LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for NLS-REPORTS Archives


NLS-REPORTS Archives

NLS-REPORTS Archives


NLS-REPORTS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NLS-REPORTS Home

NLS-REPORTS Home

NLS-REPORTS  August 1999

NLS-REPORTS August 1999

Subject:

Automation Report

From:

National Library Service for the Blind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

NLS Documents for Network Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:14:52 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (227 lines)

Automation Report No. 99-01

Date: July 28, 1999

Subject:   Circulation Systems



From time to time, network libraries ask NLS for advice in
the evaluation of new circulation systems.  NLS was recently
asked about the issues we expect our circulation systems
might face in the next five to ten years.  The following is
our response.  Please understand that much of this is
speculation.  So much is changing so fast in the computer
environment, and the talking-book and braille environments
are so uncertain, it is difficult to predict anything except
change for network library circulation systems.

In spite of the uncertainty, we can predict a few specific
changes.  We are already pursuing initiatives that will lead
to system changes.  The descriptions that follow  reference
READS, the NLS circulation system used in some network
libraries.  Because NLS directs READS development, we are
using it as a test bed and proof-of-concept environment to
establish the interfaces between circulation and other
systems.  By developing the READS interface at the same time
as the external interface, we can create appropriate
transaction formats which other network library circulation
systems can use to develop their own interface. The
descriptions of our plans for READS development imply system
functionality that other circulation systems may wish to
implement.

__Bibliographic Data.__  At present, we are distributing a
somewhat abbreviated record of bibliographic data for new
books at the time the books are announced in copy allotment.
Soon, as a result of a new cataloging system, we expect to
distribute the bibliographic data in a fuller, cataloged
format that conforms to AACR2 and contains more data, such
as LC subject headings.  The data will not, however, contain
such information as the narrator or number of cassettes, as
that information is not available when the copy allotment
data is extracted.  In a second development, we will begin
to distribute the complete Union Catalog form of the record
as an update to the "copy allotment" release.  Finally, we
will distribute the retrospective compilation of complete
Union Catalog records to provide a consistent, standardized
catalog for all circulation systems.

The implications for the circulation systems are
that they will have to be altered to accept the
AACR2 format.  Then they will have to be altered
to accept updates, retaining local data while
pdating national-level data. They will also have
to incorporate the retrospective data.  In some
circulation systems, the change to the full USMARC
data will prompt the addition of new fields to the
local data records, displays, and printed outputs.

__Interlibrary loan.__We are currently beta testing
an interlibrary loan (ILL) form on the web that
will allow network libraries to send ILL requests
to the multistate centers and to other network
libraries.  Each request will generate an e-mail
essage with the appropriate information plus an
attached file with a transaction that the
receiving library might input to its circulation
system to check out the book as an ILL and to
generate a mail card.  The development of the mail
card generation from this transaction is already
underway in READS.

I have talked with some of the READS libraries
about an extension of the ILL transaction
exchange.  When a library sends out a book for
ILL, READS might send an e-mail transaction to the
requesting library for its system to record that
the patron has the book.  When the book is
returned, READS would send a transaction to the
requesting library to record that the patron has
had the book.  There might also be a transaction
in READS to ask the requesting library to send an
overdue notice to the patron.  These transactions
are just in the concept-development stages, and we
may decide on other methods for handling "has-
now," "has-had," and overdue notices.

__Z39.50 and OPACS.__In READS, we are looking toward
an implementation of Z39.50 functionality.  This
will allow searching of the READS database by
other libraries, patrons, and external users.
This should also allow patrons to request books,
and it may be another way to implement ILL.
Because the reserve-request mode of a network
library operation differs from the public library
book order mode, and because the network library
ILL is usually mailed to a patron rather than to
the requesting library, our Z39.50 functionality
may need to be tailored to network library needs
and not simply work like a public library module.

__Digital Talking Books.__Digital talking books
(DTB) could generate significant changes in the
way network libraries provide service to patrons.
It may be that the new DTB and its machine will be
stored at libraries and circulated to individuals.
That would leave the circulation system operating
roughly the same as it does presently, perhaps
with a few data elements about the book, such as
the number of cassettes, being replaced.  On the
other hand, it may be that the book will be stored
electronically at the network library and
transmitted electronically to the patron.  Or the
book may be stored in a national level database
with some level of network library participation
in the transmission of the book to the patron.
And it is possible that the current mode of
lending machines, returning them for service, etc.
will change.  It is too early in the digital
talking-book process to predict which path will be
taken.  We can only be sure that it will require
some changes to the circulation systems changes
ranging from minor to radical.

__Other developments.__From time to time, there are
initiatives in the network that generate
opportunities for circulation system enhancements.
This is especially true as new systems or
electronic functions are created.  I see this as I
look to development opportunities for READS.   We
are planning to integrate the Print/Braille Labels
functionality into READS to allow a library to
 maintain a single books database and print its
labels from that.  It may be that we can integrate
the maintenance of the Web Braille passwords into
the circulation systems.  The implementation of
patron transfers in CMLS combined with the ready
availability of data transfer over the Internet
may generate the need for new circulation system
functionality.  There has been talk of the need
for a single-format, nationally unique, easily
remembered patron ID for patron access to online
services and that will move across network
libraries with the patron.  NLS is about to test
the electronic transfer of certificate-of-mailing
data from the producer to the BPHICS contractor.
that opens up the possibility of transfer of the
data directly to the libraries.  NLS will soon be
considering revisions to the XESS functionality
and we need to look into the circulation
opportunities there.

I am sure that there are other areas of change that
might be considered for network library circulation systems.
and new ones will come up from time to time, some of them
with a degree of urgency.  A network library circulation
system must have an ongoing development component where new
functions are continually being implemented to meet the
changing needs and environment.

There are four multiuser network library circulation
systems: CUL, DRA, KLAS, and READS.  Each serves from 10 to
80 network libraries.  In the past, there have been a dozen
or more "independent system" libraries__network libraries
that had systems either developed specifically for them or
integrated with their parent library system.  From all
indications, all but two network libraries are on one of the
four multiuser systems or are pursuing a move to one of
them.  The two committed "independents" have automation
staff dedicated to the development and maintenance of their
systems software.  There is no network library using a
commercial system outside the four multiuser systems.

If you are considering a new circulation system, we
strongly urge you to direct your attention to one of the
multiuser network library systems.  Network libraries do not
operate in the same way as public libraries, and their
circulation systems have fundamentally different functions.
Public libraries do not distribute and track audio playback
machines.  They do not maintain magazine subscriptions.
They respond to individual requests for books and do not
have the complex reserve/request/subject-select modes of
circulation with the associated "has-had" record keeping.
Nor do they have the reporting requirements of BPHICS and
CMLS, nor the complexities of the NLS circulation reporting.
A number of network libraries have expended a significant
effort evaluating public library systems, and in each case
the public library system was found unsuitable for network
library use.  One commercial system had committed to support
the network library within the public library system, only
to bow out when it received an outline of the functionality
required.

For the network libraries that have evaluated
commercial systems, the two justifications for going outside
the standard four listed above have been cost and
compatibility with the parent library system.  In all cases,
the justifications did not hold up on closer examination.
With respect to cost, even if the initial cost of the
commercial system is comparable (which it seldom is with
full network library functionality) the future enhancement
cost factor is not justifiable.  A commercial system
distributes the costs of new development across all users of
the system.  If it has one network library or even a few,
the development of new network library functionality for
something like the digital book or the network library ILL
is either ignored or is prohibitively expensive when
distributed among the few.   Systems where network library
represents a significant user base must keep up with the
network library environment in order to maintain user
satisfaction.

With respect to compatibility, technology is leading to
the preferable solution of separate circulation systems for
the network library and the parent library with a common
Z39.50 OPAC interface.  It might be better to look to the
Z39.50 systems and how they might integrate with your parent
library system for a common OPAC.  In the long run, Z39.50
also holds out the opportunity of common searches among
network libraries as well as between a network library and
its parent or its associated public library.

For more information contact:

Robert McDermott
Automation Officer

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager