But Bernie....Eric didn't say the "catalog" needs to do more. He said "discovery systems" need to do more. I see the discovery system as another system or layer that's not the catalog. From where I sit, the content in the catalog is just one of the buckets that the discovery layer will tap into. Other buckets include the repositories, the ETD centers, the e-journal centers, etc. In some ways it's sad that the catalog and the discovery layer are not / likely won't be the same thing. But the discovery layer will provide broad searching, faceted retrieval, social network hooks, massive pre-indexing, integrated federated searching, etc. that some of us can't mash into our existing catalogs...
Tom Klingler
Kent State
Chair, OhioLINK Discovery Layer Task Force
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
>Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:18 PM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] discovery systems need to do more
>
>Just to clarify what I said a little bit, I'm thinking that the core
>design principles of library catalogs are based on managing "silos" of
>physical materials. As Brian Kennison said: "Format/location doesn't
>matter any more. If we can, we need to break down silos of information."
>Are library catalogs the right tool for the job?
>
>I first asked this general question 18 years ago on the old PACS-L
>list...long enough ago that I had a BITNET address for my e-mail. The
>subject line was: "The Post-OPAC Era", and I ended the posting by
>asking: "should we be trying to retool the OPAC to play a broader role
>that might perhaps be better filled by developing gateway technologies
>(WAIS, Internet gopher, etc)?" Granted, my examples of "developing
>gateway technologies" are now ancient history, but you get my drift. :-)
>
>Bernie Sloan
>
>--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Brian Kennison <KennisonB_at_WCSU.EDU> wrote:
>
>> From: Brian Kennison <KennisonB_at_WCSU.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] discovery systems need to do more
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:50 PM
>> On 8/31/10 1:13 PM, "B.G. Sloan"
>> <bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I know there are exceptions to what I just said, but I'm
>> thinking that the core design principles of library catalogs
>> are based on the need to manage physical collections?
>>
>> The problem is ( and has been ) that "physical" objects
>> provide only a fraction of information that your patron is
>> in need of and is willing to use and as a proportion of
>> available information is getting smaller all the time.
>> Format/location doesn't matter any more. If we can, we
>> need to break down silos of information. That doesn't mean
>> you couldn't have a catalog that provided added value to
>> physical objects but it's got to be discoverable in the
>> user's normal work flow (not that I know what that is but
>> Google comes to mind ).
>>
>> The other thing I think Eric was trying to get at is "open"
>> content. If libraries can provide both access to these types
>> of materials AND value-added services on top of this access
>> we would be providing significant service to our patrons.
>>
>> While there are a lot of good people working on tools and
>> services I don't think any body has all the tools they need.
>> I think a contributing problem is that lack of majority of
>> the profession to recognize the urgency of this matter and
>> lack of support for this vision both in their commitment of
>> resource and time.
>>
>> Mean while Eric, I guess we just keep plugging away.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Kennison
>> Western Connecticut State University
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 31 2010 - 14:41:29 EDT