First off…what is a ‘fax?’ (ha ha)
No, I get it.
My 2 cents is that this is fine generally (with this caveat):
Most of the libraries are LCC libraries (a search for dewey returned 0 results).
I do feel there might be something useful about knowing the local or special classifications being used by some of the institutions (so moving that to list 1 could be very good).
But otherwise, the actual ILS in current use can be found on: https://librarytechnology.org/
And I am not positive that classification or subject analysis questions (irrespective of Class or Subject schema being applied) is ILS/LSP specific.
That is my 2.5 cents
Dear BIBCO members:
Traditionally, the BIBCO Coordinator has maintained two separate lists of BIBCO libraries:
There is a lot of duplication between the two lists and I have been questioning the effort needed to maintain both. I would like to propose deleting the second list. Would anyone object?
There are two columns on the second list with information that is not represented on the first list: “ILS System” and “Classification scheme/Areas of speciality/Language expertise”
I could transfer the information in those two columns to the entries on the first list, but I’m not sure it would be worth it. The info in the “ILS System” column is largely out-of-date because we have no way of knowing when libraries change their systems. I have never had to use this information. The info about classification scheme, etc., is uneven – it is included for some libraries but not all, and is not comprehensive. It is often taken from the self-reporting done by the library on its application to join the program. I could see the potential usefulness of having this information in the first list (e.g. it has helped me on occasion to identify potential reviewers for new BIBCO members working in particular languages and formats) but I thought I’d see whether or not you all make any use of it.
Finally, on the first list, I would like to propose deleting the fax numbers.
Please feel free to share your thoughts and opinions, especially if you would object to losing any of information proposed for deletion. I would prefer any replies go to the list but would certainly accept personal replies.
I wouldn’t be taking any action until the new year.
Acting BIBCO Coordinator
Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division
Library of Congress