Talking of terminology, perhaps it would be a good idea to start firmining
up some of the ideas that have been floating around this list?
Entity relationship diagrams - who is our user, what are they doing, What is
the catalogue, what are its inputs, what are its outputs, what is its
relationship to the UI, what can be exposed, what must be secure.
Then perhaps we can start to firm up some design patterns specifically for
an NGC that may or maynot borrow from other design patterns.
Tim
--
Tim Hodson
informationtakesover.co.uk
www.timhodson.co.uk
On 19/06/06, K.G. Schneider <kgs_at_bluehighways.com> wrote:
>
> > OPAC stand-in. But I do think we need to exercise some caution about
> > our excitement and some care with our terminology. LibraryThing, useful
> > as it is, is nowhere close to being mistaken for an ILS, or even an OPAC
> > with a reasonably functional circulation module.
>
> Speaking of care with terminology, I'd like to see us refer to the ILS
> user
> interface (UI), versus the OPAC. For one thing, it would clarify the
> distinctive role of the UI; we keep muddling OPAC and ILS, back-end and
> interface. For another, it would help condition us to a user-forward
> orientation.
>
> Questions of the ineffable complexity of ILS's aside, a very good question
> is how truly complex it is to attach a user-oriented interface to a
> database
> backend. I know that is an extremely reductive question (and that the
> complexity of the database will play a big role in the answers), but as a
> thinking question... well, food for thought.
>
> Karen G. Schneider
> kgs_at_bluehighways.com
>
Received on Thu Jun 22 2006 - 11:30:37 EDT