oss4lib About - Contact    History 
Listserv         Projects
Readings         Submit  


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Open Source-Related -- your opinions sought...



Hi Michael,

Thanks for the comments.

If you want to know more about what I'm doing I've set up a web page for my project
at:

http://www.nslsilus.org/~schlumpf/avanti

There you can read more details about my project.  I don't have the source code
posted to it yet, but I plan to do so in a few days with documentation, after I clean
it up a bit.  I'll also be posting a spec about the general architecture as soon as I
can write it.

Any feedback you might have, both positive and negative, feel free to give it.  I've
been working alone on this up until now so I can certainly use some!

Peter

Michael Dahn wrote:

> Peter,
>
>         I'm excited to hear about your efforts and those of Jeremy Frumkin's Open
> Source Digital Library System Project.  I think that trying to develop open
> source library software is more similar to Coffman's ideas of more
> centralization than most people realize.  You're both thinking big, just in
> different ways.
>
>         Thanks very much for the information about your project.  Please keep the
> list updated on your progress.  If you have a desire to put up a Web site
> about it, I'd be happy to help.
>
>         Specific comments follow:
>
> >  Peter Schlumpf here, also a newcomer to the list.    Though open source
> >is not referenced directly it does have a lot of compelling ideas in it,
> >particularly applying the Amazon.com model to circulating materials and its
> >observations on the current state of the automation marketplace.
>
>         Yes.  I believe that the goals of making a giant, centralized,
> super-user-friendly, Amazon.com-like catalog and those of making a free,
> open source OPAC system for libraries are quite different, yet their
> related interests are aligned.
>
> >Commercial systems available today are expensive, often obscenely
> >so out of proportion to the value they deliver.
>
>         I couldn't agree more.
>
> >What's needed is a flexible system and set of tools that's designed
> >from the ground up around the general principles of library automation
> >that can be easily adapted to the needs of any particular application.
> >The system should embody the basic principles but no more, leaving
> >the details to the user to define and implement.
>
>         Yes.  An important consideration, though, is that "the user" -- in this
> case the library, should be able to "define and implement" easily, cheaply,
> or both.
>
>
> >The system will be networkable.  Not as a monolithic system controlled
> >by a single entity (like Amazon.com) but I imagine a group of these
> >systems working together in a confederation..  Libraries can run their
> >own systems each highly tailored to their own needs but at a low level
> >they can communicate with eachother.
>
>         Don't you think, though, that at a certain point, this "networkable...
> communicat[ion] with each other" would not scale well, and that, to a
> certain extent, a monolithic system would be required?  My point is that
> sharing information has never been cheaper or easier than it is today, and
> it's getting cheaper and easier all the time -- and that the current
> "non-monolithic" environment calls for *massive* duplication of effort and
> resources.  Doesn't a certain degree of centralization make sense?  There
> is a point where fluid communication and information sharing can be
> considered monolithic centralization, and vice versa.
>
> >This is in contrast to efforts like Z39.50 to slap high-level standards
> >on top of inheretly incompatible systems.
>
>         I agree.  I have not been impressed with the Z39.50 initiatives I've seen
> to date.  I feel like an ass saying that, since those initiatives have
> required great skill and effort -- far beyond my capabilities.  Still, as a
> *user*, I want more.  As a librarian, I can envision more.  As someone with
> a smattering of computer knowledge, I firmly believe that more is not only
> possible, but doable.  I want something closer to the Amazon.com model,
> with library functions thrown in.  I know this is no small feat, but I
> believe it can happen.
>
> >Finally, an open-source product would put control of the development
> >of automation tools where it belongs: directly into the hands of librarians.
>
>         This is so important.
>
> >It's been my impression that automation vendors have a parasitic
> >relationship with the library community.  The products they offer are
> >expensive, proprietary, fundamentally incompatible, vary greatly in
> >quality and utility and the rate of innovation is ploddingly slow
> >relative to the rest of the software industry.
>
>         This has been my impression also.
>
> >An automation system represents a big investment to a library
> >and locks it into a long-term and often costly relationship with
> >a particular vendor that once entered into is difficult and
> >expensive to get out of.  So we make do with the products
> >the vendor offers us, such as they are.  We should work toward
> >a marketplace where there are competing agents who focus on
> >providing services support and value-added components to those
> >who request and need them, on a common open-source based
> >software infrastructure.
>
>         This has been a personal frustration of mine for a long time.  The
> super-high transaction cost of moving to a new system stifles competition
> to the point where it is nearly non-existent.  Your thoughts on this should
> be in library science texts nationwide.
>
> >These are basically the goals that I'm aiming toward in my project.
> >I'm starting with a circulation module based on  ideas I've been
> >kicking around for a long time and published a few years back:
> >Peter J. Schlumpf, Matrix Model of Circulation Control, Encyclopedia
> >of Library and Information Science, vol. 52, pp250-262 (1993).
>
>         I'll have to see if I can get my hands on a copy.  I'd be interested in
> reading it.
>
> >I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss some of the ideas voiced in that
> >article as likely to go unrealised. The open source model is making
> >these very exciting times.  I think we're in a paradigm shift in the
> >computer industry.   Open source I think especially suits the library
> >automation marketplace and will play an increasingly greater role.
> >It should be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of
> >years.
>
>         I dismissed the ideas as likely to go unrealized in the hopes of arousing
> a desire in readers to *act* to make the statement untrue, not because I
> necessarily believed it myself.  My more pragmatic side certainly has its
> doubts, but generally, my hopes are the same as yours -- that these ideas
> *will* be realized.
>
>         Peter, thanks again for you comments and efforts.
>
>                                                         -- Mike
>
> Michael Dahn
> Librarian, Webmaster
> Stetson University College of Law
> dahn@law.stetson.edu
> (727) 562-7800 x7681
> http://www.law.stetson.edu


SourceForge Logo © Copyright 1999-2005, The oss4lib Community, except for readings and comments, which are owned by their posters.
oss4lib is graciously hosted by the good folks at sourceforge.net.
Site URL: http://oss4lib.org/ Questions or comments to maintainers.


library