A couple of thoughts after reading this report:
* The authors mention that one of the search tools in use at Oregon State University (as of March 2009) is called "LibraryFind", which they describe as a "locally developed open source research tool."
Curious, I decided to look into this further, and - sure enough - their website still incorporates this "software developed by the Oregon State University Libraries, in part funded from a grant from the State Library." Furthermore, there is a dedicated project website which boasts that "LibraryFind is an open source metasearch application developed by librarians for libraries."
Now, even though the point of this report is to see whether or not LibraryFind can be "effectively replaced" by WorldCat Local, I wish more libraries would look into developing their own tools and online applications; the authors seem to share this view, as they note that "giving up search and retrieval to OCLC" (in effect, giving up control of their online presence to an outside third party) may ultimately "[take them] out of the search and retrieval equation" while relegating the role of library staff to "teaching users how to use the system and cataloging materials for that system" (i.e. serving as "drones" who must follow how OCLC's system works, with no real input into how the system serves their local user community).
Kendall Wiggin gave a talk at this year's NETSL conference, where (amongst other topics) he spoke about how - and I'm paraphrasing here - "there are already enough nerds in the library profession, but now we need more geeks!" His point was that more librarians should be learning how to code and program and troubleshoot computer programs for themselves, so that they don't need to rely on the IT department or outside sources (like OCLC) to do the work for them ... It seems as if OSU's library staff has the "geek" thing well in hand (they have a web development group nicknamed "Team 200" working in-house on projects like LibraryFind), so perhaps they shouldn't be so eager to give up control of search and retrieval in their community, when they've developed a pretty robust system all on their own.
* When describing how WorldCat Local works, the authors state that "maintenance of a local catalog would remain necessary, although less attention would need to be devoted to customization of the catalog." [emphasis mine]
Now, I understand that there is a movement within the profession towards less "localized" cataloging, while having large databases (like OCLC) do the work in order to save time and resources ... After all, the Boston Public Library's copy of "Blink" is pretty much the same as UCLA's copy (i.e. each institution's copy of the book has the same identifying information, and their individual user communities do not require much in the way of heavily-scrutinized editing by local catalogers in order to find them).
However, I do think that individual library collections will lose some of that "local flavor" if they rely too much on outside sources to do that kind of cataloging work for them. Besides, by employing this strategy, libraries are putting a lot of faith in tools like WCL to get every cataloging detail correct ... While many preach the mantra of "good enough" when it comes to catalog records (Who cares if a book has 235 pages but the record says "236", patrons won't even notice!), I can't tell you how many records we've downloaded from OCLC at my library where important information (titles, authors, etc.) is just plain wrong! In fact, their errors can wind up being misleading to the point where it would actually hamper a patron's ability to find that particular item (if there wasn't a "local catalog" system in place to correct those errors, of course!).
No comments:
Post a Comment