These theoretically perform similar functions but are different in their
strengths. CZ metadata is maintained algorithmically using data from many
sources and can be enriched by libraries (though changes can also be be
lost depending on what is going on). The CZ also contains many packages of
electronic resources and can be used to maintain packages for groups.
However, the CZ should not be seen as a substitute for OCLC as there are
quality issues and many records obviously don't have OCLC numbers. All the
same, it is one of the compelling features of Alma because it dramatically
improves and simplifies electronic resource management. Short version is
that OCLC is great for physical stuff and CZ is great for electronic stuff.
I am less enthusiastic about Alma ILL -- definitely not an area of strength.
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Josh Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In the case of Alma, does anyone have any feedback regarding the "Community
> Zone" metadata feature compared to something like WorldCat? And what about
> Alma's ILL?
> Joshua Welker
> Information Technology Librarian
> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> University of Central Missouri
> Warrensburg, MO 64093
> JCKL 2260
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ken Chad <[log in to unmask]>
> > There are 2 Higher Education Library Technology (HELibTech) briefing
> > papers that are relevant. They are CC0 licensed and available at
> > http://helibtech.com/Briefing+Papers
> > Library management system to library services platform.
> > Resource management for libraries: a new perspective. August 2015
> > Rethinking the Library Services Platform.
> > HELibTech Briefing Paper January 2016
> > Both address some of the 'cloud' SaaS issues. The latter paper argues
> > that, despite the term "Library Service Platform" we haven’t yet really
> > seen library systems taking a genuine *platform* approach as it is
> > understood in the wider world.
> > I also want to throw in a bit of a curved ball......library centric
> > "Reading List Management Systems". These have been widely adopted in the
> > UK, Australia and New Zealand and are just beginning to get some traction
> > in the US. They are NOT 'course reserve' modules.(See
> > http://helibtech.com/Reading_Resource+lists . They are judged by
> > libraries to be very high value because they get critical 'jobs done'.
> > Libraries may pay more for their reading list solutions than their ILS
> > because they see them as more important.
> > I see an increasing need to align library resources better with teaching
> > an learning outcomes. It was one of the top tech trends (2016) of ACR& (
> > See College & Research Libraries New. June 2016
> > http://crln.acrl.org/content/77/6/274.full.pdf+html) and is a key factor
> > in a new bill going through the UK parliament at the moment embodying the
> > Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Reading List solutions will be, I
> > judge, a crucial component of a library's response to those needs. So
> > you should be looking at implementing one? :)
> > Very best
> > Ken
> > Ken Chad Consulting Ltd Tel: +44(0)7788727845
> > http://www.kenchadconsulting.com Twitter: @kenchad
> > Skype: kenchadconsulting
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > Josh Welker
> > Sent: 28 April 2017 19:06
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Experience migrating to Alma or OCLC WMS?
> > Hi Kyle,
> > Certainly Alma and WMS have different products, but to call them "very
> > different" is misleading in the same way it would be misleading to call
> > Voyager and Millennium "very different." They have essentially the same
> > core features, albeit quite different workflows and interfaces. After
> > viewing several hours of demos for Alma and WMS, I can say pretty
> > confidently that they are two products trying to solve the same problems
> > relatively similar ways and that the way they do it is distinct from
> > products in the ILS marketplace right now. Yes, just about any ILS system
> > can be hosted in the cloud, but there is a major distinction between the
> > Software-as-a-Service model of WMS and Alma and the Platform-as-a-Service
> > model where you have a dedicated server with a dedicated instance of your
> > software that has to be maintained separately from all other instances
> > has data totally isolated from all other instances. Beyond that, the way
> > Alma and WMS integrates electronic resource workflows and KBs is quite
> > different from what other ILS systems do.
> > Given that these two products are sort of in their own class, I was
> > to learn what other libraries think about working with them compared to
> > working with old ILS systems. I think my use of the word "migrating" in
> > email title has given the impression that what I am most interested in is
> > the migration process, but that part seems fairly straightforward and
> > not concern me much.
> > Joshua Welker
> > Information Technology Librarian
> > James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> > University of Central Missouri
> > Warrensburg, MO 64093
> > JCKL 2260
> > 660.543.8022
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Josh Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > .... We are
> > > > looking at Alma and WMS specifically because they are entirely
> > > cloud-based
> > > > and redesigned from the ground up for modern workflows involving
> > > > e-resources, knowledgebases, discovery, etc....
> > >
> > >
> > > Alma and WMS are very different products that will be best for
> > > libraries, so I'd be careful about limiting to those two.
> > >
> > > When you get right down to it, all cloud based really means is "stuff
> > that
> > > someone else maintains" and there are enough options that can be done
> > with
> > > almost any system these days. As far as migrating data goes, it's
> > > about what you have, how you're using it, and how the target system is
> > set
> > > up. It just so happens I've helped move data into both Alma and WMS but
> > the
> > > issues are the same regardless of what you're moving to/from -- namely
> > > extracting the data as completely as possible and getting both the
> > content
> > > and structure into a form that meets your needs in the new system.
> > >
> > > Since the whole point of migrating is to get to a system that works
> > > differently, this means configuration is different. The types of
> > > and fields are different. Even when records and fields appear similar,
> > they
> > > use data differently. As such, understanding what people are doing now
> > and
> > > what they need to happen is way harder than the parsing and
> > > necessary to transfer data to the new system.
> > >
> > > kyle
> > >