ILS Architecture: Open vs Turnkey
If you haven’t already read Blyberg’s ILS Bill of Rights I suggest you do so. Also check out the Talis reply and Blyberg’s response. Here’s a brief overview of the points though the commentary on the posts is worth reading:
- Open, read-only, direct access to the database.
- A full-blown, W3C standards-based API to all read-write functions
- The option to run the ILS on hardware of our choosing, on servers that we administer
- High security standards
Anyone that has been following the various OPAC hacks or problems knows why these are important. Currently many are forced to either mirror their entire dataset (intensive) or at least cache certain information so that the queries are easier to do. The drawbacks of this approach are obvious and having options 1 and 2 would help alleviate some of this (caching may still be important for performance issues). It will be interesting to see if any of the OSS ILS people respond to the points but I’ve been very impressed by the openness of Talis lately. They are certainly getting their name out if nothing else.
Since I told you all to subscribe to Blyberg’s blog I wasn’t going to post about this but a unrelated post over at Photo Matt (of Wordpress fame) got me thinking:
All that said, hard-core developers often need flexibility in the system to expand WordPress to things we’ve never even imagined, and that’s where our plugin system comes in. While we often say no to new options, we rarely ever shoot down a suggested extension to our plugin API. The beauty of this is it allows for near-infinite flexibility in how you interact with the program (there are some amazing plugins out there) while still keeping the core light, clean, stable, and fast. It also makes support relatively painless: “Does it work when you deactivate the plugin?”
Would it be better for ILS vendors to offer a simple turnkey based system with options added as extensions? They could go to the point of selling their own extensions (ones with support) but also allowing others to build on it if they wish. Add RSS feeds yourself? Then it’s your support problem. Buy their RSS extension then you can get support. As Matt states this helps with support issues while allowing near endless functionality.
With this architecture in mind it may be possible for vendors to have a solid lightweight core ILS while allowing those that need more to add the features they need (what their budget allows). They could also then work on enhancing the API hooks as people need them for future releases.
From the Talis reply it almost sounds like a Turnkey vs Open dispute. I see the problem that some libraries will want something they can just plugin and go but this is far from ideal for many that actually have the IT support to do more. Could plugin/extension hooks be a possible solution?
I should note that I’m more concerned with the OPAC side of things than the full ILS.
Technorati Tags: ILS, libraries, OPAC, plugins, Talis, users, wordpress
People who looked at this item also looked at…
Related items
5 Responses to “ILS Architecture: Open vs Turnkey”
Leave a Reply
Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
For a second when I read that headline, I thought it said “ILS Architecture: Open vs Turkey”.
November 27th, 2005 at 11:36 am
[...] I hadn’t seen Ryan Eby’s post at LibDev that connected ILSs with WordPress before I posted that library catalogs should be like WordPress here. It connects with a my comment on a post at Meredith Farkas’ Information Wants To Be Free. My comment there goes in two directions, but I’d like to focus on the technology side now. [...]
November 30th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
[...] Fired up? Read more with my library catalogs should be like WordPress post, John Blyberg’s ILS customer bill of rights, and Ryan Eby’s open vs. turnkey discussion. [...]
November 30th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
[...] If you haven’t been following along there has been an open discussion lately regarding ILS user rights and where OPACs are headed. In my recent post I wondered whether an open architecture might allow the faster paced changes that are needed in a technology and information-centric world. Since then Talis has responded again regarding John Blyberg’s response. I’m certain he will post with a better response since he has more first hand experience but I thought I’d address a few things. [...]
December 5th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
The rise of the Platform - Continuing the Library 2.0 discorse with Blyberg
For those of you who haven’t been following this conversation, here is a brief history to for you: Nov 15th 2005 - Talis launch white paper Do Libraries Matter? The Rise of Library 2.0 at Talis Insight Conference 2005Nov 18th…