<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Talis on nostuff.org archive | Chris Keene</title>
    <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/tags/talis/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Talis on nostuff.org archive | Chris Keene</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:02:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nostuff.org/archive/tags/talis/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Talis</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2012/talis/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2012/talis/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Today Talis &lt;a href=&#34;http://talis-systems.com/2012/07/refocusing-our-efforts-and-investments/&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;announced&lt;/a&gt; they are moving their focus away from Linked Data. I think my initial reaction, which I &lt;a href=&#34;http://twitter.com/chriskeene/status/222298027346493440&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;tweeted&lt;/a&gt;, holds true: this is on similar lines to Microsoft announcing plans to move away from Windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier this year I was at an event where I bumped in to two people from Talis. The one who knew me introduced me to the other, I think he described me as ‘a long time Talis watcher’, whether or not I quoted him accurately, that statement is probably true, and I therefore want to muse a little. Forgive me (especially if you are involved).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Talis Aspire, checking if a course has a list</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2010/talis-aspire-checking-if-a-course-has-a-list/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2010/talis-aspire-checking-if-a-course-has-a-list/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&#34;http://www.talis.com/aspire/&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;Talis Aspire&lt;/a&gt; is a new-ish Reading List system used at the University of Sussex Library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Aspire, a url for a &lt;em&gt;Department&lt;/em&gt; looks like this:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&#34;http://liblists.sussex.ac.uk/departments/anthropology.html&#34;&gt;http://liblists.sussex.ac.uk/departments/anthropology.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A page for a &lt;em&gt;course&lt;/em&gt; looks like this (for course l6061):&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&#34;http://liblists.sussex.ac.uk/courses/l6061.html&#34;&gt;http://liblists.sussex.ac.uk/courses/l6061.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nice thing is that you can replace the ‘.html’ with &lt;a href=&#34;http://liblists.sussex.ac.uk/courses/l6061.json&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;.json&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&#34;http://liblists.sussex.ac.uk/courses/l6061.rdf&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;.rdf&lt;/a&gt; – while the html only has a link to the related list, the json and rdf expose other links and relationships, such as the department.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>JISC Library Management System Review</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/jisc-library-management-system-review/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:48:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/jisc-library-management-system-review/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The JISC and SCONUL have just released a Review (Horizon Scan) of Library Management Systems (LMS or ILS). Intersting stuff. A lot of stuff to be expected, and some interesting findings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dire need to embrace web 2.0 and to get OPACs out of the 90s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The need to intergrate with campus systems such as Financial and registry systems.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open Source is used within current systems, and as systems in their own right, the latter have no real penetration in the UK market and are unlikely to do so in the short term (lack of advantages), and are not currently more ‘open’ than other systems.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most major systems are much of a muchness (they put it far more elegantly, though after glancing through 100 odd pages I’m not much inclined to find each quote), little reason to change system at the moment. Especially as…&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is a good time for the role and definition of a LMS to be looked at.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are already moving away from the ‘one big system approach’ i.e. Aquabrowser, ERMs and Metasearch are all separate products. Almost certainly going to move in this direction, and this is a good thing. This requires standards and cooperation for different systems to talk to each other.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UK market is small compared to global market, though not that different to the norm, except for BL ILL server and our concept of Short Loans.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Libraries have not made good use of looking at how users work and interact with their systems.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a need and movement to liberate data (silios and all that)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LMS may become a back of house system (though this should not be seen as a bad thing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recommends that libraries increase the value of their investment by implementing additional services around the LMS. Which is fine if these new services are using standard protocols to interact with the LMS, if their are using proprietary api’s or talk direct to the database then it is another thing to lock the library in to one provider (or at least, another reason why changing LMS will have a large impact).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Procurement process is overall expensive, especially when LMSs are more or less the same-ish.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Encourages libraries to review their contracts (ie not changing system, just getting more – or better value – out of the current system with better contract).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that interested me were the Vendor comments (and something the report reccommends to libraries) on the lack of consortia in the UK, and noted that other countries make good use of this (ie this is best practice). I can certainly see scope for this, especially as (like the report notes) the software has already been designed to handle consortiams.But what would the consortiams be? geographic based (London? South East? M25 group? Scotland) or perhaps using other groupings (Russel group, 94 group, CURL). Or perhaps smaller groupings based on counties or similar institutions.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>nostuff library catalogue using the Talis Platform</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/nostuff-library-catalogue-using-the-talis-platform/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:17:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/nostuff-library-catalogue-using-the-talis-platform/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;You may have already seen that a while a go I had a little play with the Talis Platform, and specifically a ‘store’ on the platform called ukbib which holds bibliographic records. I’ve written &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.nostuff.org/words/talis-platform/&#34;&gt;some pages on learning about the various parts to the platform&lt;/a&gt;. I had seen on the Talis Developer Network (TDN) various web services, but they all blurred in to one, the pages linked to above first work out the simple ones (e.g. linking to catalogues, holdings etc), this helped clear up the different bits that are available.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
