Re: Odd article about library technology

But I thought Ole was supposed to be SOA and allow for modular pieces.  Is OLE going to force a single monolithic ILS structure again?

Special Collections provide different services than Circulation.  This is particularly true in large academics with very substantial special collections.  I thought the SOA structure was supposed to support that type of service.  Aeon as it is now does not try to maintain any of the acquisition or metadata management functions, it is just drawing on the ILS and EAD databases for that, and managing specific rules and services that apply only to things in Special collections, not other collections.

I thought the SOA was supposed to allow modules to interact, not replace them all with a monolithic one size fits all system.

Frances McNamara
University of Chicago

-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim McGeary
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:46 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Odd article about library technology

It is disappointing that this article did not clear indicate what 
problem this technology solves.

Unfortunately, this is yet another separate system a library has to 
insert to attempt to effectively manage all of their collections.  This 
is not saying that Aeon isn't or won't be a good product, but will this 
help libraries get up to the enterprise level like the goal of the OLE 
Project?  Or is this another ERM-like system that maintains the status 
quo of separation in collection management and resource discovery?

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:
>  
> OK...now I see what I was missing when I initially read the article. Thanks!!
>  
> I wish the author of the article had explained it a little better.
>  
> Bernie Sloan
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Leslie Johnston <lesliej_at_LOC.GOV> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Leslie Johnston <lesliej_at_LOC.GOV>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Odd article about library technology
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 10:59 AM
> 
> 
> This isn't a skewed faculty perspective, it's the reality for users of
> rare materials and archives.  Patrons do not have access to the closed
> storage where these collections are kept, and must request that items be
> pulled by staff members.  Also, a number of institutions may have EAD
> finding aids and no catalog, so therefore no request module.  And even
> in an ILS, there are collection-level records but very rarely
> container-level or item-level records, so what can a patron request —
> everything and nothing more granular?  A very large percentage of these
> libraries still use paper systems or unconnected email requests, so this
> IS an improvement.
> 
> Leslie
> 
> ----------
> Leslie Johnston
> Digital Media Project Coordinator
> Office of Strategic Initiatives
> Library of Congress
> 202-707-2801
> lesliej_at_loc.gov
> 
>>>> Alejandro Garza Gonzalez <alejandro.garza_at_ITESM.MX> 8/11/2009 10:33
> AM >>>
> Hey, it's on the Internet, it *must* be true =)
> 
> I'm guessing this was something that is "new"-- from that one library's
> perspective.
> 
> *Sighs* This mirrors what some faculty think of some libraries
> (emphasis on _some_).
> 
> _alejandro
> 
> B.G. Sloan said the following on 11/08/2009 09:01 a.m.:
>>   
>> Sort of an odd article in the Chronicle of Higher Education's "Wired
> Campus" blog...sounds like it could have been written 30 years ago.
> Maybe I'm missing something?
>>   
>> The article discusses a "new system" which librarians are supposedly
> calling "the first of its kind". With this "new" system patrons can
> "request items directly from online catalogs". Librarians "can also
> better monitor statistics thanks to histories that track patrons and
> items and generate analyses."
>>   
>> Here's a sample paragraph:
>>   
>> "Before, Mr. Miller said, users who wanted to request an item from
> any of the university’s collections had to first register with a paper
> form and then request each item -- even those in the same collection --
> with additional paper forms. For his library, the system has saved time
> by streamlining that process in a database, which allows librarians to
> process requests faster and eliminates the need for paper records, which
> take up 'enormous time and space.'"
>>   
>> Full text of article at:
>>   
>> http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Online-Request-Software/7635/ 
>>   
>> Bernie Sloan
>>
>>
>>        
>>
>>
>>    
>