...about this EBSCO Sales VP saying EDS doesn't use MARC records....or, that EDS libraries can "eliminate these MARC record costs"...?
Eh?...
I must be missing something. Hopefully he's talking about a future, more efficient service....maybe one that is based on Web Services and Linked Data and/or TNBT (The Next Big Thing) !
But as of now everyone I know who uses EDS has to schlep their catalog content to EBSCO on some schedule (weekly?) to keep their EDS instance synced with their catalog holdings. That is, schlep their bib and item data.....them old MARC records...
When we start with EDS in early 2014, I plan to automate our update process and send changes only, rather than copying the entire catalog every week like some customers are doing.
...Now, if I could just set a flag at Amazon, YBP, etc when I order something that says, "tell folks like EDS and OCLC about this item I'm buying,"
Tom Klingler
Kent State
On Oct 9, 2013, at 8:49 AM, "Jan Szczepanski" <jan.szczepanski63_at_GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> A reaction from the "market"
>
> More and more libraries are using EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) for
> the very reasons the industry as a whole will soon reach a point where
> discovery services supplant traditional catalogs. Taking patron driven
> acquisition of ebooks as just one example: going the catalog route,
> libraries must expend limited resources to customize, load, reload,
> remove, add, and replace MARC records; going the EDS route, libraries
> are able to eliminate these MARC record costs and deliver a much
> better experience to users, as the ebooks are made discoverable and
> accessible immediately with no dependency on MARC records.
>
> http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/09/events/qa-scott-wasinger-vice-president-of-sales-for-ebooks-and-audiobooks-at-ebsco-publishing/
>
> Jan
>
> 2013/10/9 James Weinheimer <weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com>:
>> On 09/10/2013 1.21, Peter Schlumpf wrote:
>> <snip>
>> At the risk of being blunt, catalogers think too much and take themselves
>> too seriously. That has been their problem all along. And it is true of
>> Libraryland generally. In doing so they make themselves ever more
>> irrelevant.
>> </snip>
>>
>> You can be blunt--please be blunt. One of the problems is people are not
>> saying what they really think. Of course, everyone needs to be civil (as you
>> are) but especially in these crazy, changing times in the information world,
>> the only thing we can be sure of is that *nobody* knows what the public
>> wants and even less, what they will want in two years from now. So, when
>> somebody says that they know what people want, it is BS. They don't know;
>> they can't. If they did know, they would keep their mouths shut and make
>> outrageous amounts of money. That puts everybody in the same boat, which is
>> a real advantage.
>>
>> Concerning John's comment that there should be "IMHOs" in my messages, I
>> appreciate the thought, but no. I have the courage of my convictions and if
>> somebody can demonstrate where I am wrong, please do so, and if I am wrong I
>> will admit it, just as I have in the past. If someone cares to look on the
>> web, they will find that I have changed my mind several times. I consider
>> that not to show failure or weakness, but instead learning, change and
>> adaptability.
>>
>> So, to return to the point, do catalogers (and librarians) think too much
>> and take themselves too seriously? If we say that it is unimportant to allow
>> quick, reliable, consistent, unbiased access to resources that are selected
>> by experts, then that would have to be demonstrated. The Googles certainly
>> work very hard and spend outrageous amounts of money to provide a type of
>> quick access to materials that benefits their organizations in various ways,
>> but the other points (reliable, consistent, unbiased, selected by experts)
>> fall by the wayside.
>>
>> Would the public like to have that kind of access? I think they are
>> screaming for it (and I have pointed to those voices in my podcasts and
>> papers). I don't think the Googles have any interest in providing that kind
>> of access for people, although they will tell you it is of vital interest to
>> them, and we are supposed to believe it, that Google does no evil, that
>> McDonald's does it all for me, that Starbucks cares about the rain forests,
>> that Nike shoes will make me "Just do it" and so on. I, for one, do not
>> believe it.
>>
>> The fact is, the library catalog does allow that kind of reliable,
>> consistent, unbiased access to resources that are selected by experts. I can
>> prove it, and have done so. The problem is: the methods the public is
>> supposed to use for finding are definitely obsolete. If the library
>> community refuses to update those methods to something modern and are aimed
>> at the practical use of a public that refuses to sit for hours-long
>> tutorials, then the library world deserves whatever it gets.
>>
>> --
>> James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
>> First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
>> First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
>> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
>> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>> Cataloging Matters Podcasts
>> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
>
>
>
> --
> Jan Szczepański
> F.d Förste bibliotekare och chef för f.d Avdelningen för humaniora,
> vid f.d. Centralbiblioteket, Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek
> E-post: Jan.Szczepanski63_at_gmail.com
>
Received on Sat Oct 12 2013 - 10:02:09 EDT