Schemes to add functionality to the web OPAC fall into four categories: web OPAC enhancements, web OPAC wrappers, web OPAC replacements, and integrated library system replacements. I’m outlining these four techniques in a report I’m editing for an OhioLINK strategic task force and a bit of a reality check on this categorization is desired, so if I’m missing anything big (conceptually or announcements of projects/products that fall into these categories), please let me know in the comments. Generally speaking, this list is ordered by cost/complexity to implement — from lowest to highest — as well as the ability to offer the described enhanced services from least likely to most likely.
Web OPAC enhancements are functions that are added to the existing web OPAC system. This most often entails additional product purchases from the automation vendor, such as the optional enhancements in WebPAC Pro for Millennium OPACs or content solutions in SirsiDynix. Enhancement can also be added through creative use of an existing web OPAC’s template functions, such as the method by which LibraryThing for Libraries can be added to OPAC displays.
Web OPAC wrappers use the existing web OPAC provided by the integrated library system as a source of information, but hide that information behind a completely new interface. The intervening system get that information from the integrated library system through a variety of mechanism. In some cases, it may be possible to use established protocols (such as Z39.50) or programming interfaces (such as an XML content server). In cases where such functionality is not available from the underlying integrated library system, a “screen-scraping HTML” technique may be required. 1
One example of such a wrapper is the work at Ann Arbor Public Library on SOPAC. Short for “Social OPAC,” SOPAC is “a set of social networking tools integrated into the AADL catalog [that] gives users the ability to rate, review, comment-on, and tag items.”2 It uses an open source content management system called Drupal as a structure through which the added functionality is provided. For example, when a user seeks the bibliographic information page for a catalog record, that request is made from the user’s browser to the Drupal software. The Drupal software in turn makes a request to the integrated library system for the bibliographic information it holds. The response from the ILS is parsed by the Drupal software for key information such as title, author, subjects, holdings, etc. This information is mixed with information stored in the Drupal database (ratings, tags, reviews, cover images, etc.) and a new web page is created and returned to the user’s browser.
Another example of a web OPAC wrapper is Scriblio (formerly called WPopac). Using the underlying framework of Wordpress, Scriblio offers faceted browsing, tagging, and syndication feeds for the underlying Millennium WebOPAC. Scriblio is a project of Plymouth State University, supported in part by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Both SOPAC and Scriblio are available under open source licenses.
Web OPAC replacements are new systems that completely replace the existing web OPAC. Unlike wrappers (which get their bibliographic data in real-time from the underlying web OPAC), these replacements operate on sets of records that are extracted from the ILS or come from another source. (In some cases, these replacements still rely on the underlying web OPAC as a source of item status information such as checked out status and due date.) The first notable OPAC replacement was at North Carolina State University when its library installed and configured the Endeca software to provide a faceted browse to the library catalog. By itself, an Endeca OPAC display does not enable tagging, annotation, or user aggregation services such as recommendation engines. Other similar web OPAC replacements are Encore from Innovative Interfaces3, Primo from Ex Libris and Aquabrowser from Medialab Solutions. Miami University’s experiments with the open source Apache SOLR and the exported records from their Millennium system also fall into this category. Worldcat Local is also a form of web OPAC replacement noting that the source of bibliographic records is the OCLC Worldcat database rather than the local ILS.
ILS replacements offer the biggest opportunity for enhanced user services, particularly by adopting one of the open source solutions now available. At this time, neither of the open source solutions (Evergreen and Koha) offers more than faceted search and browsing. Unlike the commercial systems, however, the source code of the system can be modified to add these functions, and the modifications shared with other users of the same system.
[Update 20071015T1624 : Corrections made -- and the text improved! -- based on Betsy Graham's comment. Thanks, Betsy!]
Footnotes
- Such a technique gets the information from the ILS using the existing web OPAC. Such schemes are generally fragile because changes to the underlying web OPAC can have detrimental affects on the content scraping process. [↩]
- Blyberg, J. (2007). AADL.org Goes Social. blyberg.net. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.blyberg.net/2007/01/21/aadlorg-goes-social/ [↩]
- As Betsy Graham, Vice President of Product Management at Innovative Interfaces, notes in the comments, the Encore will perform real-time queries to a Millennium ILS for bibliographic data, and in such cases the data extract is not needed. [↩]
9 Comments
Freakin’ brilliant review. This provides a perfect path to
duplicate this process. We are moving towards a cms and I wanted to
wrap the opac inside of it. I didn’t realize that you can do that
with a cms. Brilliant! Thank you!
Hi Peter — a couple of corrections from the corporate side 1)
WebPAC Pro is a free enhancement, not a “for cost” optional
product. It’s use is optional, but it’s free if you choose to have
us turn it on. 2) AADL makes use of an optional product called the
XML Server. We’re re-tooling this product, so it’s not available
for purchase right now, but they aren’t screen-scraping HTML and
thus this implementation is not particularly fragile. 3) For
Millennium sites, Encore is a real-timer query of the Millennium
database, there are no sets of data to output, etc. I believe we’re
unique in this way, so did want to correct the impression you’ve
left here. Thanks much, Betsy
Thank you, Betsy! I corrected the text, and in a few places the corrections resulted in improvements to the text.
Quick follow up to your post and Betsy’s comment: AADL is a unique
case. The code does indeed use III’s xmlserver to resolve bib
numbers. In addition, it does a fair amount of screen scraping
among other things. So you are both correct. I think the thing to
take away is that AADL is a successful proof-of-concept, but the
software itself, as it stands now, is unlikely to be transplanted
to another III site. John.
Thanks for the comment, John. AADL is a successful proof-of-concept (at least viewed from the outside — I hope the patrons like it, too!). I appreciate the inside perspective.
Not sure if I misunderstood what you wrote about ILS replacements,
but I think I may slightly disagree with your assessment. You note
that Koha and Evergreen currently only offer “faceted search and
browsing,” but that they can be modified to include other features.
You don’t specify what those features are, but based on the
remainder of your review (which is quite useful), I assume you mean
things like the ability to pull data from external data sources and
enhance records. Koha makes use of the Amazon API and seamlessly
integrates the incoming data into the record display, which is
quite nifty and something that many libraries aspire to do with
their OPACs.
Dale,
I can see the source of confusion. This post is actually just a part of a larger working document, and the “other features” in that sentence refers to the descriptions of enhancements from that larger document (of which faceted search/browse is one item). This section could definitely be tightened up to stand on its own and/or make a closer tie to the items mentioned in the prior (but as yet unpublished) part of the document.
Thanks for the comment.
Re #6 the_jester the patrons like the AADL site too. Frankly though
I think a lot of this stuff is lipstick on the pig. We all need to
start to think if the era of the “integrated library system” should
be over and something else should take its place. When I was
talking to my son about his (he’s seven) I asked him how he looked
things up in his elementary school library and he described that
thing you all call an OPAC or an ILS as a “book finding system”.
Frankly, libraries need to buy and build awesome book finding
systems. Leave the machinery of book inventory systems well hidden
from the user…
Ed –
I agree with your assessment. Unstated in this text (because it is stated elsewhere — another artifact of extracting just this bit from the larger working draft) is the importance of not stopping with these steps. In particular, two of the four categories — Web OPAC wrappers and Web OPAC replacements — have the effect of isolating the front-end user interface from the back-end inventory control mechanisms. With that separation in place, it is possible to make enhancements to the front-end that don’t dramatically impact the back end (and vice versa).
In other words, it leads us along the path of a library service-oriented architecture that will enable us to move more nimbly in the future on both the front end and the back end. The rest of the text from which this is taken actually goes on to talk about an “everything finding system” in the form of a ‘master index’ that brings all of the library’s curated resources (purchased, licensed, vetted free, etc.) under one search interface.
15 Trackbacks
about four ways libraries can add funtionality to their OPACs. At
ACPL we are working on a web OPAC wrapper, Drupal, which will
create a new interface for our
catalog.http://dltj.org/2007/10/web-opac-schemes/ [...]
entitled Schemes to Add Functionality to the Web OPAC. The
article outlines the four basic types of OPAC improvements:
enhancements, wrappers, [...]
[...] Blog post on the OPAC functionality addons Filed under:
EPS, EPS Libraries, redesign — John Fudrow @ 8:24 am
http://dltj.org/2007/10/web-opac-schemes/ [...]
catalog to make it less sucky. Read: Schemes to Add Functionality
to the Web OPAC. [...]
[...] Schemes to Add Functionality to the Web OPAC is a posting
by Disruptive Library Technology Jester (a.k.a. Peter Murray
of OhioLINK) in which he lays out a basic categorization of
ways in which libraries can get their OPACs to do more. [...]
[...] “Schemes to Add Functionality to the Web OPAC” in Disruptive
Library Technology Jester (tags: library) [...]
[...] second day called “Discovery Tools and the OPAC.” A foundational element of the talk is an earlier DLTJ post that categorized ways OPACs can be enhanced. The full abstract is: A great deal of the discussion surrounding new discovery tools in libraries [...]
Post a Comment