Tag Archives: library systems

Where have library systems vendors gone astray?

Posted on by
4

Disaffection with the traditional integrated library system (ILS) is widespread these days. Terms that are frequently bandied about to describe them are “monolithic” “inflexible” “expensive” and “unfriendly”, just to name a few. Many librarians increasingly question the level of investment that purchasing and maintaining ILSs requires, particularly in the face of users’ dramatically changed expectations for information retrieval thanks to Google, Amazon, eBay, iTunes, and other web services. Then, too, technological changes are occuring so rapidly that libraries are requiring greater investment in technology than ever before while at the same time, struggling to hire and keep knowledgeable staff who are capable of sewing disparate technological systems together into a cohesive and sustainable whole. Furthermore, libraries are increasingly emphasizing virtual or digital collections rather than simply acquiring print material, and the needs for effectively managing this new kind of resource are sometimes quite different than is required for more “traditional” material. And then there is a distinct sea change in the broader world of information technology with increasing focus on open systems frameworks and, more specifically, open source applications.

Where have library systems vendors gone astray? Put another way, how can they continue to play a role as partners with libraries to serve library users? Do library systems vendors even have a future? I am not an apologist for ILS vendors, by any means. I have worked extensively in libraries, I have used a wide variety of library systems, I have worked on open source library applications, and I have worked for an ILS vendor in developing new features or products. Here are some of the things that, in my opinion, have led library systems vendors astray. These are my personal views, not those of anyone else, and especially not of the library systems vendor who employs me.

  • Faulty participation in standards development affecting libraries
  • By and large, lack of deep pockets and resources to research and quickly implement new products or features
  • Too much time spent on unimportant, widgety enhancements to existing software
  • Focus on meeting individual libraries’ or customers’ contractual needs instead of the bigger picture of what is happening in the broader information technology arena or how to best serve the broader customer base
  • More attention given to librarians’ needs than library users’ needs
  • A tendency to focus on the lowest common denominator customer at the cost of alienating customers who want to expand and enhance and push the envelope of the system

A post from today by Alane Wilson of the excellent It’s All Good blog touches on these same themes. Alane summarizes presentations by two leaders in the library systems marketplace. Among their conclusions:

  • the traditional ILS is focused on a legacy business process that will continue to exist for a very long time but eventually will gradually become more and more peripheral to library service
  • there is great need for synthesizing diverse services, weaving them together into a cohesive whole, which sounds easy in practice but in reality requires a high level of expertise and expense
  • the library systems industry needs to look more outside of itself to understand what is happening in the broader information technology arena (also, I would argue, it needs to better understand what’s happening in the scholarly communication arena, too)
  • far too much time is spent on building and developing what one library systems vendor CEO calls “twiddly bits” — what I call widgety stuff

Read the whole thing; it’s quite interesting.

Some Thoughts on RDA and ILS vendors [Updated]

Posted on by
Reply

Some time ago I noted here that an acquaintence of mine had snagged an interesting job at ALA as RDA Project Manager. Yesterday I sat down and read more about RDA, which stands for Resource Description and Access. In particular I read through the RDA Prospectus, published by an international group called the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, or JSC for short. This group is responsible for implementing changes to the cataloging code of practice in use by the majority of libraries in North America, the U.K., and Canada. The current cataloging code is known as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) and this has been the standard code for cataloging since the 1960s when the first edition of AACR was published. Having taken all of the cataloging coursework in library school and then starting out in the profession as a serials cataloger at the University of Chicago Library and then managing a large cataloging unit there for quite a while, I have “grown up” on AACR and have been actively involved in the cataloging community, particularly the serials cataloging part, in the past. I’ve since moved away from that professional focus somewhat and am no longer as current in my knowledge as I used to be. I had heard about RDA but didn’t really pay much attention to it. So it was a big surprise to me to read yesterday that RDA will be replacing AACR (or rather, AACR2R, which is the 2nd, rev. ed. of AACR that is currently in use). I decided to delve into RDA in more detail.

What I learned from the prospectus and from some of the discussion surrounding RDA that I could find is very intriguing. This is a very big change, and, in my view, a positive one. It is a big change on many levels but since I work for a major ILS (integrated library systems) vendor, I focused on what this new standard might mean for them. Here are some thoughts or impressions that came to mind:

  • Acceleration of the end of MARC, or at least, the lessening of emphasis on MARC. MARC (which stands for MAchine Readable Cataloging) is not directly tied to AACR2R or RDA in theory but nevertheless the two are closely entwined in practice. While AACR2R (and soon, RDA) describes cataloging rules such as how to choose the title of a book, MARC is the standard for how to record and transmit cataloging information electronically. MARC also drives or controls much of what cataloging information gets displayed to users in online catalogs. My reading of the prospectus makes it seem very clear that RDA will not assume the use of MARC but instead will be designed to be of use in a variety of metadata formats, of which MARC will be one of many. Of course there are already many other metadata formats in use by libraries other than MARC (e.g. EAD, Dublic Core, etc.), but this kind of emphasis by RDA on multiplicity of formats has far-reaching implications and solidifies or adds weight to the trend toward multiplicity of formats that’s been underway for several years. Why does this matter to ILS vendors? It matters because the core record or basis for just about every major ILS system is the MARC record. Expansion of multiplicity of metadata formats supported by an ILS calls for radical system redesign — assuming, of course (which I personally do not), the need for an integrated (some say, monolithic) library system continues to exist.
  • The prospectus makes it clear that RDA will be predicated on FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAR (Functional Requirements for Authority Records), conceptual models developed under the auspices of IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). These models have been around for quite a while yet very few ILS vendors have made their systems compatible with them as of yet. Implementation of RDA, as it is currently proposed, anyway, will change that from “it would be nice, but…” to “must be capable of…” In other words, it will no longer be desirable, but required. That’s a big difference. Those ILS vendors who have maintained the status quo on this one won’t be able to do so for much longer.
  • According to the prospectus, “RDA is being developed to provide a better fit with emerging database technologies, and to take advantage of efficiencies and flexibility that such technologies offer with respect to data capture, storage, retrieval, and display.” This could mean all kinds of things for ILS vendors and I am not certain really of what JSC has in mind. However, database design and maintenance is perhaps the most integral, complicated, and proprietary aspect of modern library systems. Any changes in that aspect of ILS work will be of huge significance for vendors.
  • Perhaps if RDA is successfully implemented, the idea of an ILS will enjoy a renaissance if/when vendors and/or libraries develop a system that can readily ingest, output, and manipulate library data no matter how it is encoded. Rather than component-izing (a madeup word) the disparate pieces of traditional ILS functionality as seems to be the general trend nowadays, maybe RDA, with its inherent tolerance for a multiplicity of metadata formats, will result in one central system that can handle those formats in one place with the flexibility that libraries need. Who knows?
  • One major portion of RDA will be dedicated to relationships. I find this interesting and a good thing. One of the biggest failings of ILS systems is that they have largely failed to readily help librarians piece together disparate works so that the user of the online catalog can readily see relationships among them.
  • One thing not mentioned at all in the prospectus is the whole concept of user-supplied metadata, e.g. tagging, and how that will play a role in the future for online catalogs and bibliographic utilities. I believe that tagging as a phenomenon is here to stay, even if I have my doubts about its efficacy right now. How can or should ILS vendors enable user-supplied metadata in conjunction with library-supplied cataloging?

I admit that I don’t know as much as I should know about RDA and surrounding issues, and I may have misinterpreted some of what I’ve read. Or maybe there are even more radical implications for ILS vendors than what I can think of right now. Regardless, I am fairly confident that RDA’s progressive approach bodes for a lot of upheaval for a lot of stakeholders. I’m going to pay a lot more attention to it than I have heretofore!