[XML4Lib] ILS system architectures

[Duimovich, George]

I wasn't able to attend the Access 2005, but I read some reports with great
interest (and envy, having not yet attended any..).

Each time I read about all the great stuff coming down the pipe, new
technology and service models, and so on, I feel some need to reaffirm that
there is some hope for overcoming some major constraints with our
"Integrated" Library Systems.

I am curious for any feedback (directly to me if this thread is too
off-topic):  Are there any organized efforts (library community or industry)
out there to help speed up changing some of the ILS market dynamics out
there?  I've seen some stuff on the VIEWS industry committee for web
services, but I'm interested in any thoughts on organized or specific
possible catalysts for changing this marketplace (other than the obvious
generic response that: just be patient, "the market will change the
marketplace"). 

I won't argue the points in detail, but among the barriers I'm concerned
about :

- Inability of our ILS systems to readily/flexibly extend beyond the MARC
attribute set (see also that fantastic earlier thread on "When will XML
replace MARC?"). XML has enabled and encouraged all kinds of domains to
create really rich metadata standards, but crosswalks aren't enough when
what we really need is the ability to add to the mix additional attributes
derived from our own custom institutional requirements or from another
non-MARC but standardized attribute set(s). When it can be done, most
vendors won't fully support the standard and direct methods for doing this,
nor with the freedom to integrate (or interconnect) in a suitable manner... 

- closed architectures: when I read some of the discussion from Access 2005,
from say L. Demsey, on bringing the library to "where the user is -- on the
network", it's frustrating to think how many more years it'll be before the
ILS marketplace changes to truly support this vision.  I don't want to bash
the vendors per se, but when I look at our ILS user's group "enhancements
requests" I am disturbed by how particular the requests are focussed, when
in many cases, we wouldn't have to wait for many of these specific
mini-changes if the "black box" architecture was opened up for our own
application development! Further, the bias remains heavily towards "library
workflow" when our users' expectations are driven by $billion Google
inspired R&D, and the network environment is increasingly moving forward
with possibilities much faster than our system architectures are supporting
the exploration and innovation by the "ready and willing."

Surely "turnkey" is not incompatible with "separation of concerns" software
engineering (old news) and more open architectures.

Using our ILS vendors user "Enhancements requests" listing as an indicator,
it's odd that there seems to be very little demand for more broader scale,
fundamental changes to ILS system architecture. Instead, there are lots of
requests for things like "The ability to change the location and order of
the buttons..." and so on. It's as if we want the vendor to change the
colour of the icon, not the architecture that prevents us from doing so
ourselves?  I'd guess that this is the case across the board for most
vendors..

George Duimovich, MLIS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/xml4lib/attachments/20051027/ac5afcc7/attachment.htm