Really, what libraries should be pushing back on is the idea that we
will be forced to do all cataloging only on OCLC in the first place, in
order to take advantage of other OCLC services.
Frances Dean McNamara wrote:
> Agreed. But they should have seen this coming sooner and done development sooner. It's no excuse for leaving customers holding the bag. Perhaps they should have done this software development BEFORE starting to write circulation and acquisitions systems. It seems a poor strategy to bank on all the libraries being forced to do all of their cataloging only on OCLC and then not support it. I think it is necessary for the libraries to push back and not accept such poor support. In view of this libraries should NOT allow monopoly of service by a single vendor like OCLC. It's just a good example of what can happen if you let them ride roughshod.
>
> Glad NLM makes all their data available.
>
> Frances
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:09 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC and Michigan State at Impasse Over SkyRiver Cataloging, Resource Sharing Costs
>
>
>> When will OCLC provide support for the Connexion PC client features for Windows 7 64 bit Operating System?
>>
>
> I suspect they're trying to move to a web-only platform. The web is
> easier to control than binaries running on God-knows-what machines and
> operating systems.
>
> If not web-only, they could move to HTML/web with HTML 5's ability to
> keep a local store of data, akin to Google Gears-which is what Biblios
> used.
>
> Tim
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 16 2010 - 11:07:23 EDT