淡江即將舉辦研討會「2005圖書館管理研討會:探索圖書資訊虛實服務的平衡點」http://163.13.32.107/2005conference.htm,議程也已出來,近日針對了講者開始做些功課,第一場的講者是香港大學圖書館的館長Tony Ferguson,他同時在AGAINST THE GRAIN(http://www.against-the-grain.com/)裡有個專欄. 今天看了篇他的專欄,題目是「It's the Web , Stupid」 (這就是網路啊!笨東西),光看題名就能想像文字該有趣輕鬆,看了看言也有物,蠻期待他的演講呢…!!!


以下是我翻的他的簡介:
Tony Ferguson, 香港大學圖書館館長
Tony Ferguson至香港大學服務已有四年時間,之前曾於哥倫比亞大學任職達十六年,並統籌館藏發展事務。更早之前則任職過德州A&M 和Brigham Young大學圖書館。Tony擁有哥倫比亞教師學院的教育學博士學位,專長於學術管理與比較教育方面。他同時有政治學和圖書館學碩士背景。於圖書館學議題上有著豐富的著作與演說,特別是圖書館方面的數位資訊與服務,目前在Against the Grain有固定專欄。

翻譯如下:

It's the Web , Stupid by Tony Ferguson

出處:http://www.against-the-grain.com/v%5B1%5D.17_3Backtalk.pdf

I am frequently fond of reminding myself and others, as stated by the now nearly forgotten American Vice President Al Gore, “It’s the Web, stupid.” That is, in our context, librarians don’t get carried away thinking that you library defines the informational world of your user community. Whereas in the dark, dim, past (i.e., 40 years ago when I was an undergraduate) a student’s information world might have been defined by two feet of paperbacks they owned, the few books they could borrow from their teachers and classmates,and mainly what was in their institution’s library, today’s student is just a few keystrokes away from millions of pages of information freely available on the Web.

經常喜歡提醒我自己和其它人,現在快被人遺忘的美國前副總統高爾所說的「這是網路!笨東西!!」。這句話在我們的思惟裡,圖書館員並沒有去認真的思考你的圖書館如何對你的使用者來定義這個目前的資訊世界。在以前那個黑暗深沉的過去(就像四十年前我還是個研究生時),一個學生的資訊世界可是只是他們有的平裝本、或他們從他們老師和同學和機構的圖書館能借到的書,今日的學生只要按下幾個按鍵,就在網路上免費的找到數以萬計的資料。

A different implication of the “it’s the Web,stupid” way of thinking is that unless your students and faculty can get to your library’s digital resources via the open Web, they are all invisible. Since most of us are spending millions of dollars on this invisible content, this observation is a damning indictment of all of our efforts. To counter this vision of reality, some library and information professionals have decided that we need to put library content out on the Web for their students to find. They put their content, together with typical librarian generated metadata (sounds more scientific than personal and corporate author, title and subject headings), out on the Web and get the major search engines to harvest it and hope the readers will take the bait and get turned back toward the library. The major example of this is Open First Search. OCLC has identified a huge selection of the most commonly held library books and put information about these books out on the Web to be harvested by Google and Yahoo. Statistics for this program, Open First Search, demonstrate that thousands of Web searchers looking for quick answers are clicking on this information about library books along with the hundreds and thousands of items that they can click on after putting their subject in the search box. Time will tell whether this is truly a successful effort. The question is, will Web readers be happy to learn about a book and then take the time to go to their local library — or will they simply click to the next source that provides instant full text to be read and used?

一個”這是網路啊,笨蛋”不同的意涵可以闡釋為除非你們的學生和工作人員能由園放的網路上取得你們圖書館的資源,要不然他們是全部不會出現的。自從大部份的我們花了一大堆的錢在這些看不見的資料上,這種現象就像成了詛咒一樣的控訴著我們的努力。針對這種現象,一些圖書館和資訊專業人員決水我們需要把圖書館的資料拿出來放在網路上讓這些學生來查找。他們把他們的內容資料,以典型的館員通用的metadataln 以群聚資料(這樣聽起來比用作者、題名和主題標目要來得科學吧)放在網路上,並讓大型的搜尋引擎來探勘到他們,希望讀者能就這樣吞下餌並乖乖的回到圖書館的懷抱。最明顯的例子是Open First Sersh。OCLC把很多圖書館館藏的資訊都放在網路上,並讓Google和Yahoo進行探戡。對這個計劃做了統計, Open First Search計劃,証明了數以千計的網路上查找資訊的人是尋求一個只要把他們想要的主題key到他們的搜尋列並點一下,然後又快又多答案的項目/書本就能出現。時間會証明這是不是成功的努力。問題是,網路上的讀者真的會快樂的從這些書裡學習並起身到附近的圖書館嗎?或是他們只要簡單的點一下找另一個資源,真能立即提供全文能讓他們閱讀和使用的?

Another twist to the “it’s the Web, stupid”way of thinking is the thought that since a shared consortial catalogue can be accessed by the Web,local OPAC’s can be trimmed down in size or perhaps even done away with. For example, if the shared catalogue allows author, title, subject and key word access, why should every individual library have and pay for its own OPAC? Similarly, if all members of the consortia can enter serials and monographic acquisitions information, or circulation data, on the shared catalogue, why should all the member libraries of the consortium maintain and pay for their own catalogues? Some might answer this question by simply noting that local practices differ so widely that each library would want their own catalogue. Yet many systems allow branch libraries to maintain differing practices and in any event — how much is such freedom worth?

一個”這是網路啊,笨東西」的腦力激盪是自從在網路上分享的聯合目錄能提供查檢以來,當地的公用目錄系統就該可以進行縮小規模或是乾脆廢除算了。舉例來說,如果分享的目錄能以作者、題名、主題和關鍵字來查尋,為什麼每個圖書館還要付費來買他們自已的公用目錄系統?簡單些說好了,如果所有的聯合目錄的成員可以在共用的目錄裡輸入主題性徵集的資料,或是流通資料,為什麼所有的圖書館成員要為了維護並且為了他們擁有的目錄而付錢? 有些人可能很輕易的回答說因地方各有不同,所以他們需要他們自已的目錄。但是很多系統也是用在不同地方的分館裡-這種自由是要付出多少代價呢?
續~
創作者介紹

梁董的吧台後

arshloh 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()


留言列表 (1)

發表留言
  • 宏明
  • 5 之前去香港辦研討會時的那場 也有請他來講 還滿活耀的一個館<br />
    長 還會說點廣東話 也有中文名字<br />
找更多相關文章與討論