[Web4lib] Follow Up On The Analysis Of Open Source ILS Market Penetration

[Bob Molyneux]

> > >The remarks about the 23 INCOLSA libraries are ambiguous.  If this number
> > >represents only a marketing agreement between INCOLSA and LibLime, 
> then it
> > >should not be included in any count of libraries going with an open 
> source
> > >ILS.  The marketing agreement could be mentioned in a footnote to the
> >
> > >numbers chart, because it is significant information, but if it does not
> > >represent actual users or libraries that have made a commitment to 
> install
> > >a system, then it should not be included in any count.
> > Au contrare, mon ami, on rereading that section, I find it very clear. I
> > might even say "pellucid" given its admirable concision. The ambiguityis
> > between the Web page where INCOLSA and in lib-web-cats. It was my sad duty
> > to point it out.
> >
> > lib-web-cats assigned those libraries to Koha. The INCOLSA Web page
> > says it has the arrangement with LibLime for its member libraries says 
> that LibLime
> > will help those libraries implement either Koha or Evergreen (among other
> > open source applications). If not, why the reference to Evergreen's being
> > available to INCOLSA members, complete with a picture of a box labelled
> > "Evergreen" with a LibLime logo on it? Which is it, then? Therefore, my
> > description of this ambiguous situation is accurate.
>I apologize for not clarifying this seeming ambiguity in our email exchange
>off-list, but perhaps a more careful read of the press release is in order;
>specifically, all of the ISLC libraries will be running Koha. LibLime has a
>separate agreement with Incolsa (not the ISLC) to deploy Evergreen solutions
>for members not part of the ISLC who fit the bill for that solution (the
>agreement covers all of LibLime's products).
>
>Note that the press release title is "INCOLSA Selects Koha for Indiana Shared
>Library Catalog" so that should have been clear enough, but in the body it
>states:
>
>"...have announced that the Indiana Shared Library Catalog (ISLC) is
>migrating to Koha ZOOM for their next integrated library system (ILS)
>and union catalog."
>--http://liblime.com/news-items/press-releases/incolsa-selects-koha/
Then I must have missed something. The ISLC is still running legacy 
software but lib-web-cats' classification as Koha, by its practice, must be 
correct, if what you say is correct. However, note the INCOLSA news page:
http://www.incolsa.net/inside/news.html

Nothing about the LibLime news.

I will check this when I go live with the debugged report. By my restricted 
definition, this is not, yet, a Koha library.

>Also, I see that your latest charts still don't include the 30+ library
>systems I sent you who have committed to Koha as part of the Central
>Kansas consortium (Pathfinder Central).
My note to Josh off the list pointed out that:
1) lib-web-cats says that this system runs Athena.
2) I can't see a Web based OPAC.
3) CKLS's "What's New" page doesn't mention this news 
(http://cklsblog.wordpress.com/)

By no set of criteria I have used could I have included this library. I 
suppose I could change them. Would it, then, make sense to classify based 
on a press release? I don't think so for two reasons:
1) There is many a slip between the cup and the lip.
2) I think when we talk about what is going on in the open source movement, 
it behooves us to be sure of our numbers so we don't fool ourselves. I have 
been around numbers for too long and in various situations and if one is 
not systematic and disciplined, it is quite easy to get tripped up.

I propose a third estimate, say, the "Anything goes" estimate. Josh, I will 
redo that spreadsheet with those libraries in Central Kansas in it, maybe 
as the last table. I will send it to you in a day or three when I can get 
to it. Some of the 29 libraries(--not 30+) in the list are not in the PLDF3 
database. Probably branches.

>Thanks for the work in maintaining this information, I'm looking forward to
>seeing the OSS solutions expand.
Every journey no matter how long, begins with the first step.

I won't be doing this survey every week, though. We are dealing with a 
slow-moving phenomenon as we all known. Migration is not something folks 
take on lightly so changes won't manifest themselves quickly. I think every 
six months will be sufficient. In a few years, with improvements, we will 
know more.




>Cheers,
>
>--
>Joshua Ferraro                       SUPPORT FOR OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE
>President, Technology       migration, training, maintenance, support
>LibLime                                Featuring Koha Open-Source ILS
>jmf at liblime.com |Full Demos at http://liblime.com/koha |1(888)KohaILS


Bob Molyneux
drdata at molyneux.com
XyWrite forever!
0x 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0