A Catalog for the “Next Generation” or the Current Generation?
Are we building the “next generation” catalog for us (librarians) or our users? As a read a report from the Next Generation Summit Search Interface Working Group of the Orbis/Cascade Alliance, I have to wonder. Portions of this report are dated1 other portions are timeless. In particular, this section from page 2 (emphasis added):
Also tagged mashup, opac, rest, Web ServicesHow do we define “next generation”?
The working group has considered what it means to create a “next generation catalog” within the context of the current Summit interface and the current definition of “next generation” as understood within the library community. However, maybe this isn’t the right question. In part, library systems have failed to even keep up with our current generation of users, with neither the library community or vendor community really understanding how a current generation catalog might function. We have ideas from looking at vendor sites and social software tools that provide tagging, faceted browsing, and user reviews, but are these really “next generation”? No, they represent current generation functionality that library systems simply have yet to assimilate into their current service offerings. It’s a dangerous confusion of vocabulary. While these services represent “next generation” services for the library community, they don’t for our users. If a simple makeover of the ILS is to be our aim, then we will continue to fail to provide services for our current generation of users. Our current library information systems are failing our users and inhibiting our users’ attempts to build communities around our services and systems.



Getting a Hyperlink of the Last Sent Message from Mail.app using Applescript:
Discussions of Textbooks Hit the Mainstream Media:
Managing a Gentoo Linux Server Configuration with Subversion, GLCU, and Trac:
Links to OPAC Enhancements, Wrappers, and Replacements: