A single place or multiple places?

2. Weinberger writes on page 14 that the digital world allows us to transcend the fundamental rule of everything having its place because things can now be assigned multiple places simultaneously. This speaks to the very core of library current and continuing existence. What are libraries doing and/or need to do to transcend this fundamental rule in order to stay relevant to information users? Do libraries need to do anything at all?

I’m not going to buy multiple copies of a book just so I can put it on the shelf in every conceivable location where it might like to be found. I’m new to this field (librarianship) but I suspect almost no one does this.

What we already have in my library and I suspect in most libraries is an OPAC where we can have a single record that corresponds to a single resource but the record can be located using multiple access points. Therefore, even though the resource is a single physical item such as a book, a DVD, or even a digital computer file, the resource can be located in a variety of ways.

Having multiple access points is great but does create some of its own issues especially related to how the resource is cataloged. Let’s look at an example for subject entries for a particular record.

• The record might display too few subjects. This happens when a cataloger fails to enter subjects that the resource actually contains information on. An information seeker may search for a topic but not locate the resource because the catalog doesn’t contain the subject term although the resource itself does.
• The record might display too many subjects. This happens when a cataloger includes subjects that are not given proper treatment by the resource. This will cause a resource to show up in search results but then not provide value to the information seeker.

In both cases mentioned above, the record and the resource it refers to are less relevant to the information seeker than is desired.

My experience with other libraries is not enough to prescribe universal solutions but I know that in the library where I work our patrons would benefit from a systematic check-up of our database – especially for older or less common materials that were originally cataloged in-house in the past. I do sometimes try to update these records when I come across them, but it is often difficult to squeeze in such work along with regular duties.

Below is one such item from our catalog. Besides the fact that this item is probably a good candidate for weeding, it is lacking several things that we would like to see in every record:

• a summary so patrons can find it in a keyword search
• a cover image
• 3-5 authorized subjects (typically Sears)
• a book from 1911 that is not weeded may also benefit from some additional information that will help an information seeker know if it may be relevant to their needs.