Sounds like you are on a reasonable track overall.

John Little wrote:
> It may be that some components of an ideal ILS are already available, some
> are under development by academic libraries and some will require new
> programming.  We expect that different open-source ILS projects will lead
> toward convergence and or joint future activities.
>

It is important to keep in mind though that there is a large middle
ground between "already available" and "require new programming".
Especially when it comes to open source. It's:   "A component is already
available which can be the SEED of what we need, but may take additional
development (which may or may NOT be already in the works) to turn INTO
what we need."

This is something some people seem to miss when it comes to open source.
With a proprietary vendor product, either it's there or it isn't--we've
learned the hard way to count only on what's there, not what the vendor
_says_ is coming soon, or would be easy to add. Unless they actually
contractually commit to add it, and even then don't count on it.

It doesn't make sense to be quite so strict ruling out possible
transformation with open source though. Because you aren't at the mercy
of the vendor to add it or not, you can (with sufficient resources) add
it yourself. So part of the evaluation is: "How close is this to what we
need? If it has significant _functional_ problems, is it _structurally_
and _technically_ amenable to modification to meet our needs?. What is
our estimate of staff time needed for modification to meet our needs?
Would the existing community (if any, and hopefully there is one, or
that's a minus sign) around this open source product be amenable to the
changes we'd like to make, or would we have to 'fork' it into our own
product?"  To not consider these possibilities with open source, and
instead to create your own product from the ground up merely because
exactly what you want isn't in existence (or current development) YET is
to miss opportunities for synergy and avoidance of re-inventing the wheel.

On another topic, I also think it's good to have options, so I'm not
sure I expect (or would welcome) total convergence between various open
source ILS projects. But to the extent we're imagining various loosely
coupled modules which can be mixed-and-matched, I fantasize that the
modules from various open source (AND proprietary!) ILSs can become
inter-operable, so an institution can take the one that best meets it's
needs in each class, and mix-and-match them. Different ones may meet
different institutions needs best.

Jonathan


> --John
>
> On Jan 29, 2008 11:02 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 28, 2008, at 5:26 PM, John Little wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Duke University Libraries are preparing a proposal for the Mellon
>>> Foundation to convene the academic library community to design an open
>>> source Integrated Library System (ILS)....
>>>
>> Personally, I think this is a good idea. Yes, there are existent
>> ILSs, but such things are not the be-all and end-all of ILSs. The
>> software implementation, whether it be operating systems, text
>> editors, or integrated library systems is an iterative process. It
>> repeats. Moreover, there are many ways to get there from here; one
>> size does not fit all. The process outlined will enable a thousand
>> flowers to bloom, or call it friendly competition.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Lease Morgan
>> University Libraries of Notre Dame
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> [log in to unmask]
> ILS Support Section Head
> Duke University Libraries
> 919.660-5932
>
>

--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu