<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Andrew Pace&#8217;s Top Tech Trends</title>
	<atom:link href="http://litablog.org/2005/06/29/andrew-paces-top-tech-trends/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://litablog.org/2005/06/29/andrew-paces-top-tech-trends/</link>
	<description>Library and Information Technology Association</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NSW Health Librarian :: Subversive thoughts on Library Catalogues :: July :: 2005</title>
		<link>http://litablog.org/2005/06/29/andrew-paces-top-tech-trends/comment-page-1/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator>NSW Health Librarian :: Subversive thoughts on Library Catalogues :: July :: 2005</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litablog.org/?p=87#comment-157</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;ll put it down to all the subversive things I&#8217;ve been reading, but I&#8217;m finding I&#8217;m more and more in agreement wtih Andrew Pace, who writes in his posting on the LITA Blog that they still need to do better. My particular beef at the moment is with the subject headings used by our current catalogue, which can look like &#8221; People with disabilities&#8211;Services for&#8211;Australia&#8211;Evaluation&#8221;. I&#8217;m wondering why I can&#8217;t just use a controlled vocabularly with multiple entries, rather as things are indexed in Medline. I&#8217;m also struggling with why we&#8217;re still using catalogues to describe the physical attributes of an item &#8220;49 p. ; 30 cm.&#8221;, rather than describing what&#8217;s in the item. And putting a picture of the cover and a proper abstract and / or contents pages. And the ability for patrons to write reviews. Or see what others who borrowed this book also borrowed. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;ll put it down to all the subversive things I&#8217;ve been reading, but I&#8217;m finding I&#8217;m more and more in agreement wtih Andrew Pace, who writes in his posting on the LITA Blog that they still need to do better. My particular beef at the moment is with the subject headings used by our current catalogue, which can look like &#8221; People with disabilities&#8211;Services for&#8211;Australia&#8211;Evaluation&#8221;. I&#8217;m wondering why I can&#8217;t just use a controlled vocabularly with multiple entries, rather as things are indexed in Medline. I&#8217;m also struggling with why we&#8217;re still using catalogues to describe the physical attributes of an item &#8220;49 p. ; 30 cm.&#8221;, rather than describing what&#8217;s in the item. And putting a picture of the cover and a proper abstract and / or contents pages. And the ability for patrons to write reviews. Or see what others who borrowed this book also borrowed. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
