Thanks Eric, Very interesting!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Eric Lease Morgan
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:38 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] "next generation" library catalogs and a
> jisc report
>
> "Next generation" library catalogs were more or less the
> topic of the recently published report by Sero Consulting
> called "JISC & SCONUL Library Management Systems Study: An
> Evaluation and horizon scan of the current library management
> systems and related systems landscape for UK higher
> education". [1] I thought I would share a few of the salient
> points here in order to spread the wealth and foster discussion.
>
> First, the report is intended to recommend courses of action
> regarding integrated library systems (ILS) considering the
> current networked environment. To this end the consultants
> surveyed librarians, conducted telephone interviews with
> vendors, did their own environmental scan, and bounced ideas
> off sets of experts -- a "reference group". In the end the
> report does not suggest purchasing any new ILSs at this time.
> The environment is too turbulent. More specifically, the
> report recommends, and I paraphrase:
>
> * investing in systems with caution but not complacency
> since the role of the "conventional" library may appear
> unclear,
>
> * seeking increased value in ways to improve services
> around the ILS,
>
> * focusing on breaking down barriers to resources such
> as implementing single sign-on, unifying workflows, and
> especially liberating metadatg for re-use,
>
> * emphasizing service oriented architectures for
> de-coupling ILS components,
>
> * re-exploring the role of consortia to exploit social
> networking effect, and
>
> * working more collaboratively in order to develop and
> enhance the potential of Library 2.0 functionality.
>
> Second, the report echoes many of things that have been said
> here, such as: the changing nature of user expectations, the
> need to make library content more accessible, the use of Web
> Services computing techniques, the non-integratedness of
> "integrated" library systems, the mature library market and
> how it is dominated by a small number of software providers
> in turn owned by private equity firms, the viability or
> non-viability of open source software, challenges in the
> process of change, and the need for Web standards in library
> systems (not library standards). Nothing too new.
>
> On the other hand there were two things in particular I found
> interesting. First, while many people use Google to find
> information, Google does not have enough context to be
> helpful/useful at the next level. Yes, these search terms
> result in the following list of URLs, but if Google knew more
> about you -- your context -- then it might be able to create
> an even more relevant list of URLs. This, IMHO, is an
> untapped concept in Library Land. Libraries always exist as a
> part of a larger group. By knowing more about the
> constituents in the larger group an information system -- be
> it a computer or a person -- can provide better, more
> relevant service. It is not all about objective, dry
> applications and systems. It is also about building
> relationships that can only be done only at the smaller
> institutional level. This represents an opportunity for
> librarianship. From the report:
>
> Google isn't presently solving the entire problem. It
> doesn't yet provide enough 'context', for example to
> students and researchers. What's the best stuff? What
> stuff should the institution licence? If we knew this
> it would result in an improved use of resources. It's
> about the user's context (e.g. university student).
> Your profile gives better results. The better the
> context is defined the better results will be. The
> context problem is not solved in HE, which has an
> opportunity here because its users are (relatively
> anyway) well defined-with a particular goal anyhow.
> --Dave Errington, CEO at Talis [page 70]
>
> Second, in this changing environment it might be a good idea
> to rethink the role of librarianship, at least a little bit,
> and I liked the three complimentary information service
> models outlined in the
> report:
>
> 1. Aggregation - Collecting content as opposed to
> providing federated search against it. Amazon.com is
> good at this technique.
>
> 2. Network Effect - Maximizing value and reducing unit
> costs by exploiting the knowledge of the masses, open
> data & platforms, and clickstreams. From a member of
> the reference group, "The changing nature of
> information and user behavior gives rise to some
> serious professional questions about the business we
> are, the nature of our expertise, and how much we are
> actually in a position to judge what is good for the
> user. All this prompts questions about how systems
> should develop." [page 84]
>
> 3. Long Tail - Seen as an opportunity for subject
> specialists, this is about focusing library services
> against locally developed and unique content. Digitize
> that stuff in your "special collections". This is akin
> the ideas of Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 where
> individuals memorize a single book. [2]
>
> Finally, I recently asked for greater input and perspectives
> from vendors regarding "next generation" library catalogs but
> the response was meager. Since much of the report was gleaned
> from telephone interviews with library software vendors, the
> report includes almost 40 pages worth of vendor profiles
> where folks can learn a bit more about vendor perspectives.
>
>
> [1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/
> resourcediscovery/lmsstudy.pdf
>
> [2] This idea is far from new, and I was certainly not the
> first to articulate it, but I did elaborate upon it in a
> column for Computer In Libraries in 1997. See:
> http://infomotions.com/musings/unique-
> collections/
>
> --
> Eric Lease Morgan
> University Libraries of Notre Dame
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 22 2008 - 14:50:46 EDT