"But what I was more focused on in my message, which I didn't go into
detail, are the number of elements that make Aeon just another silo
application. Elements like its own separate patron authentication and
database, its own inventory control, its own circulation database."
Our implementation of AEON uses Shibboleth to authenticate. As far as inventory and circ control the point is that this is done differently in a large special collection. Even most academic libraries probably don't have the needs that a really substantial special collection has. It is not just a silo of for systems, these are physical pieces that are purposely segregated from the rest of the collection. They are supposed to be a silo. So I think Ole ought to be able to interact with a system that services this special collection, not force the same limited services on that collection. Frankly a special system for this will not be of interest to smaller libraries but will be needed by larger collections. Fine if you want Ole to store EADS or EAD metadata, AEON only gets that type of info from other systems at this point, it does not support creation or maintenance of those records, it just uses them to provide special services not needed for the rest of the collections!
. These would be services only needed by a small portion of the libraries and would never even get developed because not enough demand would be there. Your description sounds like you would force every service to be an "OLE" service and not allow it that system to interact with a specialty set of services like AEON. I think that is a bad idea.
Frances McNamara
University of Chicago
If you are going to search within the ILS for a SC item (which you can't
do in our ILS unless it is a monograph), then why not use the ILS patron
and circulation and inventory control features? At least then you
eliminate a couple extra silos. The problem is most ILS's cannot handle
this.
But with OLE, patron authentication can (and in most case should) be
done in your centralized identity/access management system; inventory
control and circulation for all collections can use the SOA build blocks
to provide the appropriate services. The OLE repository will store an
extensive number of formats so you don't see a separate EAD finding aid
system in addition to monographs being in the catalog.
What makes OLE non-monolithic is that libraries take on only the
services and workflows they need through workflow managers and engines.
So those libraries that don't need certain service can turn them off
or adapt them to the workflows that better fit their needs.
Does that help?
Tim McGeary
Team Leader, Library Technology
Lehigh University
610-758-4998
tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
Google Talk: timmcgeary
Yahoo IM: timmcgeary
Frances Dean McNamara wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Received on Thu Aug 20 2009 - 07:01:08 EDT