Emily,
I think I wrote this while in the middle of the discussion we were
having in the ILS-DI group, so given that the recommendations or
requirements the ILS-DI group wants to push out to the vendors was still
being debated (albeit very friendly), I just have a lot of doubt that
the vendors will actually continue to agree.
I think Betsy Graham's response on her blog on behalf of III is most
telling of this process:
http://brewing.iii.com/2008/04/11/we-look-forward-to-hearing-more-on-this-proposal-in-the-near-future/
While it is true that the list of ILS vendors can endorse the ILS-DI's
activity in producing a document that they'll take and consider, I doubt
that any of them are committing to seeing it through sight unseen. The
early reaction I heard (before Betsy's comment) of III not endorsing it
was "typical III - not opening anything up." But maybe III is giving
the most honest commitment.
One precedent for my doubt is the commitment by the vendors to adopt
ERMI. Not one of the vendors we looked at in the RFP actually followed
through with the document as they said they would. And the one we chose
because we thought they were the closest wasn't nearly as close as
marketed to the point that we haven't implemented it yet and may not ever.
The other, and maybe more important, precedent is that the users group
for our vendor has been pushing for years for more access to these
resources through the API. Some of those APIs have finally been
released, like XML output or access to MARC holdings (in the newest
not-yet-installed version). If our vendor's commitment to its own
users, who have a NDA and are only designing applications that run
specifically with its ILS, is evidenced by how long it took to release
that, I don't have much confidence in the ILS marketplace to adopt an
even more rigorous and exhaustive document of APIs.
And bottom line: what is their real incentive? Again, back to our
vendor (who lost a lot of development time in an eventually-scrapped ERM
system based on ERMI). Will they get more from responding to their own
customers' needs or requests or another document from the DLF?
My hope would be the answer is both, and I do have a little more hope in
my vendor's future actions, but my doubt is still pretty strong.
Tim
Tim McGeary
Senior Systems Specialist
Lehigh University
610-758-4998
tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
Google Talk: timmcgeary
Yahoo IM: timmcgeary
Emily Lynema wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I'm curious why you'd say it was premature. Yes, the exact
> specifications for the agreed-upon functions are currently the subject
> of hot debate and disagreement. However, this announcement specifies
> exactly what vendors agreed to back on March 6, however vaguely defined
> it was at that moment in time.
>
> -emily
>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:22:18 -0400
>> From: Tim McGeary <tmm8_at_LEHIGH.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: DLF and vendors announce accord
>>
>> Seems a bit premature from what I've been hearing and reading elsewhere.
>>
>> Tim McGeary
>> Senior Systems Specialist
>> Lehigh University
>> 610-758-4998
>> tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
>> Google Talk: timmcgeary
>> Yahoo IM: timmcgeary
>>
>> Steven Harris wrote:
>>> Anybody else see this announcement? Interesting...
>>>
>>> --Steven Harris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The DLF, and major vendors and application developers in the library
>>> software marketplace, have announced a major agreement to develop
>>> standardized, interoperable interfaces for basic operations supporting
>>> search and retrieval of bibliographic items.
>>>
>>> Standardized interfaces that work across different ILSs make it
>>> easier for
>>> libraries to add new applications, both open-source and vendor-
>>> supplied,
>>> that advance their customers' needs. Libraries seek interfaces that
>>> allow
>>> ILS data to be aggregated for indexing and search, that allow real-time
>>> search and query of ILS data, that support customer information and
>>> borrower
>>> services, and that allow embedding and interaction between OPACs and
>>> search
>>> interfaces.
>>>
>>> The agreement has the support of the following vendors and
>>> developers:
>>>
>>> # Talis
>>> # Ex Libris
>>> # LibLime
>>> # BiblioCommons
>>> # SirsiDynix
>>> # Polaris Library Systems
>>> # VTLS
>>> # California Digital Library
>>> # OCLC
>>> # Serial Solutions / AquaBrowser
>>>
>>> The initial announcement is here:
>>> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/04/04/ils_basic_discovery
>>>
>>>
>>> -------
>>>
>>> I want to credit the work of those most associated with this effort,
>>> the DLF
>>> ILS Discovery Interface task force:
>>>
>>> * John Mark Ockerbloom, Univ. of Penn. (chair)
>>> * Terry Reese, Oregon State Univ.
>>> * Patricia Martin, California Digital Library
>>> * Emily Lynema, North Carolina State Univ.
>>> * Todd Grappone, Univ. of Southern California
>>> * Dave Kennedy, Univ. of Maryland
>>> * David Bucknum, Library of Congress
>>> * Dianne McCutcheon, National Library of Medicine
>>>
>>> assisted by the following individuals:
>>>
>>> * Dale Flecker, Harvard Univ.
>>> * Terry Ryan, UCLA
>>> * Robert Wolven, Columbia Univ.
>>> * Martin Kurth
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of NGC4LIB Digest - 13 Apr 2008 to 14 Apr 2008 (#2008-79)
>> *************************************************************
>
> --
> Emily Lynema
> Systems Librarian for Digital Projects
> Information Technology, NCSU Libraries
> 919-513-8031
> emily_lynema_at_ncsu.edu
>
Received on Thu Apr 17 2008 - 09:38:22 EDT