fiefdomism and quite frankly librarians are extremely vulnerable when the step into that kind of a fight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article illustrates to me the fact that librarians are poor at communicating what we do with our collections and services. The librarians interviewed should have impressed upon the the article&#8217;s author the significance of our modern solution to &#8220;aggregating the long tail&#8221; as the information scarcity problem is beginning to be called: Interlibrary Loan. </p>
<p>We deal with the demand for scarcity by participating in consortial, regional and national borrowing systems. It is not all doom and gloom for rarely requested titles. We can still get the materials if they are requested. And I would expect that a library who pays as much attention to circulation stats as the article suggests would also say, &#8220;Hmm, this has been requested through ILL 3 times this month. Wouldn&#8217;t it be cheaper to buy a copy?&#8221;</p>
<p>The thing that boils my blood is the closing quote: &#8220;That&#8217;s the English major in me.&#8221; This, I think, risks alienating the majority of the public and importantly the people who control a library&#8217;s budget because the majority of people were not English majors. It is blatant fiefdomism and quite frankly librarians are extremely vulnerable when the step into that kind of a fight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A book is not forever by Steve</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=94&#038;cpage=1#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=94#comment-444</guid>
		<description>Dave, I am not sure I understand your meaning. What makes you conservative? Because you take the &quot;well, duh&quot; attitude, or because you are appalled by basic weeding?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, I am not sure I understand your meaning. What makes you conservative? Because you take the &#8220;well, duh&#8221; attitude, or because you are appalled by basic weeding?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on PaperRSS trails by RSS4Lib</title>
		<link>http://circulatable.org/?p=86&#038;cpage=1#comment-443</link>
		<dc:creator>RSS4Lib</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:56:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://circulatable.org/?p=86#comment-443</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Open Scholarship with RSS...&lt;/strong&gt;

Jeremy Keith wrote some time ago about &quot;Streaming my life away -- where he talks about the possibility of integrating RSS streams from all the various tools he uses. He calls this new mix a &quot;life stream&quot; and provides an......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Open Scholarship with RSS&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Jeremy Keith wrote some time ago about &#8220;Streaming my life away &#8212; where he talks about the possibility of integrating RSS streams from all the various tools he uses. He calls this new mix a &#8220;life stream&#8221; and provides an&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
