Mark, I applaud your points. We (in our community library) do a huge
amount of outreach, all of which is essentially high-touch. We do it in
spite of our library automation system, which is due for an overhaul
shortly. Because it is character-based, I cannot reasonably expect a
Google-savvy patron to be able to come in and select numbered items on a
Unix terminal in order to search for an item. We librarians do it for
them.
In a perfect world there would be similar coding and user interfaces in
every library in North America permitting similar search methodologies
and similar results. That's what the Dewey Decimal Classification
system did, right? We need some kind of a joint leap of faith in order
to create a user interface which:
1) Can run atop any LIS
2) Provides links to external search engines ("search
this library"; "search worldwide" might include regional consortium,
Google, Amazon, subscription databases)
3) Can help a patron differentiate expected results -
printed matter, subscription database articles, general search engine
results
4) Delivers results at a shallow level or offers
opportunity to "show me more" - book reviews, additional journal and
periodical hits, search refinements
5) Offers various options of retrieving physical
materials based on library policy and delivering them to a point as
close to the patron as possible (circulating fiction or DVD might go by
mail to the patron's address; a reference item might be pulled in
advance of a patron visit
In harmony with Karen S/bluehighways, the goal is presentation and
delivery of what the patron wants, not the convenience and whims of ILS
vendors. Google and amazon have taught people how to search online.
Their methodologies and algorithms may not be ours, but they got there
first. We need to acknowledge that.
John Marquette
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Andrews, Mark J.
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:08 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [NGC4LIB] What is the real issue here?
Reviewing the last several days of discussion here, I wonder what the
real issue is? That big companies have lousy tools (compared to the
literature). Yet they appear to have a lot of success (million of users
and a viable businesses, at least in Google's case). Conversely, is the
issue that libraries have:
* been in existence for hundreds of years
* 50 years of solid, scientific applicable research in information
storage & retrieval theory
* educated & helpful staff
<snip>
Received on Tue Jun 13 2006 - 16:54:22 EDT