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 dated other portions are timeless. In particular, this section from page 2 (emphasis added):
How 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.
This is a preview of
A Catalog for the “Next Generation” or the Current Generation?
.
Read the full post (900 words, estimated 3:36 mins reading time)
Also tagged mashup, ngc4lib, rest, Web Services
Clay Shirky on the Need for Better Information Filters:
George Mason University Sued by Thomson Reuters over Zotero:
Updates on the EndNote/Zotero Lawsuit: