Karen said "Z39.50. A query based on a record number (presumably the
de-coupled parts must have at least one identifier in common) that
retrieves the information from the circ system. However, this doesn't
help you with filtering, because the data on status isn't in your
database and therefore can't be part of a search. You would have to
retrieve the status data for all entries that meet the search criteria
and filter them on the fly. Expensive. Very expensive. So displaying
very up to date info is relatively easy, but having it be both up to
date and searchable, when the databases are decoupled, is more
difficult. I can imagine a method where the circ system would constantly
refresh a bit string (or more than one) on the OPAC system to keep the
circ status current, but I haven't seen that done. Anyone?"
---
Karen's correct. What she suggests is absolutely technically possible,
its just a matter of somebody insisting it be done in a way that the
vendors will do it.
There is no incentive for vendors to open up their systems in the
particular way (whether Z39.50 is the best way to do is another
question). When I worked for the vendors we went round and round with
customers about why we couldn't holdings data - including the real-time
status - from this or that vendor's system.
I've made and received the calls from other vendors. People are wary -
they have to be; everybody's looking for advantage all the time.
Information is power, lack of it denies advantage to a competitor.
Libraries don't care, they just want data. Okay, who will pay for this?
Granted, libraries often think this sort of information should not be
proprietary? Says who? It's a free country - if a company wants to
withhold data because it serves their interest, who can stop them? How
many libraries have gone to the mat insisting - contractually - that a
vendor make this or that data available to the industry at large? What
vendor would sign such a contract?
The only way to get any traction here would be for a critical mass of
libraries to not do any more business with vendors (aside from the
things they are clearly, contractually obliged to do, like pay annual
customer support costs) until they get what they want. That's hardball.
Libraries aren't used to playing hardball (which is also another
question).
Once the web came along Z39.50 became a loss leader. Yes, it's a
standard, but only libraries use it. The follow-on to Z39.50 (SR I
think its called?) is interesting to me. Z39.50 is only interesting and
useful until something better comes along, and yes I want
backwards-compatibility until the market determines that Z39.50 can die.
My 2 cents worth.
Mark
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 14:25:43 EDT