1 / 11

ILS Futures

ILS Futures. Background. Changes 95/96 to 06/07 Stacks circ= 179,996 to 160,970 ILS’s are no longer the center of the library universe. To most users, ILS’s seem very slow and clunky. What’s missing from most ILS’s?.

eara
Download Presentation

ILS Futures

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. ILS Futures

  2. Background • Changes 95/96 to 06/07 • Stacks circ= 179,996 to 160,970 ILS’s are no longer the center of the library universe. To most users, ILS’s seem very slow and clunky.

  3. What’s missing from most ILS’s? • Content – articles, item level special collections, millions of full text Google books, IR contents, arxiv.org articles, etc • Interface- faceted searching, Google-like response times, full text searching, simple Google-like interface and relevancy rankings

  4. SIRSI • Web2 is no longer being developed, but will be supported for several more years • e-Library is the new main SIRSI OPAC • Enterprise will enhance Unicorn/Symphony. It will offer things like faceted searching and fast response times and customizable indexes. • Will SIRSI be in our future? Who will decide?

  5. The role of SAC • SAC keeps up with new OPAC and ILS interfaces and products and makes recommendations for any needed changes

  6. Alternatives Models • MARC record silo – Ex. SIRSI Symphony • our current model • Multiformat Silo – Ex. Endeca, SIRSI Enterprise • ILS data is exported to another database and other types of materials are added • Sharing - Ex. WorldCat Local • A single centralized database with shared records

  7. SAC Issues • Full text vs. MARC • Multiple catalogs • Google Books • Local customization (data and interface) • Timing • Cost

  8. Question #1 IN A WORLD WHERE USERS HAVE FULL TEXT ACCESS TO PRE-1923 FROM • CIC- University of Chicago, Univ of Illinois, Indiana Univ, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bavarian State Library, Harvard, Ghent University, National Library of Catalonia, New York Public Oxford University, Princeton, Stanford, University Complutense of Madrid, University of Lausanne, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, University of Texas, University of California • AND CAN USE THE SAME INTERFACE TO GET TO MARC RECORDS INTERNATIONALLY, WHO WILL WANT TO SEARCH OUR CATALOG?

  9. Question #2 In a world where LOTS of full text is available online and much of the rest is available in a day or two, who will want to search our catalog?

  10. Questions #3 • Who wants to search MARC records if they can search full text?

  11. Question #4 • How many catalogs is enough? • SIRSI • WorldCat Groups UNC system • WorldCat • Kudzu

More Related