Alejandro Garza over on the Stupendous Amazing Library blog, extrapolates the fact that there is very little partnership between library system vendors to conclude that they are not interested in interoperation between their systems.  He is picking up on extracts from the JISC/SCONUL Library Management Systems Study as commented upon by the Disruptive Library Technology Jester.

Coming from a history of integration protocols, in the library world, where they were more a framework for agreement than a standard, it is easy to assume that the only way to get two systems to talk is for their suppliers to establish a partnership to get it to work.  My least favourite standard NCIP is a classic in this regard. 

As I commented on the Jester’s post, the questions for the study were:

… in the present tense. Answering with ‘our products will integrate, etc., etc.’, would have no doubt drawn equal scepticism, but for different reasons.

The answers you picked out are symptomatic of an industry in transition. Transition from products without exception based on architectures that never envisioned light-weight loosely-coupled integration. Transition to a REST based service oriented architecture where integration between library and non-library applications should be simple and based on simple and open standards.

The “Do you have partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?” question in the survey demonstrates an attachment to traditional thinking towards integration. So far, with the traditional heavy-weight protocols we are used to in the library world, the only reliable way to get integration that works has been through a partnership between suppliers. Web 2.0 has demonstrated that with simple light-weight protocols, integration is possible without the need for commercial partnerships. There are many benefits that arise from partnerships, but they shouldn’t be a prerequisite for successful integration.

It is not all doom and gloom though. Initiatives such as the DLF’s ILS API defining simple REST base protocols that all vendors should be able to support, have started to gather momentum in the last few months. A momentum that appears to be supported both by vendors and open source groups.

Since I made that comment I attended a JISC and SCONUL Library Management Systems Study Consultation Event in London.  This event was a get together of stakeholders in the UK academic library community, which were joined by representatives from system vendors for the afternoon session.  For those with a sadistic streak in must have made an entertaining spectacle, watching six vendor representatives (Ex Libris, Infor, Innovative, OCLC, SirsiDynix & Talis) trying to squeeze their views in to 5 minute slots.  From most of those presentations and the discussion that followed, it is clear that the vendors are just as much stakeholders in this as the rest of the community.

I feel there is a refreshing openness in opinion and approach that is starting to spread through the conversations in the world of library systems.   This openness has been in high evidence in the recent Library 2.0 Gang conversations on ILS APIs and Bolt-on OPACs. 

It was a good meeting in London, I only hope that the organisers can keep the momentum going and build a community around the concerns of all the stakeholders, vendors included.  If the initiative started by the study falls back in to the traditional model of projects and reports that we are used to, it will be a massive waste of an opportunity.

Back to my original question - do we need partnerships to enable interoperability?  No we don’t.  With loosely-coupled integration, facilitated by web native light-weight open APIs, interoperability should ‘just happen’.  Vendors should, and are starting to be in the position to, say my systems are open for you to interoperate with - who ever you are, partnership in place or not.  This won’t happen over night, but we are already on a new path, with a healthy does of credit for the DLF’s leadership in giving us some direction.

Photo from Flickr by Just.Luc.

Share This

Following in the footsteps of their counterparts from Ex Libris, SirsiDynix, and Talis, Betsy Graham, Vice President Product Management for Innovative Interfaces, and Matt Goldner, Executive Director End User Services at OCLC, joined The Library 2.0 Gang for the June show.

The topic for the show is Bolt-on OPACs - search and discovery interfaces sourced from the open source community or vendors other than the incumbent ILS supplier.

Aquabrowser was the first commercial product of this type.  Taco Ekkel Director of Development for Medialab Solutions, the Amsterdam based company who produced Aquabrowser, is guest for the show.   

Matt reflecting on the OCLC experience with WorldCat Local and Betsy with Innovative’s Encore product, are joined by Andrew Nagy, lead developer on the VuFind project, Marshall Breeding, and Carl Grant, in a open discussion about  the way such products are evolving.

Apart from being an interesting discussion, it is yet another example of how key commercial players in the library systems marketplace are starting to open up and join a conversation about the opportunities for libraries, and their users, as well as the issues behind creating those opportunities.

Share This

From the press release:

DUBLIN, Ohio, USA, 19 May 2008—OCLC and Google Inc. have signed an agreement to exchange data that will facilitate the discovery of library collections through Google search services.

Digging in to the detail, it looks like this will mean a few things.  Apart from Google Book Search providing a Find this book in a library link to WorldCat.org as already available from other parts of Google, it appears to be only relevant to OCLC member libraries which also participate in the Google Book Search program.

It means that these libraries are able to share the MARC records for the books they have contributed [to Google Book Search] with Google, to enable them to make them easier to discover.  I am not clear if OCLC rules prevented this sharing happening prior to the agreement.  

Implicitly this also means that Google, at least in the Book Search team, recognise the value of metadata created by the library profession for making books more discoverable.  Something the library community have been saying for a long time - parsing and indexing the content is only part of the solution to making books findable.

Also in the press release:

The new agreement enables OCLC to create MARC records describing the Google digitized books from OCLC member libraries and to link to them.

OCLC should therefore be creating catalogue records for the digitized books held by Google.   This meaning that a search in WorldCat will direct a searcher to the digitized manifestation as well as to the library that contributed it.   A great way to gain wider exposure to a library’s collection without necessarily increasing the number of people through it’s doors.

To enable OCLC to create catalogue records for items in the Google Book Search collection, Google must, I presume, have made some commitment to creating and maintaining a permanent  URI for each digitized book.  I wonder if those URIs are generally available, with a commitment to maintain them, in a way that others could reliably catalogue them?

The announcement is one of a continuing series additions to the Google Book Search service, such as the recent release of their API.   

Listening to Google Product Manager, Frances Haugen in her guest slot on the Library 2.0 Gang, it is obvious that at least one person in the Book Search team is interested in and motivated by libraries - lets hope we see even more links between them and the wider library community.

Share This