> There is no magic here. Just a database to store the data and an index to
> make the data searchable. You can purchase these pieces of software, but
> the purchased software are technically no better than the free, open
source
> software. So why are we paying for it? We pay for it because we, the
library
> profession as a whole, does not have the critical mass of computer skills
to
> create these thing on our own. Most of us couldn't design a relational
> database if we had to, and most of us are unable to distinguish the
> difference between a database and an index. I'm certainly not saying that
> understanding these technologies are the only issues in the creation of
> "next generation" library catalog, but I am saying that until we raise our
> level of knowledge we will continue to be held hostage to commercial
> software that does not do what we want it to do.
I used to work for Inmagic, a database company that made a database product
designed for cataloging and serials in special libraries.
And I've created my own relational dBs for personal use before and after
working for them.
I would say that if there were some public call to create a
by-librarians-for-librarians catalog, the profession as a whole *does* have
the critical mass of computer skills. I know a lot of people who came to
librarianship from the computer industry (myself included).
That said, I agree that library catalogs are more complex than mere
relational databases.
Think about how many fields require both authority control and the
possibility of multiple entries. It would take up huge amounts of space to
create many-to-many joins for every such field (author(s), subject(s),
etcetera). One of the things that impressed me about Inmagic's products (and
this is *not* intended as a plug; I no longer work there) was their ability
to permit multiple items in a field without joins.
Just my 2 cents.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Lease Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:24 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] What LibraryThing means to OPACs
Tim Spalding wrote:
> LibraryThing is part of a trend. The last two years have seen an
> enormous explosion in web aps.... It comes down to this. Web aps.
> are becoming radically easier and cheaper to build and run. They are
> becoming almost a comodity. OPACs *ARE* web aps. Therefore, OPACs
> will, or at least should, go down the same path, and soon.
Yes, technically speaking OPACs (or what ever we are going to be calling
these things) are essentially Web applications.
There is no magic here. Just a database to store the data and an index to
make the data searchable. You can purchase these pieces of software, but the
purchased software are technically no better than the free, open source
software. So why are we paying for it? We pay for it because we, the library
profession as a whole, does not have the critical mass of computer skills to
create these thing on our own. Most of us couldn't design a relational
database if we had to, and most of us are unable to distinguish the
difference between a database and an index. I'm certainly not saying that
understanding these technologies are the only issues in the creation of
"next generation" library catalog, but I am saying that until we raise our
level of knowledge we will continue to be held hostage to commercial
software that does not do what we want it to do.
--
Eric Lease Morgan
I'm hiring a Senior Programmer Analyst.
See http://dewey.library.nd.edu/morgan/programmer/.
Received on Tue Jun 20 2006 - 09:57:03 EDT