Nobody on Star Trek ever reads a book: they get the computer to tell them anything they want to know, or to read to them, and we viewers stand amazed and in awe. Have we seen the future? And if so, will Google Books be the backbone of all that we have left in several hundred years?
"Google books: a Metadata Train wreck" is an article by Geoff Nunberg that has entered into the debate about Google books. The article, on the Language Log website is a response to the Google Books Settlement Conference and points out many examples of bad metadata mistakes on Google, which would be hilarious if the implications were not so drastic. Through the legal settlement Google now have exclusive rights to digitize any book in the world, yet the standards of their records need a lot of improvment, as Geoff's examples show.
An answer from Google's Jon Orwant is appropriately apologetic: Google are faced with a huge and difficult task. The issue seems to be, are their aims and motivation reconcilable with the needs of the scholarly community?
The debate as to whether libraries will survive is only touched on in the above dispute: Geoff seems to fear the death of libraries whilst Google maintain that they rely on libraries and librarians to provide their books and records. Whether or not the physical library still exists in the future I think the world should be a lot more grateful to Google Books for providing such a miraculous resource to our doorsteps. Librarians are too hung up on books as artifacts: what is most important is that they are repositories of knowledge and that we can find the knowledge or resource that we need where and when we want it. Google Books has been a miraculous gift to the world : I hope the quality of Google's records and metadata improves so the resource can be more of even more help to scholars than it currently is, and I hope that we can all continue to use it at relatively little expense. As for the future of libraries... can a machine replace a human? If a comparatively small number of very clever humans ("librarians" or otherwise,) design them and input all the information correctly, I think there is no question about it. How many single information managers in thousands of libraries would it take to support the number of queries that Google successfully answers each year?. How many to personally direct users to as many resources as a well designed internet portal such as BUBL? What librarian could update you on all your particular current affairs stories as fast as the feeds on your iGoogle page? Long live Google and may all of us who sail in her prosper!
"Google books: a Metadata Train wreck" is an article by Geoff Nunberg that has entered into the debate about Google books. The article, on the Language Log website is a response to the Google Books Settlement Conference and points out many examples of bad metadata mistakes on Google, which would be hilarious if the implications were not so drastic. Through the legal settlement Google now have exclusive rights to digitize any book in the world, yet the standards of their records need a lot of improvment, as Geoff's examples show.
An answer from Google's Jon Orwant is appropriately apologetic: Google are faced with a huge and difficult task. The issue seems to be, are their aims and motivation reconcilable with the needs of the scholarly community?
The debate as to whether libraries will survive is only touched on in the above dispute: Geoff seems to fear the death of libraries whilst Google maintain that they rely on libraries and librarians to provide their books and records. Whether or not the physical library still exists in the future I think the world should be a lot more grateful to Google Books for providing such a miraculous resource to our doorsteps. Librarians are too hung up on books as artifacts: what is most important is that they are repositories of knowledge and that we can find the knowledge or resource that we need where and when we want it. Google Books has been a miraculous gift to the world : I hope the quality of Google's records and metadata improves so the resource can be more of even more help to scholars than it currently is, and I hope that we can all continue to use it at relatively little expense. As for the future of libraries... can a machine replace a human? If a comparatively small number of very clever humans ("librarians" or otherwise,) design them and input all the information correctly, I think there is no question about it. How many single information managers in thousands of libraries would it take to support the number of queries that Google successfully answers each year?. How many to personally direct users to as many resources as a well designed internet portal such as BUBL? What librarian could update you on all your particular current affairs stories as fast as the feeds on your iGoogle page? Long live Google and may all of us who sail in her prosper!
Comments