Oddly enough I was looking for reliable data on the experience of libraries
when tagging their stock only yesterday. I can't find anything published so
I was going by what I've been told by taggers themselves.
...and while I may be an RFID advocate I think I may have mentioned
elsewhere that there are a few issues to be sorted out before we can start
using it nationally :)
I'm just remembering all those happy hours I used to spend checking the BM
Cat, LOC, pre-1801 catalogue etc. to try and prove that a requested item was
actually ever published when I was at the BL. Maybe we're going back to
those days? ;-)
Mick Fortune
m. +44 (0)7786 625544 t. +44 (0)1865 727411
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Usher, John [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 March 2010 12:00 PM
> To: Mick Fortune; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Modernisation of Public Libraries Review
>
> '...Anecdotally...'?
>
> Coming from the former head of an LMS supplier, and a major advocate of
> RFID I find that quite a surprising statement - surely this is one of
> the magificent 'Elephants in the Room' or 'Mooses on the Table' of our
> services?
>
> Why else would RFID suppliers be trying to sell us stock taking devices
> and 'smart shelving', etc. etc?
>
> So that we can reconcile what the LMS holdings are with what we
> actually
> have in the buildings, add that to what is on loan, discard all the
> 'long overdue' items that notionally still on loan to users (many of
> whom are never going to come back, and some who don't exist, or are
> 'identity thefts'), but are never going to come back (nor fulfill
> reservations), and come up with a realistic figure of what is actually
> on 'The System'.
>
> And that's before anyone does a 'retro-con' (retrospective conversion -
> not a term often used today), of all the 'stuff' (shades of Lorcan
> Demsey and UKOLN...) which has never been on any system.
>
> Datacleanse anyone?
>
> Regards
>
> JU
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mick Fortune
> Sent: 23 March 2010 11:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Modernisation of Public Libraries Review
>
> Yes, good points Ken, defining the "national book collection" will be a
> good starting point. Anecdotally I have heard that libraries often find
> that there's a big discrepancy between what they have, and what they
> THINK they have, when they start tagging the collection (sometimes as
> high as 25%!)
>
> I see RFID being given "magic bullet" prominence again too. It would be
> easier to follow the Danish example by taking out Danish citizenship
> than by pretending we, as a nation, had the foresight to implement the
> technology in the same way as they did. :)
>
> Still we're catching up and with some expert help from the new central
> library agency we might yet make it!
>
> Mick
>
>
>
> Mick Fortune
> m. +44 (0)7786 625544 t. +44 (0)1865 727411
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:LIS-PUB-
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Chad
> > Sent: 23 March 2010 11:16 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Modernisation of Public Libraries Review
> >
> > A few things that struck me (mostly thinking about tech related
> > issues) in the Modernisation Review were:-
> >
> > (1) A statutory ban on libraries charging for ebooks including
> > remotely ('including remotely? --What does that mean exactly?)
> > (2) A promise to provide any book in the national book collection
> > (including e-books?)
> > (3) A national catalogue
> >
> > ---All in the government's policy statement. If you put these
> together
>
> > it makes for some interesting and exciting scenarios. Lots of
> > opportunity for public libraries it seems to me...and... responding
> in
>
> > part to Alan's point on appendix C-- opportunity for
> 'entrepreneurship
>
> > and creativity'.
> >
> > It's going to be hard to pin down an e-book. Digital content is
> > slippery stuff. And the technology of e-books is at such an early
> > stage--we've barely seen any of the potential realised yet. Any
> > definition is going to be like stone age man defining a boat on the
> > basis of a hollowed out log.
> >
> > BTW: The Local Government Library technology Wiki (LGLibTech) has
> some
>
> > content relevant to the policy statement and links to useful
> > resources- including the policy statement itself of course--
> responses
>
> > to the original consultation (from CILIP, SCL and UKLON for example)
> > and a couple of recent Guardian articles
> >
> >
> http://lglibtech.wikispaces.com/The+Modernisation+Review+of+Public+Lib
> > r
> > aries
> >
> > Feel free to add to the wiki your own content, links, discussion
> etc...
> >
> >
> > Ken
> > Ken Chad Consulting Ltd
> > Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: [log in to unmask]
> > www.kenchadconsulting.com
> > Skype: kenchadconsulting
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:LIS-PUB-
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Wylie
> > Sent: 23 March 2010 10:30
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Modernisation of Public Libraries Review
> >
> > Can anyone explain to me what 'Entrepreneurship' and 'Relationship
> > Management' mean in the context of 'A modernised Public Library
> > Workforce' as outlined in Appendix C of the recently published
> > Libraries Modernisation Review?
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2764 - Release Date:
> > 03/22/10 19:44:00
> ***********************************************************************
> *****************
>
> This Email, and any attachments, may contain Protected, Restricted or
> Legally Privileged information and is intended solely for the
> individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or
> protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly.
>
> If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
> immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
> disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information
> contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted
> immediately.
>
> Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software
> viruses, any attachments to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses
> which our anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should
> therefore carry out your own anti-virus checks before opening any
> documents.
>
> Islington Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by
> computer viruses emanating from any attachment or other document
> supplied with this e-mail. All Email communications may be subject to
> recording and / or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
>
> Information contained in this Email may be subject to public disclosure
> under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental
> Information Regulations 2004. Unless the information is legally exempt
> from disclosure, the confidentiality of this Email and your reply
> cannot be guaranteed.
>
> If you wish to re-use the information, perhaps for commercial purposes,
> in a way which, without permission, might breach our copyright, please
> first read our policy on Re-use of Public Sector Information which can
> be found on our website
> http://www.islington.gov.uk/freedomofinformation or alternatively e-
> mail [log in to unmask] Any part of this Email which is purely
> personal in nature is not authorised by London Borough of Islington.
>
> Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000 www.islington.gov.uk
> ***********************************************************************
> *****************
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2764 - Release Date:
> 03/22/10 19:44:00
|