Re: [LIS-Forum] OpenSource Debate

Dear all A good logical and time befitting debate started at last. I'm completely agreed with Mr. Singh and would like to add a few point in that .... 1. Close source commercial LMSs are non-transparent in the use and application of standards, whereas FLOSS based LMSs are very clear in this direction (take the example of Koha, right from the 1999 it is trying to follow and implement all the global internationally agreed upon standards e.g. EDIFACT, NCIP, Z39.50 etc.); 2. Close source commercial LMSs are still not compliant with Web 2.0 tools, techniques and philosophy. FLOSS based LMSs are quite accommodative in this regard, for example, Koha 3 is RSS compliant (it produce RSS feed for every search query issued by users), supports Tag submission by users to describe a resource, users can post their comments on a particular resource available in the library. In short it follows participative architecture or user-at-the centre stage model. Unfortunately no other LMSs is presently web 2.0-enableb; 3. Koha (2.x and 3.x) is web-centric in architecture; 4. Fully compatible with Unicode 5.1 and thereby ensures storing, processing and retrieval of Indic script based resource (see www.granthalaya.org for a live demo); 5. Koha 3 supports information mashup - in fact we are noe able to snatch cover page images from Amazon without scanning pages or writing a single line of code (see the site of Department of LIS, University of Burdwan @ http://burdwan01.kwc.kohalibrary.com/ - search digital library or LIS related terms). Hope to see a brave open world Dr. Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay Department of Library and Information Science University of Burdwan, Burdwan, Rajbati - 713104, WB ---------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- From: "Sukhdev Singh" To: "SatishDpnd@Adroit" Cc: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in Subject: Re: [LIS-Forum] SOUL-NewGenLib-OpenSource Debate Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:16:33 +0530

Dear All,

I don't think we should shy away from any debate. But unfortunately LIS Community in India seems to be relatively shy of healthy debates.

If I am given a chance to implement a Library Automation System, I would prefer a model in the following order:

1. Open Source Solution. For the freedom it provides in terms of 'owning' the systems for long term use. I won't mind taking a paid support service.

2. Free Software. For it won't burden my budgets and won't trouble me with approvals of higher authorities.

3. Commercial Solution. I would be going for it if none is available in Open Source domain. I will keep myself ready for migration to an Open Source Solution.

I still feel that efforts required for training and implementation remains the same for all models of softwares.

I would still like to hear more on KOHA Vs NewGenLib. I am impressed with the Delhi Public Library's ( http://dpl.gov.in/ ) implementation of KOHA, though I have no idea of inside story about it. I would like to see NewGenLib's implementation available for public view.

Thanks

--Sukhdev Singh.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:51 PM, SatishDpnd@Adroit wrote:

...

In response to LIS-Forum Digest, Vol 72, Issue 13 : Message 2 and earlier discussions on the topic

Dear LIS professionals

The debate on NewGenLib v/s SOUL is simply not necessary because I feel both are meant for different segments of LIS market. SOUL was developed by INFLIBNET years back under the aegis of UGC to support academic Library community which at that time was unable to invest in proprietary LMS. The initial College edition of SOUL was costing merely Rs.15,000/- (until recently) when proprietary standalone LMS was costing Rs.1 lac. There are more than 1600 SOUL installations in India. Just think of them ! What should they do ? Get free-upgrade of SOUL 2.0 (with moderate costs of installation) or go for NewGenLib/Koha which is free and open source. SOUL 2.0 has added many more facilities to its previous version. It's web-based, many International Standards have been adopted and it is SIP2/NCIP compatible too. Now think of those smaller libraries which have only couple of staff, what should they do ? Use readily available upgraded LMS or switch over to free, open source NewGenLib or Koha - for which neither they have expertise nor time to devote.

All of us those who are adopting Open Source software know very well that it needs substantial staff-time-investment - may it be for data migration, customising each function to suit to one's needs or even fixing small problem of default currency. Open Source LMS is only a powerful engine, but whether one can make a racing car out of it or not depends upon availability of the workshop facilities, latest tools and machinery, research staff to support and designing team to take care of its dynamics. Therefore I would not blindly support Open Source just because it is almost free compared to proprietary LMS - but would strongly advocate use of SOUL 2.0 by those who would like to concentrate more on user-services than breaking their heads in customising Open Source LMS.

SOUL 2.0 is a step towards upgrading efficiency of LIS community as a whole at very negligible input costs. Those who feel the SOUL 2.0 rates are high should enquire for rates for proprietary LMS in the market, and also how much would it cost to customise Open Source with facilities which are offered by SOUL 2.0.

I have yet not come across any fully operational Open Source LMS in any of the large Libraries in India. Many open source agencies claim that each and every module/facility can be customised, e.g. Template designs, RSS Feeds, Blogs, Federated Search, scheduled auto e-mail generators, Customised Reports, MIS stats, Online Reservation facility, built-in SIP2/NCIP, Video-streaming facility through web-OPAC, importing records from web catalogues, exporting records in variety of formats, remote log-ins, Serials Management etc., but when it comes to practical implementation, it takes months together to mould them to match needs of the organisation.

Therefore I will never ever criticise indigenous LMS like SOUL. It is/was developed for specific cause/purpose and not for competing with proprietary LMS or to discourage use of Open Source LMS. We all should recommend it to all those who are short of resources and do not have time/expertise to customise freely available open-source.

Would certainly welcome your views

Happy LMSing !

satish deshpande formerly Head British Council Library Ahmedabad

Mentor, Nirma University Libraries; Adviser, KM&IC, National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad M : 098250 30460 email : satish.dpnd@gmail.com

In response to LIS-Forum Digest, Vol 72, Issue 13 : Message 2

...

Message: 2 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:56:14 +0530 (IST) From: "I.R.N.Goudar" Subject: [LIS-Forum] SOUL-INFLIBNET-NEWGENLIB To: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Dear Professionals, Herewith I have forwarded my response I sent through lis-forum soon after the announcement of NewGenLib as open source software. My message answers few questions raised by few LIS colleagues. Ther is no poin in discussing the merits and demerits of SOUL, GRANTHALAYA, Maitreyee, Suchika, etc. At this juncture of avilability of open source software, what should be our (librarians) stand? What responsible institutions like INFLIBNET, NISCAIR, DRTC, NIC, Keshavan Institute, etc should do? Government has spent lot of money various agencies for the development of good library automation system. Some of them were cooked half? Discontinued further developments? some of them never saw the light of the day? Some of them did not get good support after sale or implementation? While I have full confidence in the capability and vision of present director of INFLIBNET for developing SOUL as one of the good system, my basic question is, at this juncture is it necessary still put efforts and spend money on such developments, when so many open source softawre are available? NEWGENLIB, apart from using open source flatform, uses only open standards. It has stood test ofthe time. At national level we should have customization, migration and support service arrangements on any open system we adopt. MY LIS-FORUM MESSGE SENT ON 11 JAN 2008, GIVES SOME SUGGESTIONS IN THIS MATTER (Copy enclosed below) Goudar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. I.R.N. Goudar Tel: 91-80-25086081 Sci F & Head, Information Centre for 91-80-25235315 Aerospace Science and Technology Fax: 91-80-25268072 National Aerospace Laboratories E-mail:goudar@css.nal.res.in Airport Road, BANGALORE-560 017 India http://www.icast.org.in/staff/goudar.html

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum

-- _______________________________________________ Search for products and services at: http://search.mail.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.