Comments on: Why I feel so strongly about redundant digitization

By: Tozier

Tozier — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:57:39 +0000

I haven’t read Harris, no. Suggest a particular work?

By: CStanford

CStanford — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:20:27 +0000

This takes me back to the thought and discussions I had about this at library school. Have you read the South African archivist Verne Harris? If not, you should.

Thanks for re-kindling these ideas in my mind!

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:15:27 +0000

Bill, I can just imagine you doing cataloging of all of these unique items for the Tozier Collection, and being *completely unable* to do copy-cataloging of MARC records. Yes, we have that – oh, but it’s slightly different – time to create a new unique record.

LibraryThing has a useful notion of a Work, which is some amalgam of all of the versions of a book, including the badly edited ones and the 4th edition that was recalled because of a horrific typo. And all of the translations into Volapuk.

By: Digital

Digital — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:58:44 +0000

I agree with you up to the point of blurring fact. Endless redundent copys of the same material bring more detail to our archives of knowlage.

It is true, and you raise a great point about the over-reliance and unquestioning of books/documents/ect… however, the FACT that is contained in them must be preserved. Changing the meaning of a document for a laugh is damaging to the whole of knowlage.

Obviously there are many who don’t give a damn, but I’d never go so far as condoning their actions.

By: Ken Muldrew

Ken Muldrew — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:20:29 +0000

Word!!!

By: World of Science News : Blog Archive : Print and Misprint [A Blog Around The Clock]

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:11:46 +0000

[...] Reading of the day: Why I feel so strongly about redundant digitization Read the comments on this [...]

By: John Weise

John Weise — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:28:32 +0000

Enjoyed the post. A tool for exploring differences would be a good time. Sometimes great complexity would be revealed, and other times nothing. And then there is the question of just how new is the new edition of Introduction to Chemistry after all?