In some ways, I feel sorry for the vendors of ILS software. For years and years, we were working with different systems: one for circulation, another for ordering, then cataloging, periodicals control, and we kept clamoring for everything in one machine because it was just too complicated to keep track of all the different commands in all the different systems.
Finally, they came up with the single system, and now we want them to split it apart again! Still, we must do what makes sense, and the ILS just doesn't make much sense anymore. Open source seems to be the way of the future.
But I will point out that I am not sure if an off-the-shelf system will work. Something that might work e.g. for Microsoft or the British or U.S. government will probably not work for libraries. Libraries have a tremendous amount of materials that non-libraries don't have: all types of formats from stone to bones to wax, materials in all modern, ancient and unknown languages, the list goes on and on. If we only consider locations of materials (i.e. where they are in the library with a multiplicity of special collections) some of these can be mind-boggling.
So, I think that any off-the-shelf system would have to be modified to allow for library needs. I think we can all agree that it can and should be done with non-MARC format, plus some library tweaking. And this brings me back again to the need for open source software.
Jim Weinheimer
> Tim Spalding schrieb:
> >
> > The ILS is a weird idea now in today's tech world. Libraries are
> > nearly unique in maintaining giant agglomerated, non-standard systems
> > for activities like data storage, data transfer and order tracking.
> > That sort of industry-specific software was common decades ago, but
> > it's faded, in favor of general, modular, off-the-shelf systems, with
> > customizations on top.
> >
> > Maybe the problem is the whole idea of "library systems."
>
> But don't you think that meanwhile, after all this time, there should be
> at least a few attempts at doing those things in new and better ways?
> Yes, LT does *everything* in different ways, we know. So would you
> advise that libararians start using it for their housekeeping functions?
> And for a decent fee, you'd add whatever functions should prove
> necessary, but in ways of your own invention.
>
> Or is there anyone on this list with any other suggestions or even
> practical solutions?
> And if no, why not?
>
> (Lest you wonder, I'm no-one with little or no experience in the matter.
> Having developed, mattr'of fact, C++ software for monographic as well as
> periodical ordering and accessions as well as circulation and OPAC.
> The LCSH browser and the RDA index are spinoffs. So presumably, with
> fresh suggestions along Tim's line of ideas, this weird ILS might be
> enormously improved...
> *Quite* a few libraries in Germany are using it, but it is not for sale
> nor does it have an English interface or documentation. This is no
> advertising.)
>
> B.Eversberg
Received on Mon Mar 09 2009 - 08:56:52 EDT