(Originally posted March 25, 2012)
For
Week 10, students in LSC-555 were asked to visit the Computers in
Libraries Conference, held in the Hilton Hotel in Dupont Circle. Held
over three days (March 21-23), the conference offered registered members
and visitors the opportunity meet with vendors from across the library
tech spectrum and examine their offerings.
Timing
was an issue. Because of my schedule, it was not possible to attend the
conference on Thursday or Friday, so I left work early on Wednesday and
spent a few hours at the conference before going to class.
Consequently, my ability to absorb the information and speak with
vendors was rushed (and matters worsened when a big presentation let
out--filling the exhibition floor with visitors). However, I managed to
meet with, and speak to vendors from five different organizations (EBSCO
Host, OCLC, TLC, VTLS, and Emerald).
For
starters, I was drawn to organizations with which I already possessed a
level of familiarity. Being in closest proximity to the entrance,
EBSCOhost drew me in first, and I spoke with two individuals about the
products (or journals) they offered, services to universities and public
libraries, and their role in the CIL Conference. While I mentioned
familiarity with e-journals, I was informed that EBSCOhost also provided
eBooks and audiobooks. (I should have asked if these were accessible
via smart phone or tablet.)
 |
|
|
| EBSCOhost Booth |
After
walking down one of the vendor isles, I spotted an image on a screen I
had previously seen on the NHC Public Library's web site (which I
thought was designed by NHC).
(http://srvlibpac.nhcgov.com:8080/kids/)
As
it turns out, this page was designed by The Library Corporation (TLC).
It made sense, because NHC turned to TLC when the library updated its
ILS from VTLS's Virtua. However, it seemed I gave NHC too much credit
for developing their own children's page. This created a new question,
because the NHC library is using both OCLC software (particularly
WorldCat and CONTENTdm) and running on TLC's LS2PAC. When examining
possible ILS to update to, my former supervisor requested that CONTENTdm
be part of any package, and I asked the vendor for TLC if there was a
relationship/partnership between TLC and OCLC. He could not confirm it,
but given the special circumstances, it was entirely possible some deal
had been made in order to fulfill NHC's requirements and get the deal
made.
 |
| TLC Vendors and LS2PAC |
|
|
Given
the new mystery, I decided to take the matter up with OCLC.
Unfortunately, the vendor was busy (and I was pressed for time).
However, I did pick up some brochures.
 |
| Busy OCLC Vendor |
While
I am sure vendors are fully capable of working together to make a deal
with a customer, I wondered what kind of problems might arise in the IT
side should programs not interact well with one another (or are the
programs structured so that they can function alongside products from
possible competitors). Conducting a quick Google search for LS2Pac (TLC
ILS used by NHCPL) and CONTENTdm, I was hoping to see other libraries
which used both products--suggesting that such a partnership was not a
novel concept. The result made me smile:
http://ls2pachelp.tlcdelivers.com/1_11/UserApp/I_Want_To/Understand_and_Search_Digital_Collections.htm
The images included in this page are taken from collections I created ("that's my metadata up there!").
I
also made brief stops by VTLS and Emerald--not so much to talk, but to
look over products, brochures, and see if anything jumped out. Prior to
starting at CUA, I never used Emerald. The main journals for historians
are Jstor and Project MUSE.
Ultimately,
it was the experience at the TLC booth which proved to be the most
enlightening. Beyond learning more about LS2PAC, the vendor also told me
how TLC offered two ILS plans--the mentioned LS2PAC (for small
libraries) and CARL X for larger library systems.
I
was hoping to learn more about ExLibris, but they were not listed (or
simply were not there). Based on the recent research paper, I had some
questions regarding the specific differences between Rosetta and
DigiTool and I was hoping someone could explain them to me. (Always next
year!)
(Originally posted, March 3, 2012)
In this week's collection of readings, we examined Integrated Library
Systems (ILS) and the challenges faced by libraries as they try to
balance between staying abreast in the latest technology and ensuring
that an update to a new ILS will not tax the libraries' existing
resources.
Marcia Deddens's "Overview of Integrated Library Systems" (Deddens,
2002) provides a glimpse at the evolving market for ILS and the
relationship between vendors and libraries. Citing examples from
Endeavor Information Systems, Innovative Interfaces, Inc., and
SIRSI--all of which promise products which ease the library's task of
making information digitized and accessible online. Deddens brings up an
excellent point in questioning whether the term ILS has become dated,
and offers an appropriate replacement: Digital Access Management Systems
(DAMS) (Deddins, 2002).
Marshal Breeding's (2005) "Re-Integrating the Integrated Library System"
delves into issues facing the increasingly convoluted waters of the
standard ILS. In an effort to meet the information demands of their
users and to keep up with the simplified browsing capabilities of sites
such as Amazon.com and Google, libraries expand the offerings on their
ILS by including Add-ons and links to e-journals (Breeding, 29). Though
Breeding notes how the dated history of a traditional ILS creates
compatibility issues with new, digitized resources, and while Breeding
calls for a means of improving the integration within the existing ILS,
he confesses there is no realistic solution (Breeding, 30).
Like Breeding, Andrew Pace pushes for integration and interoperability
(Pace, 2004). Likewise, Pace also touches on ideas offered by Deddens,
in that the old notion of an ILS is dead--particularly because as
vendors push new and improved systems for digitized collections, the
advances make the traditional ILS less integrated (thus making the name
itself a contradiction). Pace also raises the question of exactly how much of an existing system needs to be updated/revamped. Is it necessary to start from scratch (Pace, 2004)?
Stephanie Taylor's "A Quick Guide to Z39.50" (2003) highlights the issue
surrounding dated ILS practices by discussing the history of the
development of Z39.50--a clint-server protocol which which functions as a
translator between two ILS. Though Z39.50 serves as a tool which
provides the interoperability and integration libraries desire, there
are questions about whether Z39.50 itself requires an update. If so,
would such an update force libraries to update their existing ILS
accordingly?
While the question raised by these scholars is simple, the answer is
complex. Should libraries update when they run the risk of further
isolating their existing/future systems in an attempt to gain increased
visibility and usage? Does upgrading run the risk of being
counter-productive? Technology evolves, and people adapt accordingly.
Imagine Microsoft and Apple were based on the same programming and
hardware. Imagine the Sony Playstation 3, Xbox 360, and Nintendo Wii
could all play the same discs. For users, this would be advantageous,
because they could pick a computer or system without feeling a sense of
risk. However, for the companies, this would prove disastrous, because
it is the unique quality and character of their products which appeals
to different users. Vendors depend on that uniqueness to stay
competitive and develop products which appeal to some libraries (who, in
turn, hope the final product will appeal to their targeted patrons).
Breeding, M. (2005). Re-Integrating the integrated library system. Computers in Libraries, 25, 28-30.
Deddens, M. (2002). Overview of ILS. EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
Pace, A. (2004). Dismantling integrated library systems. Library Journal.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA374953.html
Taylor, S. (2003). A quick guide to …Z39.50. Interlending and Document Supply, 31, 25-30.
