| Product
|
Maintained by
|
Data source
|
Subcollections?
|
Incorporate
other collections?
|
Share data
|
Staff time required
|
Notes
|
Customizable for indiv libs?
|
Aquabrowser
A simple catalog replacement. Relatively cheap and eye catching.
Example:
Oklahoma State University
|
Alliance
|
Extraction from Summit
|
Yes
|
Data load based collections at extra charge
|
No
|
For data extraction and initial setup. Significant configuration and setup. Modest systems administration afterwards
|
No advanced search.
Greater functionality and more skins available at additional charge
|
If individual skins are purchased
|
Encore
Pricing not available for a Summit standalone system. Otherwise, a simple catalog replacement.
Example:
Michigan State University
|
III
|
Summit
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Minimal
|
No author facet.
Advanced search takes user to old interface.
Intended to be purchased on library by library basis. Subscription pricing for access to Summit.
Calls to other customers indicate very little control over look/feel
|
No
|
Endeca
Powerful, but expensive and requires systems development resources that may exceed what the Alliance can provide.
Example:
Florida Center for Library Automation
|
Alliance
|
Extraction from Summit |
Yes
|
Requires custom programming
|
Requires custom programming
|
Extensive programming needed. Significant configuration and setup. Modest systems administration afterwards
|
No left hand title search.
More customizable than other vendor products but must develop own interface. Performance issues with big installations w/o 64 bit OS and lots of memory. Process uses 18G memory. FCLA uses 120G memory. Incremental updates problematic. Is a generic discovery tool that can be modified for library use. High customer satisfaction, but financial concerns.
|
Yes
|
Evergreen
Not viable. Must replace ILS. Tying Evergreen to III would not be technically feasible at this time.
Example:
Georgia Pines
|
Alliance
|
Replacement for III
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Extensive setup and systems administration
|
Represents more of a new financial and development model for catalogs rather than truly being next generation. Still lacks many basic features. Georgia Pines is the only production system in use
|
Yes
|
Primo
Well executed solution that is flexible enough to accommodate changing needs. Expensive and requires significant work, but the best from a long term functionality point of view
Example:
Vanderbuilt University
|
Alliance
|
Extraction from Summit |
Yes
|
for additional charge
|
Yes
|
No left hand title match.
Significant configuration and setup. Modest systems and Oracle administration afterwards
|
Independent of cost, the most functional option.
Based on architecture designed to provide portals to all types of information. Powerful and simple administration. Ability to provide scopes for individual catalogs or subcollections at no extra charge. Extra views (included in base price) allow pointing at multiple resolvers, ILL systems, etc. Web services based, so services can be built on top of Primo. Runs on cheaper hardware and linux.
|
Yes
|
WorldCat Local
Achieves relatively high level of functionality with relatively little work. Potential limited by ability to only work with OCLC products.
Example:
University of Washington
|
OCLC
|
WorldCat holdings
|
No
|
FirstSearch only
|
No
|
Minimal
|
No subject facet. No left hand title match.
Over 1 million Alliance holdings not in OCLC. Cannot be integrated with local resources. Cannot list local library holdings first without choosing more expensive options.
Notes from UW's WCL experience
|
|
Alliance Developed
Flexible, cheap, and functional. However, expanding functionality in the future may take increasing amounts of staff time.
Example:
Test site
|
Alliance
|
Extraction from Summit |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
All functionality must be created. Significant configuration and setup. Modest systems and database administration afterwards
|
Providing customizable local catalog capabilities would be trivial to add on.
|
Yes
|
