Meeting Users’ Needs in Cataloging: What is the Right Thing to Do?

Hoffman, Gretchen L.

doi:10.1080/01639370903111999

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although research on the use of BiblioCommons specifically is relatively scarce, much literature exists on the presence of discovery tools in libraries. In general, library and information science literature considers introducing discovery tools into public libraries a positive development (see, e.g., Anttiroiko & Savolainen 2011;Cahill 2011;Calhoun, Cantrell, Gallagher, & Hawk, 2009;Deodato, 2014;Hoffman, 2009;Pecoskie, Spiteri, & Tarulli, 2014;Spiteri, 2012). Carlin and Donlan (2007), for example, highlight a benefit of discovery tools in comparison with OPACs:…”

Section: Discovery Tools Discovery Tools: the Upsidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, discovery tools emerged because the traditional library catalogue has a fundamental flaw: cataloguers do not get a chance to know their users and therefore cannot adapt the catalogue to better serve them (Deodato, 2014;Hoffman, 2009;Spiteri, 2012). This is problematic because "helping users by organizing materials and providing access to information is a fundamental purpose of librarianship and cataloging" (Hoffman, 2009, p. 632).…”

Section: Discovery Tools Discovery Tools: the Upsidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is problematic because "helping users by organizing materials and providing access to information is a fundamental purpose of librarianship and cataloging" (Hoffman, 2009, p. 632). As many scholars have argued, even if it were possible to create a catalogue that would better meet the needs of library patrons, the time and money required makes such an achievement highly unlikely (Anttiroiko & Savolainen, 2011;Cahill, 2011;Calhoun et al, 2009;Deodato, 2014;Hoffman, 2009;Spiteri, 2012). Therefore, the popularity of discovery tools like BiblioCommons is largely due to the improved services they provide to library users, without the library having to take on the task of developing such systems itself.…”

Section: Discovery Tools Discovery Tools: the Upsidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

BiblioComprehension

Schumilas¹,

Anderson²,

Ottewell³

et al. 2018

elip

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, public libraries are incorporating interactive, collaborative, and user-centred social discovery tools into traditional library services with the goal of better serving their patrons. These tools are designed to encourage communication and interaction between library patrons and staff by providing a platform for patrons to evaluate, comment on, create, and share personalized lists of their favourite items in a library’s collection. BiblioCommons is one example of a discovery tool that has been embraced by public libraries and their patrons to this end. Yet, while tools such as BiblioCommons offer many benefits to library patrons, relying on these tools to deliver core library services may violate patron privacy and confidentiality. Using the American Library Association Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Rights as a framework, we explore the websites of Canadian public libraries that use BiblioCommons to discover how these libraries communicate privacy concerns associated with the use of this service to their patrons. Based on our findings, we argue that libraries are largely failing in their ethical responsibility to alert patrons to the privacy and confidentiality concerns associated with BiblioCommons.

show abstract

Section: Discovery Tools Discovery Tools: the Upsidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discovery Tools Discovery Tools: the Upsidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discovery Tools Discovery Tools: the Upsidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

BiblioComprehension

Schumilas¹,

Anderson²,

Ottewell³

et al. 2018

elip

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Hoffman (2009), library and information science standards started to move toward the usercentered paradigm in research and practice with contributions from researchers such as Paisley (1968), Allen (1969) and Zweizig (1976) shifting the paradigm within library and information science from systems and standards to users. This interest in user-centered practices and theories also affected the way that libraries were physically organized and a wide range of practices and arrangements were embraced under the reader-interest or user-centered umbrella.…”

Section: Reader-interest Classifications During the 1970s And The Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Reader-interest Classifications: An Alternative Arrangement for Libraries

Martínez-Ávila¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a wellestablished presence and common characteristics in the knowledge organization literature for more than half a century. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. The use of reader-interest classification related terms and references drastically declined since 1995, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day such as those of implementation of BISAC in American public libraries. The present paper attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

show abstract

“…However, no studies of users were involved in defining those tasks. 36 Another concern is the high cost of implementing RDA. RDA Toolkit is offered as an annual subscription with a base price for two or more users of $380.…”

Section: Controversy Over Rdamentioning

confidence: 99%

Resource Description and Access (RDA)

Zabel¹,

Miller²

2011

Reference &Amp; User Services Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new cataloging code, Resource Description and Access (RDA) was published in June 2010 and has been undergoing tests at select libraries. RDA is a departure from its predecessor, the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, second edition (AACR2), in that it was designed for the online environment, is more principles-based, and better accommodates formats other than print. Liz Miller has been following the development of RDA for a few years and has presented on the topic twice at the New Mexico Library Association Conference. I was delighted when she approached me about writing an article on RDA, one geared to the noncataloger. In this column, reference librarians will learn why RDA was developed, what differences they will see, and how RDA contributes to a new world of library information.-Editor

show abstract

Meeting Users’ Needs in Cataloging: What is the Right Thing to Do?

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

BiblioComprehension

BiblioComprehension

Reader-interest Classifications: An Alternative Arrangement for Libraries

Resource Description and Access (RDA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About