1 / 9

MetaLib UK and Ireland User Meeting, February 2003

MetaLib UK and Ireland User Meeting, February 2003. Repke.deVries@kb.nl , National Library of the Netherlands. Case Study: Dutch Consortium. The consortium Team approach … Well, do we ? Individual MetaLib Achievements Consortium achievements with MetaLib The consortium and Ex Libris

bluma
Download Presentation

MetaLib UK and Ireland User Meeting, February 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MetaLib UK and Ireland User Meeting, February 2003 Repke.deVries@kb.nl, National Library of the Netherlands

  2. Case Study: Dutch Consortium • The consortium • Team approach … • Well, do we ? • Individual MetaLib Achievements • Consortium achievements with MetaLib • The consortium and Ex Libris • The consortium and negotiating access to resources

  3. The consortium • 10 Universities: • All: digital library with a portal approach • 7 (possible 8): Metalib (X-Server) + SFX • 1 (possible 2): iPortal (OCLC-PICA) • 3 Technical Universities: 1 M-SFX • The national library (KB) • Formed late 2001 ; joint selection of portal software ; consortium contract with E L

  4. Team approach … • Umbrella contract, all else bilateral between members and Ex Libris • No formal feedback channel to E L: wish list has to go SMUG or E L local chapter • Consortium: training, sharing resource configuration, discussing customization, negotiating Z39.50 (SRU) access • Exchange: CSCW with Yahoo!Groups

  5. Well, do we ? • Resource configuration (from scratch or fine tuning E L Global): unnecessary duplication of efforts and results sometimes in Public Domain, but also payment • Difficult to form a pressure group with one agenda for future enhancements

  6. Individual MetaLib Achievements • Stages of implementation very different: some started mid 2002, others in 2003 ; always SFX first (DNL: Metalib first) – now 1 full implementation, 3 on its way, others late 2003 or 2004 • Resources take time, certainly too the portal design and integration with overall website + usability testing • OPAC through HTTP + XML ; Dutch National Library + E L: SRU + stylesheets: ; ILL: problematic

  7. Consortium achievements with MetaLib • Indirect: joint training + negotiations (publishers, PICA, E L) + representation ( SMUG, E L, national fora ) + informal models for consortium cooperation • Implementation: more individually or bilateral than as consortium • Across uni’s + national lib: *one* look alike main search + portal facility for end-users • The road ahead: wishlist …

  8. The consortium and Ex Libris • Training as consortium • Troubleshooting and advice: bilateral • E L offer to help on Local Resources (screen scraping approach) ; csrtium probably goes its own way • E L + csrtium: SRU + stylesheets for native, non-uniform search result presentation • To be expected: work on X-Server

  9. The consortium and negotiating access to resources • Z39.50 access to the Dutch national catalogue (books and journal articles) • Major issue: moving the PICA organization to make their resources + hosted ones (the national catalogue) SFX aware • Likewise: Z39.50 (SRU) access + SFX enabling (source + target) as key issue in contracts with publishers

More Related