[Web4lib] Role of the OPAC (was: library automation vendors)

[Ross Singer]

What's even sadder about these examples is that they're relatively easy 
fixes.  Book reviews especially so.  But you're right.  The "integrated 
library system" makes little effort to actually "integrate" into the 
library system.

As far as reserves, you should take a look at Emory's Reserves Direct 
(http://www.reservesdirect.org/).  The entire motivation for creating 
Reserves Direct was because I thought it was silly (and unacceptable, 
really) that "circulating" reserves were found in a completely different 
interface than "electronic reserves" and that the faculty member had no 
control over the list.

I think you are right, though.  Maybe the opac should be the "local book 
database", the "local govdoc database", the "physically held music 
database", etc. that integrate into "search our collections".

-Ross.

David Walker wrote:

>Great question, Ross.
>
>I think the essential mistake we make with the OPAC, or library catalog,
>is to treat it as a single system.  This is problematic on two levels:
>
>(1) Our users don't know what a "library catalog" is.
>
>How do I find books in a library?  Through the library catalog, of
>course.  But you can only say "of course" because you already know that.
>The freshman walking thru the doors of our library this fall don't have
>that knowledge. (It's amazing to me that the word "books" doesn't appear
>on many library home pages.  If it's not easy to find books in a
>library, you know you're in trouble!)
>
>How about book reviews?  Those should be in the catalog too, right?
>Nope, those are in a totally different part of our site.  Journals?
>Catalog.  Unless you're looking for an 'electronic' journal, which in
>many libraries is in a separate journal list.  Journal articles?  Not in
>the catalog.  Print reserves are in our catalog, but 'electronic'
>reserves are in a different system, both of which are different from the
>online video system we'll be using for those types of reserves this next
>year.  But other types of videos are in the catalog.
>
>Oh, yeah, if you're looking for books beyond our library -- that is,
>books that are available via delivery -- those aren't in the catalog.
>
>
>In my mind, what we need to do is basically get rid of the catalog.  Not
>the system itself, but the whole idea of a "library catalog."  We should
>nix any reference to it from our web sites, and just group like content
>together regardless of what system contains that content.
>
>Print journals, electronic journals, and journal articles should be
>searchable and browse-able from a single place in the web site --
>probably called "journals" or something like that.  Print reserves,
>electronic reserves, and online video reserves should be searchable and
>browse-able from a single point -- lets call that "reserves".  Books,
>regardless of where they are, should be searchable from one place,
>called "Socrates."  No, I'm just kidding, call it "books."  And so on.
>
>We can achieve this by:
>
>(1) Scoping our catalogs to treat things like journals and media
>differently.
>(2) Use metasearch to group the catalog with other book databases when
>giving people book search options.
>(3) Create 'harvesters' to extract content, like reserves, out of the
>catalog and combine that with the content of other systems.
>
>Metasearching also lets us get beyond format to also present library
>resources around subjects -- in my mind a much more useful view.  But
>most metasearch systems only "integrate" the catalog via Z39.50 -- which
>does make it easy, as Jim said -- but essentially treats the catalog
>again as a single system.  Many OPAC Z39.50 servers simply don't allow
>you to take advantage of scoped searches and other limits that would be
>useful.  And so I think we need to do more beyond Z39.50.
>
>In that way, the catalog is nowhere and everywhere at the same time.
>But what it is not is a system unto itself, because our users don't want
>to search a bunch of different systems, each unto itself.  They just
>want to "search the library."
>
>That was way too long.  I'll get back to point two later. :-)
>
>--Dave
>
>=================
>David Walker
>Web Development Librarian
>Library
>Cal State San Marcos
>760-750-4379
>=================
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
>[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:30 AM
>To: web4lib at webjunction.org
>Subject: [Web4lib] Role of the OPAC (was: library automation vendors)
>
>I think Jim Campbell and David Walker have raised an extremely good
>point.
>
>In the context of the modern library (and this includes all types of
>libraries), what /is/ the role of the OPAC?  What is its purpose?  Is
>there a reason it is segregated from other electronic resources?
>
>I'm very curious to hear from various corners of the profession on this
>one because, honestly, I have having an extremely hard time figuring out
>the utility of the catalog as a public interface.
>
>Thanks,
>-Ross.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4lib at webjunction.org
>http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>  
>