tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post5034901934164524992..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: The ILS minus the catalogKaren Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-32078550688546750952008-02-07T08:09:00.000-08:002008-02-07T08:09:00.000-08:00As someone who has worked with library systems, st...As someone who has worked with library systems, standalone and integrated, for almost twenty-five years I'm surprised at Jeffrey's reaction. Karen is raising valid questions, ones that we continue to revisit in order to make our services, systems, and communications formats meet the evolving needs of our patrons. I teach my students about the evolution of library systems and try to impress upon them the importance of not becoming too wedded to one approach in this rapidly changing environment.Mary Alice Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05326270693840161537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-4956358936989824352008-02-05T17:35:00.000-08:002008-02-05T17:35:00.000-08:00I think it was Bates who made the observation that...I think it was Bates who made the observation that many in the profession became 'fused' with the information retrieval model that emerged at the onset of wide-scale library automation, i.e., mid to late seventies. I must say that I found that a penetrating insight. <BR/><BR/>Many (most?) public interfaces grew directly out of RFP requirements which were articulated (in the OPAC section, anyway) by public services staff in the first place. I doubt that many technical/systems oriented staff in that formative period of ILS development were given much chance to influence the OPAC (aka user) design, frankly, even though many had a firm knowledge base and were keeping pace with search studies/research being carried out (e.g., Markey, Mandel, etc.) <BR/>Many professionals in the "back room" are in a far better position to recognize, influence, and capitalize on infrastructure trends (such as decoupling parts of the ILS). Most interesting stuff that is going on, is surely taking place in those back rooms (e.g., EDI, ONIX), etc. <BR/><BR/>I find that those on the front lines (as opposed to in the back rooms) need far more convincing to move away from the 'integrated system' and towards the 'integrated experience'. <BR/><BR/>Mia MassicotteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-30323043621334717172008-02-04T09:37:00.000-08:002008-02-04T09:37:00.000-08:00Jeffrey,Perhaps you can console yourself with the ...Jeffrey,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can console yourself with the thought that I am just one person and people are free to ignore me. (BTW, the room is bright, west-facing and looking out onto a garden. It's actually quite nice.)Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-79466942457389140412008-02-04T06:40:00.000-08:002008-02-04T06:40:00.000-08:00Your use of the pronoun "we" is offensive. There's...Your use of the pronoun "we" is offensive. There's no "we" here. It's just you. You want to kill information access in libraries. You want to kill high-quality metadata in libraries. Instead of promoting improved information discovery tools, you wail about how much you hate MARC and scheme to slander and kill it. The real "we" is those of us who actually work in libraries and observe the day-to-day interactions of information seekers. We are not in a dark room in the East Bay somewhere, mad that we were laid off from Melvyl. We are trying to build; you are trying to destroy.Jeffrey Beallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11892507846112379242noreply@blogger.com