[WEB4LIB] Re: Two steps forward, three steps back

[Fiona Bradley]

Acting Assistant Manager
SBS Radio Resource Centre
Locked Bag 028 
Crows Nest NSW 2065
Australia

Ph: (02) 9430 2862
Email: fiona.bradley at sbs.com.au
>>> Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> 12/23/04 3:33 AM >>>
>You're probably aware that at various times there have been efforts to
>define standards for search and retrieval in library systems, and that
>none of these efforts has come to fruition. The closest we have are the
>search standards for Z39.50, which essentially define basic search
types
>that every catalog should be able to do. But those searches are not
>necessarily the ones that are presented in the user interface.

Are there any moves to standardise the language used in OPACs? It seems
that there is varying meaning and usage attributed to 'keyword'
'subject' and others. There has been discussion on this list recently
about the choice of words in the pages leading up to the OPAC (ie 'find'
instead of 'search') but what about the language used on the OPAC
itself? 

IFLA published a review of "Guidelines for OPAC Displays"
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/guide/opacguide03.htm in 2003 but that also
focused more on the display of results than the underlying search
technologies. 

Apart from all the technical issues, there are still many OPACs which
are not at all integrated into the rest of a library's site.
Customisation in many cases is no more than a logo. We also need to work
on having vendors provide OPACs that are easier to configure. 

cheers,
Fiona