Shouldn't we distinguish the library catalog as a _database_ from the
software used to query it and the ILS used to maintain it? The subject of
this email list seems to be more than the software models that exist now,
and it seems that the next vision of software to search that database will
bring together, but _organize_ (making the differences apparent too) other
databases as well. Different strategies may be needed to organize data
from many sources with different assumed attributes.
My thought on reading Eric's message was - this set of data sources that
brings in the "other" things - the open access content, etc. - does it make
sense that many different libraries should be creating their own
metacatalog, or should we be cooperating? With a standard that enables us
to combine our unique "catalogs" with our shared "communilog"?
Cindy Harper, Systems Librarian
Colgate University Libraries
charper_at_colgate.edu
315-228-7363
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM, B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thomas Klingler said: "But Bernie....Eric didn't say the "catalog" needs to
> do more. He said "discovery systems" need to do more."
>
> Eric said: "Library 'discovery systems' and/or CATALOGS (emphasis mine) are
> designed to organize and provide access to the materials outlined above, but
> they need to do more."
>
> I was just commenting on the use of the word "catalog".
>
> Bernie Sloan
>
> --- On Tue, 8/31/10, KLINGLER, THOMAS <tk_at_KENT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > From: KLINGLER, THOMAS <tk_at_KENT.EDU>
> > Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] discovery systems need to do more
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 2:39 PM
> > 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 - 15:22:33 EDT