ILS Symposium

Developments in the OPAC World: A Panel Discussion

The panel presentation moderated by Karen Schnieder, focused on developments in the OPAC World, The presenters were Cindi Holt, Information Services Manager, Phoenix Public Library, Kate Sheehan, Coordinator for Automation, Danbury (CT) Public Library, and Chip Nilges, OCLC. Each presenter discussed information access and cataloging platforms: Endeca, Library Thing for Libraries, and WorldCat Local, respectively.

Holt detailed a case study of using Endeca, a commercial search platform that provides guided navigation and allows customers to refine search. Large retailers such as Barnes and Noble, Home Depot and Nike as well as smaller companies interested in internal communication have successfully used Endeca. The staff of the Phoenix Library, aware of changing user expectations tested Endeca and Aquabrowser in an attempt to refine their goals. The staff sought an approachable website and catalog, an increase of speed and effectiveness when searching, a means of exposing the richness of MARC in a user-friendly way, to expose the depth of the collection and incorporate and extend the platform. Endeca works by harvesting MARC records from the bibliographic database and creates multiple indexes from the data nightly. Searches are performed against a dedicated Endeca Server and full records are retrieved from the database in real time. In order to implement Endeca Phoenix Public Library needed to define and refine dimensions and implement user-friendly guided navigation. Approaches to the challenges began with mapping Dewey Classification number to BISAC heading. The PPL staff had to devise a method to do this so cataloguers switched gears and broke the rules. A preview of the new system was set up on the old site with both environments available to staff. The customer response was positive. However, there are some librarian concerns such as where the LC subject headings go, why the display differs, real time of items, authority browsers, and the inaccuracy of data and practices. Holt offered some long-term solutions like having all new items have BISAC headings, excluding BISAC for audio-visual materials, and adding BISAC to fictions. Additionally, Holt laid out the next steps for the project, which includes continuing to enhance searching and browsing, developing web 2.0 strategies, and incorporating 3rd party data.

Similar to Holt, Kate Sheehan explored the possibilities of a system not intended for libraries or library system. Library Thing is a social catalog for booklovers. Regular people catalog their own books using tags they create. In addition, the site offers reviews, suggestions and widgets. There is a lot of data on the site. The Danbury Public Library implemented Library Thing for libraries. Library Thing for libraries is not the same as Library Thing. It takes the information from Library Thing and integrates it into the library’s catalog. Sheehan gives reasons to use Library Thing for libraries: First of all, it’s fun! It is a way to add innovative features, without putting out a lot of money. Most libraries don’t have a programming team, or access to the ILS code, and that isn’t necessary in this case. It is incredibly easy to integrate. Library Thing sends the javascript, copy, paste, and there you go. There were no major problems in Danbury’s implementation, and the one small kink was fixed by LT in an hour. The staff loves it, the patrons love it, it’s a great addition to the ILS.
***Kate Sheehan has a cool “techie librarian blog” check it out!

Chip Nilges gave us an overview of WorldCat Local (WCL). WorldCat Local is trying to deliver library searches in a manner that is easy for users to understand. It is important to encourage users to participate in network and community libraries, and reach out globally. User expectations are changing and WCL is trying to answer those expectations. WCL aggregate services around the world, discovers resources, delivers needed items, and allows for sharing and collaborating. It has configurable feathers, library branding, relevance ranking, interoperability with ILS, and includes Metadata in the local search. Each library has a custom search box, and a custom URL so that they can have true customization of the service. Once a search is conducted, it gives local holdings first, followed by consortia and then global. It shows you not only which library owns it, but also if it is available. Since it uses metadata, a single search can access multiple resources: the library catalogs, WorldCat databases, digitalized materials, and full text. The pilot libraries right now are: University of Washington, Peninsula Library System, The Ohio State University, University of California, and the state of Illinois. Release is planned for late 2007. Upcoming features are: institution search, identities interactions, and social functionality.

Karen Schneider Tells Us Why the OPAC Sucks

Karen Schneider is a Research and Development Consultant for the College Center for Library Automation in Florida. Her presentation was originally titled, The OPAC Sucks but has been changed to: Where We Stand, Late.

Schneider, in her presentation tells us why the OPAC sucks. In the past, OPACs have been enhanced with more library centered features, and not user-friendly features. This is what librarians asked for and this is what the vendors gave us. To really develop a good OPAC there are things we need to be aware about searching for materials. For one thing, most people make typos some of the time. A misspelling will not yield any search results. Today’s searches are two, three, or four words, and we aren’t talking about Boolean operators. Users’ searches are hesitant and are random discovery processes. People today are starting their searched elsewhere, like Google and Amazon. No one is using the help screens or the advance searches. Over all, users want to like your software, but libraries just aren’t providing that right now.

Last-gen OPACs are very poor at known item searches. They are weak when it comes to discovery searching and are pretty bad at user engagement. It is very hard to add digital content smoothly into these OPACs. These have become walled gardens, or silos, that you can’t branch out of or get into. This is very out of sync with the users’ expectation, and lacks emotional connection. It is necessary to provide better OPACs with features that meet the users’ expectations. Some new enhancements in better OPACs that are happening now are ranking, spell check, search as a box, and improved digital content. Other options that people are adding to make the OPAC better are: faceting, editions, working lists, review/rate features, persistent links, unified search and best bets.

Schneider gives four approaches to bettering libraries OPACs: Libraries can ditch the vendor’s OPAC and add a separate product onto their ILS. They can migrate to a whole new ILS with next gen features. Old OPAC can be replaced with a unified finding aid. Or they can just wait around for the vendors to catch up. The new concepts for these next gen OPACs are decoupled modules, user center designs, making the ILS a middle ware, union catalogs, leveraging other people’s data and data models, and using the open source.

Schneider talks about the values of open source software. Open source software actually fosters better vendor competition, and provides a healthier service. Because of the open source communities, actual fixes happen, and happen at a relatively fast rate. It disrupts the ILS market in a way that benefits the consumer

There are some problems we need to fix and some changes we need to make. There is a ranking problem, and with the surrogate record environment is hard to get ranking working well, but you should try. The surrogate record: a database record stands in for the object. In the digital world, there is no record, just the actual digital resource.

Should the ILS be a suite of tools for maintaining the collection with a different OPAC on top? There are issues with decoupling. Eventually all the applications will need to hook up. Decoupling increases maintenance at the library level. All this can leave to a scramble to develop interoperability standards that meet realistic needs.

Schneider concludes with some hard problems to solve before everyone can move to next gen OPACs. The current systems have aging, legacy data structures. The core taxonomy of the OPACs are complex and extensive. We still have record based data and need to think about record vs. content. What really needs to happen is libraries need to get in the mind of the user experience and develop from there.