I'm coming into this discussion late, so I apologize if any of this has
already been discussed to death...
>Where are current LIS OPACs actually deficient?
As a former software programmer/developer, I was appalled when I first
saw the state of modern library automation systems/OPACs. I have yet to
find one that has all (or most) of these necessary features:
1) a good, intuitive user interface (at both the staff and patron level)
2) the ability to perform moderately complex searches
3) a good, built-in, well-designed reporting system that comes as part
of the standard package and can be learned by the average librarian in a
day or less
4) the ability to perform complete SQL queries directly from the staff
interface
5) a good user manual (online or off) that gives a breakdown of the
structure of the database
6) an API into the system
Even taking into account the limitations of the data as it currently
exists in most library systems, OPACs could easily be 10 times better,
in terms of design, usability, flexibility, and power. Unfortunately, I
have yet to see a company that seems willing (or able) to make such a
product.
There are probably many reasons for this. I have noticed that many
librarians are either not willing to push companies on features and
price, or don't really know what is reasonable to request or demand. In
addition, by keeping the cost of these systems ridiculously high, the
companies make it difficult for libraries to change systems that are not
performing well.
Much of this could be alleviated if most libraries had library-dedicated
IT staff with strong and broad technical knowledge on staff. That costs
money, of course, which gets back to the perpetual problem that
libraries face - funding.
>Are there ways to improve the situation significantly without
>a revolution in rules and/or formats? Keeping in mind that
>we can do precious little to improve the quality and content
>of legacy data. Or can we? With what money?
The change has to be made at some point. The question is whether or not
it will be easier to do it in the future, and more cost effective. Even
if we decide that it is better to wait, the groundwork needs to be put
in place now.
>Is the current situation so bad we should consider a breach in
>consistency of metadata in beginning something very new?
Again, it has to be done at some point. Having some records with data
that is more complete than the current standard is better than having no
records with those extra features.
>Can ToC harvesting and indexing be done collaboratively, sharing
>the results, internationally, on a large scale - to provide local
>catalogs with extra fodder for indexing without extra manual input?
Ultimately, TOC data has to be put in by someone. Right now the library
world has allowed itself to fall in the grips of MARC data sellers,
paying ridiculously large amounts of money for very scanty data
(anything over a few cents is too high). If we are going to pay those
prices, we should get a LOT more than simple MARC records.
When we do share data with each other, it is through obscure transfer
methods (Z39.5), rather than something a bit more streamlined and
modern. In addition to that, the MARC import functions in many of the
cataloging systems are limited and (frankly) somewhat primitive, as are
MARC records themselves.
The library world has yet to learn a lesson that many corporations
already know - you can't always rely on third-party vendors to build the
tools and data sets that you need to run your operation. Sometimes you
have to write some code yourself, or (at the very least) keep people on
staff with the technical knowledge and skill to act as technology
integrators.
Librarianship is rapidly becoming a technical field, albeit one with few
real techies in it. IMHO, the key to fixing much of this is biting the
bullet and coming up with the money to move more skilled IT people into
the profession, and/or requiring librarians to learn those skills as
part of the basic library school skill set.
In my experience, most library Masters programs are lacking in any real
meat - there is no reason that they shouldn't be undergraduate degrees.
If we are going to be required to get Masters degrees to be official
"librarians," then the degrees should mean something. That "something"
should be demonstrable technical knowledge geared towards the needs and
realities of libraries.
My opinions are my own, not necessarily my employers, etc.
Jesse Ephraim
Youth Services Librarian
Southlake Public Library
1400 Main Street, Suite 130
Southlake, TX 76092
(817) 748-8248
jephraim_at_ci.southlake.tx.us
Received on Wed Sep 05 2007 - 18:27:58 EDT