We are in the middle of OLE Project working meetings right this week in
Kansas, so I'm trying to catch up on this discussion before responding
in proper context. I wanted to give a quick response that there are
OLE'ers who are reading this, and I'll try to relate responses as I
catch up.
To touch on this context (and, again, I need to read everything else),
Owen is correct that we need to balance the investment between data
systems and data discovery. The OLE Project made the decision on Day 1
that discovery interfaces were out of scope because:
a.) we were charged with being transformational in managing data
that libraries are charged to manage within our institutions
b.) the DLF has done an extensive amount of work with the ILS-BDI
API task force and we did not need to duplicate that effort. (and trust
me, part a is plenty enough work.)
The key to OLE is that any discovery system worth its salt can discovery
any data thrown at it, and thus it is our highest responsibility to
design a new data model that allows for the highest amount of discovery
that isn't currently possible in existing ILS's.
Those that were not able to be at code4lib in Providence, I would
encourage you to watch out for when video is posted of the conference
and watch they second day keynote by Sebastian Hammer of IndexData. He
strongly encouraged libraries to step back from the exciting efforts of
new discovery interfaces and (re-)take up the boring, yet fundamentally
essential tasks of standards and data management.
Another part of being transformational is not duplicating enterprise
level work on the institutional level, like Owen indicated with
corporate systems. That's a piece of OLE. I would encourage Owen in
his concern about "Acquire" that you are looking at a work in progress
in our effort to be as transparent as possible.
I'll add more responses as I am able to catch up on this thread.
Cheers,
Tim
Tim McGeary
Team Leader, Library Technology
Lehigh University
610-758-4998
tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
Google Talk: timmcgeary
Yahoo IM: timmcgeary
Stephens, Owen wrote:
>> It doesn't really matter how well (or how poorly) "back room"
>> library systems are functioning if the public user interface
>> doesn't work.
>
> This just doesn't make sense to me - if your back office systems are
> inefficient, you end up putting more staff time into what are
> essentially administrative activities, and subsequently less time
> into user facing activities.
>
> The whole of the library needs to work - you can't pick off one thing
> or another as 'key' - there is no point in having the best discovery
> system in the world if your users cannot access the resources once
> they have identified them - and if you haven't paid that
> subscription, or bought that book, then you aren't going to be able
> to access them. Conversely there is no point buying all this stuff if
> you keep the doors locked - this is chicken and egg stuff - you
> simply have to balance the investment.
>
> I think Tim has an excellent point - certainly in large institutions
> much of the back office activity carried out by library systems such
> as 'budget management' is often duplicating other systems - which you
> will have to interact with for audit purposes anyway, and in my
> institution we would certainly save time by integrating more closely
> between the ILS and corporate systems (something we are working on)
>
> There is a challenge here - libraries are extremely varied - I work
> in a Unversity library and as such work in an environment with many
> 'corporate' systems which the ILS duplicates (needlessly in many
> cases). On the otherhand some libraries standalone, and need local
> budget management etc - so ILS vendors are pulled in more than one
> direction.
>
> In the context of this discussion I've been following the work on the
> OLE Project with interest, but I'm unclear from the working model of
> 'Acquire' http://oleproject.org/overview/ole-reference-model/acquire/
> whether there is an vision of where this activity happens in terms of
> systems - I guess it is early days for this.
>
> I would say that the more I discuss this and consider the issues, I
> see a separation of Discovery systems from 'back office' systems
> absolutely key to getting back office systems working efficiently
> (not to say they shouldn't be joined up, but loosely rather than
> completely integrated).
>
> Owen
>
> PS I was involved in writing an RFP along the lines Karen describes
> some years ago - I now feel the whole thing was over specified, and
> the success of the process (and I think it was successful in terms of
> choosing the right product) was not related to the length or detail
> of the RFP. 5-10 pages on the user interface now sounds about right
> to me - 20-30 pages on anything sounds completely over the top.
> However, I think that the necessity of accounting for public funds
> often drives the writing of the RFP rather than the best way of
> expressing your requirements...
>
> Owen Stephens Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
> Central Library Imperial College London South Kensington Campus
> London SW7 2AZ
>
> t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829 e: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Next generation catalogs for
>> libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Popp, Mary
>> Pagliero Sent: 09 March 2009 02:33 To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Whose elephant is it, anyway? (NOT long)
>>
>>
>> I could not have said it better. The major reason to have a
>> catalog is to provide information for our users and prospective
>> users. Although librarians and library staff members are also
>> catalog users, they are not in the majority.
>>
>> That said, many of our constituents don't use either our web sites
>> or our catalogs. We also need to figure out ways to get the data
>> out of our catalog databases so that it can be used in other
>> resources and services. Is it time for us to team up with vendors
>> who provide heavily used search engines, and not with those who
>> provide ILS systems (for example, Google), to incorporate our
>> content so that users can better search our catalogs?
>>
>> Mary ----------------------------------------------- Mary Pagliero
>> Popp, Public Services Librarian Library Information Technology,
>> Wells Library W501, Indiana University, 1320 E. 10th Street,
>> Bloomington, IN 47405 popp_at_indiana.edu 812-855-8170 FAX:
>> 812-856-4979
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Next generation catalogs for
>> libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
>> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:19 PM To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Whose elephant is it, anyway? (NOT long)
>>
>> I wanted to circle back to my original point in this debate...
>>
>> It doesn't really matter how well (or how poorly) "back room"
>> library systems are functioning if the public user interface
>> doesn't work.
>>
>> Libraries exist to help people satisfy their information needs. If
>> public user interfaces fail in this area, people will go elsewhere
>> to satisfy their information needs.
>>
>> It's just that simple.
>>
>> Bernie Sloan Sora Associates Bloomington, IN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wed Mar 18 2009 - 14:58:51 EDT