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

Jonathan,

I think this is similar to your message on 3/11/2009, and the answer is
unequivocally YES.  That is personally one of my highest pet peeve's, as
well, and I bring that to the table early and often.  To go even
further, if I have this particular journal in print and 3 electronic
versions, I'd like it to be clear to the user exactly which URL to
access for volume X and issue Y.

Now that said, the exact data model (including the abstract intellectual
entity-relationship data model and the physical data description data
model, among others) will be defined by Phase 2 Build Team that comes
after us.  We will make some recommendations based on the service
taxonomy we design, but the details of the data model will be designed
and implemented by the Build Team.

Does that help?  Any other questions?

Cheers,
Tim

Tim McGeary
Team Leader, Library Technology
Lehigh University
610-758-4998
tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
Google Talk: timmcgeary
Yahoo IM: timmcgeary

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> This is my current data model pet peeve, that I hope OLE runs into:
> 
>  From the data I have, I am unable to have software answer the question 
> "Do we have volume X and issue Y of this particular journal in print, 
> and if so, what is it's location in our library?"
> 
> Can't do it with what I've got. Most I can do is get a bunch of 
> human-readable descriptions of what parts of a given journal we have in 
> print where. It miffs me.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> Tim McGeary wrote:
>> I'm hoping that my response hasn't lost context since the OLE portion 
>> of this thread forked to browses.
>>
>> The OLE Project does recognize that the library community should take 
>> responsibility in designing systems to help library users, and thus we 
>> recognize the DLF ILS-DI efforts for that portion of the overall 
>> service libraries provide to users.  Projects, like VuFind, 
>> Blacklight, XC, Jangel, etc., are nobly providing that framework 
>> within the data that is available.  The difficulties they face are 
>> based on the restrictions of the data available in the current ILS model.
>>
>> The OLE Project, on the other hand, is working to transform the data 
>> model (read: not just descriptive data) so that libraries can 
>> prudently expose all possible data to interfaces.  Both data 
>> management systems and discovery interfaces need to be robust and work 
>> with each other to produce the most effective partnership in managing 
>> and discovering data.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Tim McGeary
>> Team Leader, Library Technology
>> Lehigh University
>> 610-758-4998
>> tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
>> Google Talk: timmcgeary
>> Yahoo IM: timmcgeary
>>
>> B.G. Sloan wrote:
>>  
>>> Jonathan Rochkind mentions the OLE project (http://oleproject.org).
>>>
>>> I'm encouraged by OLE's stated goal:
>>>
>>> "The goal is to produce a design document to inform open source
>>> library system development efforts, to guide future library system
>>> implementations, and to influence current Integrated Library System
>>> vendor products."
>>>
>>> But I get a little nervous when I read that specifying a design for a
>>> public user interface is not within the scope of the project.
>>>
>>> The "project scope" web page says: "The OLE framework supports user
>>> and administrative interfaces of various types." Section 4 of this
>>> web page lists "Basic ILS Functions". They are all "back room"
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> I think it's maybe a little dangerous to design "back room" functions
>>> in isolation, assuming they will support some unspecified "user
>>> interfaces of various types".
>>>
>>> I think it's really great the OLE folks want to improve "back room"
>>> systems design, and the open architecture may well will be a boon to
>>> those designing user interfaces. But I once again worry that it's a
>>> case of library systems being designed BY librarians FOR librarians.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the library community take at least some responsibility for
>>> designing systems to help library users?
>>>
>>> Bernie Sloan Sora Associates Bloomington, IN
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB]
>>>> Whose elephant is it, anyway? : was : Three years of NGC4LIB -
>>>> reflections? -- LONG To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU Date: Monday,
>>>> March 9, 2009, 10:54 AM Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> It'd be great if we could articulate better what
>>>>>         
>>>> the backroom will need
>>>>      
>>>>> in the "new" library, because until we do
>>>>>         
>>>> that, it's hard to figure out
>>>>      
>>>>> how the transition can happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> Which of course is the goal of the OLE project, which is why it's
>>>> good that the OLE project is doing what they're doing. It's not an
>>>> easy task, I'm glad someone is tackling it.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>       
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>