Re: Whose elephant is it, anyway? (the OLE project)

It has become so complex to identify and design each aspect of an ILS that library administrators sometimes seem to come up short in seeking librarians who can knowledgeably advise programmers in what we need. Catalogers may be perceived as failing to understand users' needs because we're so busy creating each record so administrators have been known dismiss our opinions entirely. Some reference librarians hardly use the catalog at all because most of their time is spent helping users find articles in various databases other than the catalog. Since those databases are generally based on less full information than catalog records those librarians may fail to appreciate opportunities unique to the catalog such as browse searching with cross-references from alternate forms of names, titles, or subjects. Maybe that is how we've come to such a sorry state regarding browse displays that cannot transparently list both headings and titles simultaneously (and sometimes not even reali!
 ze what we're missing). Some systems librarians who may know a little about website design seem intent on simply generalizing user studies of commercial websites to redesign catalogs. Who can bring it all together? Well, at least on this list there is a mixture of us who sometimes listen to each other and I'm grateful for that. Surely the various front-end and back-room pieces must be either fully compatible or integrated, but maybe both ways can serve. How can RDA begin to fulfill its promise if catalog systems designers are uninterested in optimizing even existing capabilities of catalog records for users because they're so complex? Thanks and have a great day,
Jimmie


-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:30 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Whose elephant is it, anyway? (the OLE project)

B.G. Sloan wrote:
> 
> Shouldn't the library community take at least some responsibility for designing systems to help library users?
> 
On this subject, there was a series of postings to Autocat in 1994 under
the title "Face the Interface" which generated some debate back then.
Later, in a list predating the Toronto AACR Conference of 1997, the
quest for better OPAC interfaces was aired as well. It was also coming
up in the RDA discussion list of late. There have been no tangible
results. One aspect that was frequently put forward was the lack of
browsable indexes in some or even many opacs. But I doubt this has found
its way into many RFPs. The concept is also absent in VuFind and other
open source products. (I sometimes doubt the developers even understand
the usefulness.)
With this background, I have been sceptical from the beginning about the
possible results of NGC4LIB. Although of course the obstacles to
achieving better interfaces are no longer the huge technical ones of
1994. The key will always, I think, be the qualities of our metadata,
and I don't mean the format - that's only the wrapper. But now, RDA is
the only show in town that promises to deliver new quality metadata.
It does not, however, care about browsing, it does not deal with
catalog enrichment at all, but it should enable data linking in more and
better ways than AACR. But will it? And then when?

B.Eversberg