Hi Dan,
Just to clarify on this - I am not suggesting that we throw out any
support for print issues, rather that we enhance the support in the
current CUFTS system for managing print. (For example, we can easily
manage the print holdings statement for print journals in CUFTS as it
is today - some changes would make it even better.) What I am
suggesting is that we think carefully about how much we need in terms
of print management, as some of the functionality in current ILS
systems would be unnecessary.
We have been talking more about this issue at UPEI in the last few
days and are thinking that the approach that you (and Mike) allude to
at the end of your response is the most sensible: manage resources in
the container that makes the most sense and reach in on behalf of the
user when appropriate, using a native Evergreen, or non-Evergreen,
interface to do that. A better approach than piling everything into
the same database...
I'm also sure that grafting a multi-language function onto the CUFTS
system would not be a huge requirement and one easily met by the open
source community.
Mark
On 10-Sep-08, at 11:26 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
2008/9/8 Mark Leggott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
So, how about it? Would this work for other academic institutions
looking to
make the switch to Evergreen? What else would you need not
currently in
CUFTS? And please don't say predictive algorithms for pre-populating
check-in records for print issues - those things don't work well in
any ILS
product and who needs them 2 years from now anyway?
I think this would be worthwhile integration. I'm not convinced that
everyone would be willing to throw out support for print issues, but
agree that it's a waning concern.
I had asked our electronic resources librarian to take a look at CUFTS
this summer, because I suspect it would solve a couple of our current
problems:
* maintaining a list of e-resources by subject, which we currently
maintain manually
* providing an a-z list, for which we currently subscribe to EBSCO
for the reason that they apparently provide better usage stats than
the SFX a-z list that we already pay for as part of our consortial SFX
install in Ontario
* giving us decent e-resource management (subscription costs,
licensing information, etc) that we currently manage in a spreadsheet
today
I think the major barrier for us (Laurentian) is that we need a
multilingual interface, which CUFTS currently doesn't offer; our
university is officially bilingual and needs to support switching
between languages in both the public and staff interfaces.
As for the synchronization question, if both apps were playing in the
same database, one could use triggers and/or rules to automatically
and immediately propagate the data from CUFTS that would be meaningful
to Evergreen. The advantage to a tighter coupling is that you can use
a single reporting interface to generate reports across all of your
data.
On the other hand, back at Access 2007 Mike sketched out a small
vision of (trying to remember, here) federating different search
backends as OpenSRF search services: basically, wrap your
non-Evergreen search in an OpenSRF service with some means of
relevancy ranking across the various services -- ah, the joys of
federated search! That would seem to be a reasonable means of pulling
these services together. And now I'll step back and let Mike correct
my extremely fuzzy memory.
--
Dan Scott
Laurentian University
