> Why do we use MARC records? That way of storing data was obsolete by
> the 80s. It should have been replaced decades ago.
The same could be said of many things such as the qwerty keyboard or
English spelling rules for that matter. Once significant
infrastructure is built around something, it's nontrivial to change
things. For example, trains could carry much more freight if the rail
gauge was wider -- there's no sane reason why we should use one that's
largely based on the placement of wheels on horse drawn carriages. All
we need to do is rip up the existing rails, rebuild bridges and
throughways, and get new equipment...
The question is not how old something is, but rather if it performs
the function needed well enough. As an IT person, I presume you use
vi, decades old UNIX utilities, and shell programming when
appropriate? Many people claim these are also outmoded, though I have
yet to meet someone who really understands these things that says so
even if they also use the latest and greatest technologies.
> Why do we use Z39.50, when nobody else does? Why do we come up with ANY
> standards that don't work well (if at all) with non-library entities?
As others have mentioned, this predates the web. However, this would
be much easier to change since z39.50 penetration has always been poor
and it does not influence the internal workings of an ILS the way that
MARC does.
> Why do we tolerate out-of-date, buggy ILS/OPAC systems, when they are
> only
> (ultimately) inventory and customer management systems? Worse still,
> why do we pay more than a couple of hundred dollars for ILS/OPAC
> systems? They aren't that complex, from a programmatic/database
> management standpoint.
The are inventory control systems, but they are highly optimized for
the workflows in libraries which are simple only if you've only been
exposed to primitive environments. For, if you acquire serials from
all over the world, how would you design a system that alerts staff
when issues are expected and helps them claim them when they don't
arrive when publication patterns are all over the place? After you
send the issues to the shelf, eventually certain ones will get bound
together so when one gets checked out, so do the others.
Don't forget that all these things must be paid for out of a variety
of different funds that get their money from different sources and
that you'll be expected to produce reports on how much was spent in
subject X as well as deliver various circulation reports. There are a
number of specialized workflows in libraries.
It's not rocket science, but there is a lot of detail and it's not
something that you'd want to sit down and and just write down.
Having said that, I think that our insistence as a profession on
buying black boxes that claim to do it all is killing us right now.
The stuff that people need is everywhere, so it no longer makes sense
to put an inventory control system designed for certain types of
physical resources at the center of our universe.
> An awful lot of them seem to feel that they shouldn't have to continue
> learning and studying on their own time and initiative once they get an
> MLS.
This phenomenon is hardly unique to the library community. It is also
common in other fields, including IT.
> ......If we want to be seen as serious
> information professionals, we need to actually BE serious information
> professionals.
>
> .......This is an era where we have to actually prove our worth
> and value to our communities, provide services that our patrons actually
> need, and live up to our own hype. If we can't do that, then we are
> little more than free bookstores with a few extra services tacked on.
We are definitely at a transitional point and it is clear that old
formulas will not lead to success in the future. I couldn't think of a
better time to be in the field.
kyle
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 541.359.9599
Received on Mon Aug 25 2008 - 10:48:52 EDT