On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 06:48, McHale, Nina <Nina.McHale_at_ucdenver.edu> wrote:
> Are we trying to make catalogs into something that they don't really need to be?
To know the answer to that question you need to know what it needs to
be. So, what does it *need* to be?
> Are we, professionally, really so jealous of what we perceive as the competition?
Well, if you aren't, then perhaps this is a good time to start? Maybe
that will kickstart a discussion of what the library needs to be (as
well as their OPACs) ...
> I'm really excited about our own impending implementation of a NextGen catalog.
Hmm. Well. Ummm. What you guys often refer to as "NextGen" has a
strong foundation in the last century, so I wouldn't call it "next
gen", or like someone told me the other day, "OPAC 2.0" I'd rather
call it "expected gen" or, perhaps, "OPAC 1.5."
> I just question what we're so jealous/afraid of, and also who and what we
> consider competition, and why we spend thousands of dollars and lots of
> time hand-wringing to try to be something that we don't need to be?
Again, tell us what we need to be, then. As to what we consider
competition, I think the problem is that the library doesn't have
*one* competitor but thousands, including lazy hackers and academics
in search of a problem to solve. Why not work with them instead of
ignoring them?
Regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Fri Feb 13 2009 - 07:34:18 EST