Notes on the 'Ditch the Catalogue!' session

Here are my notes from the 'Ditch the Catalogue!' session. They should be read in conjunction with the notes provided by Sam Searle (@datalibsam) in her earlier post. I apologise in advance for any potential misattributions, which can be blamed on my hurried note taking.

Jeff Granger (@ClearlyCurious)

---

This well attended session was proposed by Carolyn McDonald (@camcd). It arose from interest in the points raised by Helen Livingston (@heleoz) in her VALA 2012 presentation, entitled “What is the catalogue?”

The session was started by highlighting some points raised in Helen’s VALA presentation:

• Regardless of the system being used, catalogues are based on old standards.
• New standards are coming in which will require lots of effort in order to upgrade systems and migrate data.
• Is the effort of upgrading  going to be worthwhile when users are not using catalogues (much) anyway?
• Should we do away with the library catalogue in its present form and do away with providing users a direct interface to the catalogue?

Many academic and state libraries, and some public libraries, have implemented discovery layers that sit above the catalogue, treating it as just one of a number of databases containing searchable information about library supplied resources.

The idea of ditching the catalogue is worthy of serious consideration. This leads on to considering the feasibility of making such a transformation, what might be the best approach and what issues it might raise.

The following comments and points were then raised during the general group discussion:

• There is still a place for a catalogue but some of its functions can be separated out into specific system(s).

• Instead of paying for copy catalogue records, why not insert links within your local catalogue database that point to records held in a central catalogue service (like Libraries Australia).

• Functions such as inventory control and loans management would still need to be retained locally but if you simplify the functions and the rules needing to be followed then you might simplify the catalogue.

• One perspective on the catalogue is that original cataloguing is the foundation upon which all the “fun stuff” can then be built. To enable the “fun stuff” you also need to be able to easily share the catalogue records.

• Some of the detail we put into the catalogue is great for librarians but is not cared for by the users. Nor is the information in catalogues being reused as well as it might.

• Perhaps we should focus on not so much ditching the catalogue but in making it more useful and accessible.

• Original cataloguing done for local, unique resources needs to be more accessible – existing catalogue systems don’t make this easy.

• The discovery layers being put over catalogues are not necessarily delivering the answers back to the users that they need but this is getting better.

• At one university ditching of the catalogue is already happening. The plan is within a few years to only provide Serial Solutions’ Summon discovery solution as the user interface

• Some legacy catalogue interfaces are so poor that moving to Summon is seen as a positive in its own right.

• Can you ditch the catalogue without replacing it with a discovery layer?

• Ex Libris’ new Alma library services framework does not have a catalogue interface. It is purely a discovery layer.

• Do your catalogues need to be discoverable via Google given that this is the default place people go to to search for things?

• Is the back-end data entry for catalogue systems too complex? That is, is it not just the client interface but also the cataloguer’s interface that has made the catalogue an unloved tool?