Some very interesting points here, and it seems to me that PN v  easy
Catalogue access has been overlooked in the development of the PN.

Surely the PN needs to be properly funded and sustained to allow all public
libraries to have sufficient access for all uses of, as it would seem the PN
is used mainly for emails, surfing etc., but also to promote the library,
its stock, services, Interblending , courses, specialisms, specialists
stocks, stocks of other libraries museums etc. If there  are insufficient
access points we go out of business,if as Steven suggests (we are a cultural
retail outlet). Lets not make it hard for people to gain access. Some real
strategic thinking and joined upness please.

As for catalogues and cataloguers, their demise (and I speak as an ex), has
been a long time coming. But we did miss the boat on organizing the web.
Marc records have been bought in for years, no need to tinker with them once
you have them, they really are very good. Libraries have also been
outsourcing for years. Do we constantly have to re invent everything every
few years in libraries.

I am enjoying this thread, but it must come to some recommendations,
standards, agreement, improvement?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Heywood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Is this the end for OPACs?


> This is pretty much where I can see us going. At the moment it's easy for
us
> to have our OPAC terminals dedicated solely to that task because they're
> dumb terminals. They've got a very limited working life left to them and
our
> next generation of OPAC terminals (which I'm currently trying not to worry
> about as I've got a few months' grace on that project and huge over-runs
on
> most everything else I'm supposed to be juggling!) will need to be PCs or
> thin clients. In that case, there will be pressure to have additional
> functions on there for the same reasons outlined by Margaret. The model I
> have in mind is that many of the OPAC-equivalents would probably end up
> being "OPAC + a limited amount of other stuff", with some sort of
short-stay
> session management, and the PN terminals would be "Internet + email +
office
> applications + OPAC", the latter being predicated on our getting the
> catalogue on the web (I'll probably die of apoplexy in the process but by
> criminey I'll get that catalogue on the web eventually).
>
> Personally, and I apologise in advance for the gross generalisation
involved
> here, I think the public library community has a pretty stupid attitude
> towards library catalogues. Aside from the very basic management need to
> know what you've got, where it is and what's happening to it, the
potential
> usefulness of the catalogue as a stock promotional tool is too often
> overlooked. The OPAC is our Argos catalogue.
>
> As for the position of cataloguers (and I write as a non-librarian), I
> understand that some library courses are downgrading cataloguing on the
> grounds that most libraries will be buying in MARC records. Aside from the
> questions: "if there ain't any cataloguers who'll be creating the MARC
> records?" and "if there ain't any cataloguers, where will the metadata
come
> from for electronic information resources?", there is a pretty fundamental
> question about the role of the "traditional" local library catalogue.
Public
> libraries are, essentially, retail operations (the only difference being
> we'd quite like the stock back, please) and have the same marketing needs
as
> retail operations. I cannot for the life of me imagine Argos or Amazon,
for
> example, out-sourcing the description of their stock and then publishing
it
> without editorial review, and yet this is precisely what happens when
> libraries buy in MARC records and just take what they're given and make it
> available on a PAC.
>
> IMHO.
>
> Steven Heywood
> Systems Manager
> Rochdale Library Service
> Wheatsheaf Library
> Baillie Street
> Rochdale OL16 1JZ
> Tel: 01706 864967
> Fax: 01706 864992
>
> The story of the Hen-pecked Club
> http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/living/libraries.asp?url=DPhenpecked
> <http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/living/libraries.asp?url=DPhenpecked>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Snook [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 14 January 2004 10:01
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: Is this the end for OPACs?
>
>
> We have dedicated OPACs  in all our libraries - and for a short time when
> they weren't working due to a technical problem we did receive complaints
> from the public.  However in the very small libraries the OPACs do often
lie
> unused alongside over-subscribed PN computers so we are now considering
> allowing dual use of the OPAC computers - the public will be able to use
> them for 15 minutes to send emails etc. but they won't be able to book
them
> in advance.  This means that anyone coming to use the OPAC or with a stock
> query can either get the staff to do if for them or wait a maximum of 15
> minutes to get access to the OPAC.
>
> Margaret Snook
> Greenwich Council
>
>
> "Hall, Chris" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> May I take the liberty of forwarding this on to lis-pub-libs?  Not sure
how
> many public librarians get to see lis-link, but apologies if I have
created
> a deluge of duplicate postings!  I would certainly be interested to see
the
> responses.
>
>
> Chris Hall
> Bibliographical Services Librarian
> Corporation of London Libraries
> Email:[log in to unmask]
> Tel: 020 7332 1075
> Textphone: 020 7332 3803
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aidan Turner-bishop [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
> Sent: 13 January 2004 18:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Is this the end for OPACs?
>
>
> My local public library service has made a policy decision to replace
> OPACs in its libraries with People's Network PCs. This means that there
> are no more dedicated OPAC library catalogues in Lancashire Libraries.
>
>
> If you want to to find out where a book is you have either to book a PC
> - busily used by emailers and web surfers - or queue up and ask busy
> library staff to tell you where you can find the book. I have been told
> by the Assistant County Library Manager Resources that the decision was
> taken because of "An awareness that fewer than one person in a hundred
> coming into a public library would normally consult the catalogue on a
> regular basis".
>
>
> Now, am I just a fuddy duddy or isn't this policy just so patronising
> and unhelpful, especially for local history researchers, students,
> business users and many others who don't wish to be treated like
> children? Is this an effective way to maximise use of the thousands of
> pounds-worth of unused assets (old books) kept in reserve stocks in
> public libraries? Is this Best Value? Does this improve access?
>
>
> Is this excuse used elsewhere to withdraw OPACs from public use? Is
> Lancashire bracingly avant-guard or has this been done elsewhere?  Are
> catalogues the new steam mangles? Will cataloguers soon only be seen in
> folk museums, alongside cloggers and coal miners? Are they just wasting
> their time? What do you think please?
>
>
> Aidan Turner-Bishop
> Preston, Lancashire
> (and LCC council tax payer too)
>
>
>
> THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
> PRIVILEGED.
>
>
>
> If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
> distribution
>
>
>
> or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
> If you
>
>
>
> have received this transmission in error please notify the sender
> immediately and
>
>
>
> then delete this e-mail.
>
>
>
> Opinions, advice or facts included in this message are given without any
> warranties
>
>
>
> or intention to enter into a contractual relationship with the Corporation
> of London
>
>
>
> unless specifically indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile
> signed by
>
>
>
> an authorised signatory of the Corporation.
>
>
>
> Any part of this e-mail which is purely personal in nature is not
authorised
> by the
>
>
>
> Corporation of London.
>
>
>
> All e-mail through the Corporation's gateway is potentially the subject of
> monitoring.
>
>
>
> All liability for errors and viruses is excluded.
>
>
>
> Website:  http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk <http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be
legally
> privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If you
are
> not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then
immediately,
> permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in
> reliance on it. This e-mail may be monitored by Rochdale Council in
accordance
> with current regulations.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept for
the
> presence of computer viruses currently known to the Council. However, the
> recipient is responsible for virus-checking before opening this message
and
> any attachment.
>
> Unless otherwise stated, any views expressed in this message
> are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the
views
> of Rochdale Council.
>