Re: [CODE4LIB] Library Software Manifesto
On 11/6/07, Roy Tennant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a presentation coming up and I'm considering doing what I'm calling a Library Software Manifesto. It's a fine line between focusing people's attention on specific aspects of how to enter into and enforce contracts and dancing about architecture.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Library Software Manifesto
Thanks for providing your input Carl. I think is very good to get the thoughts on this issue form someone with your background. For those who haven't read it, even though it is a couple years old, I'd recommend reading the article that Carl Grant and Rolad Dietz published in Library Journal back in June 2005 on The Dis-Integrating World of Library Automation. It is available at: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA606392.html Edward Carl Grant said the following on 11/06/2007 2:23 PM: I'm willing to jump in here as a long time vendor to add to the customer responsibility list some items that would make developers/ vendors a lot happier.. 1. Select software using a fair and reasonable process for both the vendor and the organization (one could say a lot more here!) 2. Make sure you know the needs of all users of the product (especially the END-users - get them involved! I promise, in most cases, their needs are NOT understood). 3. Acknowledge, accept and honor the deadlines that YOU bear in the development timeline. (The phrase teflon-customers comes to mind here...) 4. Understand that more functionality means more complexity in the code. This means: a. You've got to accept responsibility for helping to test software. There can be 1000's of pathways through code. We know you want bug-free code, but the developer/vendor can't test them all by themselves or you'd never actually get the code! b. If you're paying a commercial vendor to support/maintain, understand that costs should go up to compensate them for supporting that increasing complexity. 5. Try to standardize practices, **where possible**, between like institutions. Use development resources for great ideas, not just to support local idiosyncrasies... 6. Understand if you're trying to please everyone, it means lowest common denominator. If you're trying to lead and develop new ideas, somebody is going to be upset. It's not the developer/vendors responsibilities to decide which of these apply to your institution or what to do about it when it happens. Decide up front, are you following, or are you leading? Carl Carl Grant President CARE Affiliates, Inc. E:[EMAIL PROTECTED] M:540-529-7885 O:540-552-2912 866-340-9580 x 801 (Toll-Free) Website: www.care-affiliates.com Adium: carl_r_grant Skype: carl_grant On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Roy Tennant wrote: On 11/6/07 10:27 AM, Jonathan Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about an equivalent list from the vendor/software developer's perspective? I think that would help balance the picture, but perhaps that's already in your plans ;). Funny you should ask...I had originally intended to do this, but then I was wondering if it start to be redundant -- that is, would a number of points simply be restated from the vendor's viewpoint? But if there are unique points to make from that perspective it would be worthwhile to include them. This is an area where I consider myself even more ignorant than usual, so if those of you who work on that side of the fence would like to chime in with relevant manifesto points from the perspective of developers and vendors, I'm all ears. Thanks, Roy -- Edward M. Corrado http://www.tcnj.edu/~corrado/ Systems Librarian The College of New Jersey 403E TCNJ Library PO Box 7718 Ewing, NJ 08628-0718 Tel: 609.771.3337 Fax: 609.637.5177 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[CODE4LIB] Rachel A Erb is out of the office.
I will be out of the office starting Wed 11/07/2007 and will not return until Mon 11/12/2007. I will respond to your message shortly after I return. Have a great week!
[CODE4LIB] OASIS: Search Web Services v1.0 Discussion Document Public Review
To OASIS members, Public Announce Lists: The OASIS Search Web Services TC has recently approved for public review the following Discussion Document: Search Web Services v1.0 Discussion Document This document: Search Web Services Version 1.0 - Discussion Document - 2 November 2007, was prepared by the OASIS Search Web Services TC as a strawman proposal, for public review, intended to generate discussion and interest. It has no official status; it is not a Committee Draft. The specification is based on the SRU (Search Retrieve via URL) specification which can be found at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/. It is expected that this standard, when published, will deviate from SRU. How much it will deviate cannot be predicted at this time. The fact that the SRU spec is used as a starting point for development should not be cause for concern that this might be an effort to rubberstamp or fasttrack SRU. The committee hopes to preserve the useful features of SRU, eliminate those that are not considered useful, and add features that are not in SRU but are considered useful. The committee has decided to request OASIS to release this as a discussion document. Detailed review of this document is premature at this point and is not requested; feedback on the functionality and approach is solicited. Feedback is requested by December 7. The public review starts today, 7 November 2007, and ends 7 December 2007. This is an open invitation to comment. We strongly encourage feedback from potential users, developers and others, whether OASIS members or not, for the sake of improving the interoperability and quality of OASIS work. Please feel free to distribute this announcement within your organization and to other appropriate mail lists. More non-normative information about the specification and the technical committee may be found at the public home page of the TC at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws. Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button marked Send A Comment at the top of that page, or directly at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws. Submitted comments (for this work as well as other works of that TC) are publicly archived and can be viewed at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/. All comments submitted to OASIS are subject to the OASIS Feedback License, which ensures that the feedback you provide carries the same obligations at least as the obligations of the TC members. The specification document and related files are available here: Editable Source: http://docs.oasis-open.org/search-ws/v1.0/DiscussionDocument.doc PDF: http://docs.oasis-open.org/search-ws/v1.0/DiscussionDocument.pdf HTML: http://docs.oasis-open.org/search-ws/v1.0/DiscussionDocument.html OASIS and the Search Web Services TC welcome your comments. --- Mary P McRae Manager of TC Administration, OASIS email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.oasis-open.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] Library Software Manifesto
I really wish I could understand what you mean. I think I get the difference between a contract and its enforcement and software architecture, but is there a reason why these should not be addressed in the same talk? There is clearly something I'm not getting here, so perhaps further explication could help me to see it? Thanks, Roy On 11/7/07 11:24 AM, D Chudnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/6/07, Roy Tennant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a presentation coming up and I'm considering doing what I'm calling a Library Software Manifesto. It's a fine line between focusing people's attention on specific aspects of how to enter into and enforce contracts and dancing about architecture. --
