I agree with Jonathan's points below, and would suggest that a robust enough
WorldCat API should be sufficient to allow any library that has the desire
and the capacity to integrate everything available there with whatever else
On 11/9/07 9:42 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Good points.
> "If I wanted a drop-in in one-size solution for resource discovery, from
> a "corporate" supplier, for instance, I'd have to say that WorldCat
> local looks pretty darn interesting. But the kind of locally-iterable,
> modular, extensible toolkit that I think positions libraries well for
> experimentation and innovation."
> There's another important reason this "kind of locally-iterable modular
> extensible toolkit" is absolutely vital, in addition to "positioning
> libraries well for experimentation and innovation." It's because we
> absolutely need to functionally integrate our various _different_
> products from differnet vendors. Even if you go with WorldCat Local, you
> still have many products from other vendors that you'd really like it to
> integrate with (both on the end-user-interface, and on the backend staff
> metadata control and other interfaces). The path to accomplishing this
> is with that kind of "modular extensible toolkit"---dropping in an
> ostensible "one-size solution" often only creates more problems with
> lack of integration.
> We want "loosely coupled", but we're currently often stuck with "not
> coupled at all", which causes no end of problems.
> Joe Lucia wrote: