On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Sean Hannan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You could do something like what I did and run your own data backend and use
> whatever you need to/have to to display content.
> (written using grape: http://intridea.github.io/grape/). We can move the
> website to some cloud provider, into a central IT-managed system, or
> elsewhere and it won't break.
> I originally presented the concept at code4lib 2011 (slides:
> ibrary-websites), but it's in production now.
> On 8/14/13 9:21 AM, "Joshua Welker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any suggestions as to where the library should or should
>> not compromise when it comes to using an institutional CMS rather than a
>> custom library one? We are going through this process right now. Our web
>> pages are currently all in static HTML and LibGuides. I am wanting to move
>> to Drupal, and campus IT wants us to move to their Adobe Contribute
>> platform. AFAIK, Contribute does not allow for any server-side scripting
>> and does not have any sort of plugin system, and I am very concerned that
>> Contribute would harm the library's ability to effectively integrate its
>> online resources into a single web portal (server-side caching, indexes,
>> scheduled tasks, etc).
>> I know the answer to this question is "it depends," but I am hoping others
>> can share the fruits of their experience.
>> Josh Welker
>> Information Technology Librarian
>> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
>> University of Central Missouri
>> Warrensburg, MO 64093
>> JCKL 2260
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Jimmy Ghaphery
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:49 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LibGuides: I don't get it
>> I have followed this thread with great interest. In 2011 Erin White and I
>> researched many of the issues the group has been hitting on, demonstrating
>> the popularity of LibGuides in ARL libraries, the locus of control outside
>> of systems' departments, and the state of content policies.
>> Our most challenging statement in the article to the library tech
>> community (which was watered down a bit in the peer review process) was
>> "The popularity of LibGuides, at its heart a specialized content
>> management system, also calls into question the vitality and/or
>> adaptability of local content management system implementations in
>> One of the biggest challenges I see toward creating a non-commercial
>> alternative is that the library code community is so dispersed in the
>> various institutions that it makes it difficult to get away from the
>> download tar.gz model. Are our institutions ready to collaborate across
>> themselves such that there could be a shared SaaS model (of anything
>> really) that libraries could subscribe/contribute to? The barriers here
>> certainly aren't technological, but more along the lines of policy,
>> governance, etc.
>> As for Research Guides in general, I see a very clear divide in the
>> public/tech communities not only on platform but more philosophical. From
>> the tech side once it is all boiled down, heck why do you even need a
>> third party system; catalog the databases with some type of local genres
>> and push out an api/xml feeds to various disciplines. From the public side
>> there is a long lineage of individually curated guides that goes to the
>> core of value of professionally knowing one's community and serving it.
>>  https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/1830
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]>
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]
>>>> There's not a lock-in issue with LibGuides, because it's used to
>>>> host pathfinders. Those are supposed to be periodically revisited.
>>>> One of
>>>> big problems is that librarians will start a guide and never finish,
>>>> or make one then never maintain it. Periodically deleting
>>>> everything is a good thing for pathfinders and subject guides, and
>>>> people should do it anyway. No one's talking about tools for
>>>> digital archives, which have
>>>> in issues and are way more expensive.
>>> Lock-in doesn't have to be absolute to be effective, it just has to
>>> has raise the bar sufficiently high to make users think twice about
>>> migrating away.
>>> This applies even if the data to be moved is transitory and constantly
>>> changing. For example, if a library has been diligently updating their
>>> pathfinders, but wants to switch platforms, if there were no way to
>>> export them to load into the successor system, the effort of redoing
>>> them or doing a lot of copy-and-pasting could be prohibitive.
>>> As a general statement -- and I know that this battle has been
>>> bitterly fought in the ILS space -- I believe that *all* library
>>> software services, whether based on F/LOSS software or proprietary
>>> software, should provide a way for the library to obtain a full dump
>>> of their data, in an accessible format, at no additional charge.
>>> I see that LibGuides advertises the ability to make local backups of
>>> individual pages and also provides (via a paid add-on module) an XML
>>> export function. I don't know if SpringShare will also provide free
>>> one-time exports on request, but I would hope they do.
>>> Of course, even if one has the data in hand, data migrations can still
>>> take a lot of time, effort, and expertise.
>>> Galen Charlton
>>> Manager of Implementation
>>> Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
>>> email: [log in to unmask]
>>> direct: +1 770-709-5581
>>> cell: +1 404-984-4366
>>> skype: gmcharlt
>>> web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
>>> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
>> Jimmy Ghaphery
>> Head, Digital Technologies
>> VCU Libraries