Kimberley Weber
[email protected]
ILS506-70
Dr. Eino Sierpe
April 21, 2011
A Comparative Study of Two OPACs: Bibliomation and PINES
Some public libraries have started to replace their proprietary integrated library systems with open source systems. Because of this current trend I thought it would be interesting to compare a proprietary online catalog with an open source catalog. Many online public access catalogs (OPACs) do a great job of helping library patrons find library items, but some don’t. Until recently most OPACs in both public and academic libraries were supported by proprietary software. These commercial systems are developed by software vendors who charge a lot of money for their product. Upgrades tend to come slowly and often customer feedback is ignored. In recent years there has been a move towards open source software which is free and collaborative. The open source movement promises exciting new features inspired by technology trends and user recommendations. Code is not locked down so the system is much more flexible and changes can happen at a much faster rate.
The commercial catalog I’d like to evaluate is Bibliomation’s. Bibliomation offers support to an eighty member consortium in Connecticut of both public schools and public libraries. Its catalog is supported by Horizon, a product of SIRSI Dynix. The second catalog I’d like to critique is the PINES Catalog which is used by a very large consortium in Georgia with 273 library members and powered by Evergreen, an open source ILS system. I currently work at a library that uses Horizon and in June of 2011 we will be migrating to Evergreen. This migration has produced a lot of fear, anxiety, and doubt among the staff because although the conversion is imminent no one has been trained on the new system or even been able to see the version that will very soon be our new online catalog. It looks like library staff will be learning right alongside the public. Research for this paper provided me with great exposure to Evergreen through the PINES Catalog and it was fascinating for me to see how it compares to the Bibliomation Catalog.
I studied a lot of OPACs for this paper, trying to determine which of their features are the most important for a successful user experience. I visited both commercial and open source ILS websites to see which catalog characteristics they touted in the promotion of their product. A lot of them made some pretty outrageous claims as to what features their catalog provided, claims that didn’t seem to really hold up when you accessed the catalog to locate an item. I also used criteria discussed in “The Next Generation OPAC” written by Sharon Q. Yang and Melissa A. Marshall. My adapted list includes nine key components: 1. a user friendly web interface, 2. one stop search capacity, 3. a simple keyword search box, 4. spelling correction options, 5. enriched content, 6. relevancy rankings, 7. faceted navigation, 8. user contribution/interaction content and finally, 9. account management tools, that is tools that make it easier for the library user to manage his/her account effectively. I have evaluated the Bibliomation and PINES catalogs in these nine different areas to help me learn how different catalogs work in the public library setting and also to see how a proprietary “consortia-friendly” catalog compares to an open source “consortia-friendly” catalog.
1. User Friendly Web Interface – When online catalogs were first developed they were clunky and anything but user friendly. It was assumed that professional searchers such as librarians were navigating the catalog and were on hand to guide the library user. Complex syntax and cumbersome search terminology was the norm. But then personal computers arrived on the scene, and soon surfing on the web became commonplace and so OPACs needed to be a whole lot friendlier and more intuitive. If a catalog is to be considered useful, it must accommodate the way people search. Screens must be simple and consistent in layout. They should also be clear and without ambiguity, so the user can efficiently and successfully execute a search. The best catalog is the one that helps library patrons find library items.
An online catalog needs to be visually pleasing, easy to navigate and most of all functional. There should not be too much text or unnecessary graphics. Everything on the first page should have a purpose that is easily understood by the user. The average online catalog user is probably pretty savvy and already proficient with Amazon or Google searching and is expecting the catalog to behave in a similar fashion. How do Bibliomation and PINES compare to one another in this regard? The web interface in the Bibliomation Catalog is fairly clean and uncluttered. However it does use tabs which are a little clunky and some of the tabs aren’t really relevant. For example, is this really the place for the New York Times Best Seller list? One tab takes you to an advanced search page which will allow for Boolean operators and the opportunity to refine your search. This is useful. But then there’s a tab for a kids’ catalog which is cluttered and silly with busy graphics that are no help to anyone. There is also a long list of links for all of the individual Bibliomation library catalogs. However if you need to search on the entire consortium at once you must click on a star in the upper right hand corner of the screen labeled “Bibliomation Global”. What this link does is unclear to a first time user. In the right hand corner there is also a help button which warns you that some features described in future pages may or may not be available because your library may have chosen not to subscribe to them. So right away the message is negative.
The PINES interface is simpler with no tabs, yet nothing important is missing. You can do everything in the PINES Catalog that you can do in Bibliomation but more easily. From the front page you can choose the type of search, the format, the library catalog (within the consortium) and also an advanced search. At the bottom is a help link which gives easy to follow directions on how to successfully search on the catalog.
2. One Stop Search Capacity – Both PINES and Bibliomation fail miserably in this all important feature. A single point of entry is a must for the next generation of OPACS and neither of these catalogs makes online databases easily searchable via the catalog. Databases are important and valuable components of any library collection and their presence should not be buried deep inside another part of the library’s website. Not only should the databases be easily searchable but full text and archive options must also be available. Most academic libraries do a great job of promoting their entire collection and public libraries have a responsibility to their patrons to do the same.
3. Simple Keyword Search Box – Bibliomation and PINES both have a simple keyword search box on the opening page of the catalog. There is also a link to an advanced search for users in need of more complex search options. Experimenting with a variety of search terms, both simple and compound, produced a variety of results. More advanced searching helped reduce the number of retrievals and also increased the number of relevant hits in both PINES and Bibliomation which is ideal. The advanced search screen looks similar in both catalogs however PINES retrieved more relevant titles than Bibliomation. This may be an unfair comparison because PINES is a consortium with 273 members and Bibliomation has only 80. Still I searched mostly on general interest topics and popular fiction titles and, PINES had better search filter options than Bibliomation.
4. Spelling Correction Options – Bibliomation is very inflexible when it comes to typos and spacing issues. Unless you have the exact title you will come up with a Sorry could not find anything matching where as PINES provides the kind of help you’d find with Amazon or Google. For example in PINES, the mistyped “Waitning for Snow in Havana” (extra “n” in “Waiting”) query gave the response – Zero hits were returned for your search. Maybe you meant “Waiting for Snow in Havana.” Not only did PINES provide a spelling correction, but the title was also a link to the results page. Typing Gurnsey rather than Guernsey (“Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society”) produced similar results, a zero in Bibliomation but success in PINES. PINES was also more understanding of spacing errors. Typing either Davinci Code or Da Vinci Code gave me Dan Brown’s bestseller in PINES but nothing in Bibliomation. PINES was also more flexible with author input. Type either James Joyce or Joyce, James in the search box, both will give you the works by the Irish author, James Joyce. The PINES spelling correction option consistently outperforms Bibliomation’s.
5. Enriched Content – In this area the two catalogs do well although neither delivers what they promise in their promotional materials. Both provide book covers, summaries and multiple reviews of the items in their catalog. They both also link to recommendations and related materials. However the related material claim is a bit of a stretch. For example, I searched on the related material link in PINES for Carlos Eire’s memoir, “Waiting for Snow in Havana”. This is a book about growing up in Cuba in the late 1950s, yet the related materials suggested on the side bar linked to memoirs of Jewish women. In Bibliomation the recommendations were much better, with books on Operation Peter Pan, Refuge Children and Cuban Biographies. Enriched content benefits the catalog user and enhances the browsing experience. The PINES Catalog offers relevant subjects, relevant authors and relevant series, plus a shelf browser (a shelflist feature). Bibliomation also offering s most of these features but in a slightly different format. Both offer MARC records for all holdings which is a feature I appreciate much more now that I’ve taken a cataloging course. One big difference between the two catalogs is the physical appearance on the results screen. Should you choose “Life” by Keith Richards the page in Bibliomation is very simple. Under title and author information you’ll find columns showing the status of the book, letting you know if it’s available, if not when it’s due, and which Bibliomation libraries own it. From this page it is very easy to place a hold. The results page in PINES looks a little different. While it is still easy to place a hold by clicking on a link in the upper right hand corner, the status of the book is a little more difficult to understand. There are a multitude of columns – available, checked out, in process, in transit, reshelving, on hold, on order, etc. While the status of an item is certainly important not only to staff but also to the user this long row of possibilities is very confusing especially when 273 libraries get in the act. The grid becomes enormous and looks like binary code full of 0s and 1s.
6. Relevancy Rankings – Relevancy rankings made popular by Google is a very useful feature, allowing more popular items to rise to the top of retrieved lists. The number of times an item has been checked out could be considered an indicator of popularity. The benefit of this model is that it allows relevancy to be specific to a particular library’s collection. For example “The Jungle” by Clive Cussler is very popular right now as a new release, much more than the classic by Upton Sinclair of the same name. Allowing the new book by Cussler to head the top of the list makes for easier retrieval and less confusion, than if Sinclair’s book headed the list. Currently Bibliomation does not use this method to determine relevancy and PINES does not appear to use relevancy either. More popular titles with common names did sometimes appear ahead on the retrieval list of other less popular titles, but not consistently.
7. Faceted Navigation – Being able to narrow or expand search results via facets such as subject, author, date, types of materials, locations and series should be a key component of any good OPAC. Both Bibliomation and PINES do very well with this feature. Both have these options on the very first search page and then repeat the options should you choose to do a more advanced search.
8. User Contribution/Interaction – This is a relatively new component of OPACs and a popular claim in some of the open source systems. Currently Bibliomation has no user contribution capability or social network linking. Content on the catalog is primarily created by Bibliomation with a very small amount generated by technical services from the member libraries and no reviews or other content created by catalog users. The migration to open source is promising more collaborative efforts both within and outside of the library community. Reviews, commentary, and discussions will hopefully flourish under the open source system. Recommendations between readers and current and relevant readers’ advisories may also be established with this new system.
9. Account Management Tools – Library users are insisting on more and more control over their library accounts. Not only do they want to be able to locate a book or item in the catalog, they also want to be able to place a hold on it so it can be pulled from the shelf or retrieved from another library. Library users also want to be able to renew their items online, see what they have checked out, keep track of items they’ve read, as well as items they hope to read.
Both Bibliomation and PINES allow users to place holds on books and renewal of items is also fairly straightforward. The bookbag feature is available only in PINES, this allows the user to keep track of books they have read or would like to read. The list is password protected and can only be used by the patron, a good thing as libraries do not want to keep lists of books people have read, as it could become liability issue.
In conclusion, PINES outperforms Bibliomation in several key areas, however its current configuration does not seem to have the forward thinking open source mindset we have been promised. Maybe the exciting new features inspired by technology trends and customer feedback haven’t been developed yet?
To summarize, both of the catalogs I evaluated have a clean front page. However once you start searching PINES does seem to be a little bit easier to use and offers more help in the advanced screen with many good search filter options. The simple keyword search box and faceted navigation is very good in both catalogs as is the enriched content. The book jackets, summaries, and reviews are all a nice added feature. Bibliomation’s links to relevant materials was a little more robust than PINES but neither of them could rival a librarian with good reader advisory skills and familiarity with the collection. The account management tools in both catalogs are also a nice feature that many library users have come to expect. The book bag feature found in PINES is new to me but has great sharing potential among both patrons and librarians. I am looking forward to exploring this option. The two weakest features in both catalogs were the relevancy ranking and user contribution. Both seem to be key elements for the next generation OPAC and both seem to be missing from the current version used by PINES and Biliomation. It will be interesting to see how these catalogs evolve over the next several years. SIRSIDynix does not seem to be developing many forward thinking changes in Horizon. Evergreen may fare better because it is open source. We’ll have to wait and see if collaborative and generous minds get together to take advantage of new technologies that will provide improvements to the system. I think it’s a very exciting time in OPAC development. There are many good catalogs accessed via the internet and maybe in a few years there can be some really great ones.
Appendix A. Comparison of Catalog Features
Catalog Feature Bibliomation Catalog PINES Catalog
User-Friendly Web Interface No Yes
One Stop Search Capacity No No
Simple Keyword Search Box Yes Yes
Spelling Correction Option No Yes
Enriched Content Yes Yes
Relevancy Rankings No No
Faceted Navigation Yes Yes
User Contribution/ Interaction No No
Account Management Tools Yes Yes
Total Score 4 out 9 6 out of 9
Works Cited -
Bibliomation Catalog: http://bibcat1.biblio.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=116E6190116CR.4333&menu=home&aspect=subtab71&npp=10&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=newtwn&ri=&term=&index=.GW&aspect=subtab71&x=29&y=12#focus
Bibliomation Information Page: http://biblio.org/
Bibliomation’s Evergreen Demo Page: http://acorn.biblio.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml
Evergreen Information Page: http://www.open-ils.org/
PINES Catalog http://gapines.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml
Wang, Sharon Q. and Melissa A. Marshall. “The Next Generation OPAC.” Information Technologies and Libraries Sept. 2010: 241-250. Print.
[email protected]
ILS506-70
Dr. Eino Sierpe
April 21, 2011
A Comparative Study of Two OPACs: Bibliomation and PINES
Some public libraries have started to replace their proprietary integrated library systems with open source systems. Because of this current trend I thought it would be interesting to compare a proprietary online catalog with an open source catalog. Many online public access catalogs (OPACs) do a great job of helping library patrons find library items, but some don’t. Until recently most OPACs in both public and academic libraries were supported by proprietary software. These commercial systems are developed by software vendors who charge a lot of money for their product. Upgrades tend to come slowly and often customer feedback is ignored. In recent years there has been a move towards open source software which is free and collaborative. The open source movement promises exciting new features inspired by technology trends and user recommendations. Code is not locked down so the system is much more flexible and changes can happen at a much faster rate.
The commercial catalog I’d like to evaluate is Bibliomation’s. Bibliomation offers support to an eighty member consortium in Connecticut of both public schools and public libraries. Its catalog is supported by Horizon, a product of SIRSI Dynix. The second catalog I’d like to critique is the PINES Catalog which is used by a very large consortium in Georgia with 273 library members and powered by Evergreen, an open source ILS system. I currently work at a library that uses Horizon and in June of 2011 we will be migrating to Evergreen. This migration has produced a lot of fear, anxiety, and doubt among the staff because although the conversion is imminent no one has been trained on the new system or even been able to see the version that will very soon be our new online catalog. It looks like library staff will be learning right alongside the public. Research for this paper provided me with great exposure to Evergreen through the PINES Catalog and it was fascinating for me to see how it compares to the Bibliomation Catalog.
I studied a lot of OPACs for this paper, trying to determine which of their features are the most important for a successful user experience. I visited both commercial and open source ILS websites to see which catalog characteristics they touted in the promotion of their product. A lot of them made some pretty outrageous claims as to what features their catalog provided, claims that didn’t seem to really hold up when you accessed the catalog to locate an item. I also used criteria discussed in “The Next Generation OPAC” written by Sharon Q. Yang and Melissa A. Marshall. My adapted list includes nine key components: 1. a user friendly web interface, 2. one stop search capacity, 3. a simple keyword search box, 4. spelling correction options, 5. enriched content, 6. relevancy rankings, 7. faceted navigation, 8. user contribution/interaction content and finally, 9. account management tools, that is tools that make it easier for the library user to manage his/her account effectively. I have evaluated the Bibliomation and PINES catalogs in these nine different areas to help me learn how different catalogs work in the public library setting and also to see how a proprietary “consortia-friendly” catalog compares to an open source “consortia-friendly” catalog.
1. User Friendly Web Interface – When online catalogs were first developed they were clunky and anything but user friendly. It was assumed that professional searchers such as librarians were navigating the catalog and were on hand to guide the library user. Complex syntax and cumbersome search terminology was the norm. But then personal computers arrived on the scene, and soon surfing on the web became commonplace and so OPACs needed to be a whole lot friendlier and more intuitive. If a catalog is to be considered useful, it must accommodate the way people search. Screens must be simple and consistent in layout. They should also be clear and without ambiguity, so the user can efficiently and successfully execute a search. The best catalog is the one that helps library patrons find library items.
An online catalog needs to be visually pleasing, easy to navigate and most of all functional. There should not be too much text or unnecessary graphics. Everything on the first page should have a purpose that is easily understood by the user. The average online catalog user is probably pretty savvy and already proficient with Amazon or Google searching and is expecting the catalog to behave in a similar fashion. How do Bibliomation and PINES compare to one another in this regard? The web interface in the Bibliomation Catalog is fairly clean and uncluttered. However it does use tabs which are a little clunky and some of the tabs aren’t really relevant. For example, is this really the place for the New York Times Best Seller list? One tab takes you to an advanced search page which will allow for Boolean operators and the opportunity to refine your search. This is useful. But then there’s a tab for a kids’ catalog which is cluttered and silly with busy graphics that are no help to anyone. There is also a long list of links for all of the individual Bibliomation library catalogs. However if you need to search on the entire consortium at once you must click on a star in the upper right hand corner of the screen labeled “Bibliomation Global”. What this link does is unclear to a first time user. In the right hand corner there is also a help button which warns you that some features described in future pages may or may not be available because your library may have chosen not to subscribe to them. So right away the message is negative.
The PINES interface is simpler with no tabs, yet nothing important is missing. You can do everything in the PINES Catalog that you can do in Bibliomation but more easily. From the front page you can choose the type of search, the format, the library catalog (within the consortium) and also an advanced search. At the bottom is a help link which gives easy to follow directions on how to successfully search on the catalog.
2. One Stop Search Capacity – Both PINES and Bibliomation fail miserably in this all important feature. A single point of entry is a must for the next generation of OPACS and neither of these catalogs makes online databases easily searchable via the catalog. Databases are important and valuable components of any library collection and their presence should not be buried deep inside another part of the library’s website. Not only should the databases be easily searchable but full text and archive options must also be available. Most academic libraries do a great job of promoting their entire collection and public libraries have a responsibility to their patrons to do the same.
3. Simple Keyword Search Box – Bibliomation and PINES both have a simple keyword search box on the opening page of the catalog. There is also a link to an advanced search for users in need of more complex search options. Experimenting with a variety of search terms, both simple and compound, produced a variety of results. More advanced searching helped reduce the number of retrievals and also increased the number of relevant hits in both PINES and Bibliomation which is ideal. The advanced search screen looks similar in both catalogs however PINES retrieved more relevant titles than Bibliomation. This may be an unfair comparison because PINES is a consortium with 273 members and Bibliomation has only 80. Still I searched mostly on general interest topics and popular fiction titles and, PINES had better search filter options than Bibliomation.
4. Spelling Correction Options – Bibliomation is very inflexible when it comes to typos and spacing issues. Unless you have the exact title you will come up with a Sorry could not find anything matching where as PINES provides the kind of help you’d find with Amazon or Google. For example in PINES, the mistyped “Waitning for Snow in Havana” (extra “n” in “Waiting”) query gave the response – Zero hits were returned for your search. Maybe you meant “Waiting for Snow in Havana.” Not only did PINES provide a spelling correction, but the title was also a link to the results page. Typing Gurnsey rather than Guernsey (“Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society”) produced similar results, a zero in Bibliomation but success in PINES. PINES was also more understanding of spacing errors. Typing either Davinci Code or Da Vinci Code gave me Dan Brown’s bestseller in PINES but nothing in Bibliomation. PINES was also more flexible with author input. Type either James Joyce or Joyce, James in the search box, both will give you the works by the Irish author, James Joyce. The PINES spelling correction option consistently outperforms Bibliomation’s.
5. Enriched Content – In this area the two catalogs do well although neither delivers what they promise in their promotional materials. Both provide book covers, summaries and multiple reviews of the items in their catalog. They both also link to recommendations and related materials. However the related material claim is a bit of a stretch. For example, I searched on the related material link in PINES for Carlos Eire’s memoir, “Waiting for Snow in Havana”. This is a book about growing up in Cuba in the late 1950s, yet the related materials suggested on the side bar linked to memoirs of Jewish women. In Bibliomation the recommendations were much better, with books on Operation Peter Pan, Refuge Children and Cuban Biographies. Enriched content benefits the catalog user and enhances the browsing experience. The PINES Catalog offers relevant subjects, relevant authors and relevant series, plus a shelf browser (a shelflist feature). Bibliomation also offering s most of these features but in a slightly different format. Both offer MARC records for all holdings which is a feature I appreciate much more now that I’ve taken a cataloging course. One big difference between the two catalogs is the physical appearance on the results screen. Should you choose “Life” by Keith Richards the page in Bibliomation is very simple. Under title and author information you’ll find columns showing the status of the book, letting you know if it’s available, if not when it’s due, and which Bibliomation libraries own it. From this page it is very easy to place a hold. The results page in PINES looks a little different. While it is still easy to place a hold by clicking on a link in the upper right hand corner, the status of the book is a little more difficult to understand. There are a multitude of columns – available, checked out, in process, in transit, reshelving, on hold, on order, etc. While the status of an item is certainly important not only to staff but also to the user this long row of possibilities is very confusing especially when 273 libraries get in the act. The grid becomes enormous and looks like binary code full of 0s and 1s.
6. Relevancy Rankings – Relevancy rankings made popular by Google is a very useful feature, allowing more popular items to rise to the top of retrieved lists. The number of times an item has been checked out could be considered an indicator of popularity. The benefit of this model is that it allows relevancy to be specific to a particular library’s collection. For example “The Jungle” by Clive Cussler is very popular right now as a new release, much more than the classic by Upton Sinclair of the same name. Allowing the new book by Cussler to head the top of the list makes for easier retrieval and less confusion, than if Sinclair’s book headed the list. Currently Bibliomation does not use this method to determine relevancy and PINES does not appear to use relevancy either. More popular titles with common names did sometimes appear ahead on the retrieval list of other less popular titles, but not consistently.
7. Faceted Navigation – Being able to narrow or expand search results via facets such as subject, author, date, types of materials, locations and series should be a key component of any good OPAC. Both Bibliomation and PINES do very well with this feature. Both have these options on the very first search page and then repeat the options should you choose to do a more advanced search.
8. User Contribution/Interaction – This is a relatively new component of OPACs and a popular claim in some of the open source systems. Currently Bibliomation has no user contribution capability or social network linking. Content on the catalog is primarily created by Bibliomation with a very small amount generated by technical services from the member libraries and no reviews or other content created by catalog users. The migration to open source is promising more collaborative efforts both within and outside of the library community. Reviews, commentary, and discussions will hopefully flourish under the open source system. Recommendations between readers and current and relevant readers’ advisories may also be established with this new system.
9. Account Management Tools – Library users are insisting on more and more control over their library accounts. Not only do they want to be able to locate a book or item in the catalog, they also want to be able to place a hold on it so it can be pulled from the shelf or retrieved from another library. Library users also want to be able to renew their items online, see what they have checked out, keep track of items they’ve read, as well as items they hope to read.
Both Bibliomation and PINES allow users to place holds on books and renewal of items is also fairly straightforward. The bookbag feature is available only in PINES, this allows the user to keep track of books they have read or would like to read. The list is password protected and can only be used by the patron, a good thing as libraries do not want to keep lists of books people have read, as it could become liability issue.
In conclusion, PINES outperforms Bibliomation in several key areas, however its current configuration does not seem to have the forward thinking open source mindset we have been promised. Maybe the exciting new features inspired by technology trends and customer feedback haven’t been developed yet?
To summarize, both of the catalogs I evaluated have a clean front page. However once you start searching PINES does seem to be a little bit easier to use and offers more help in the advanced screen with many good search filter options. The simple keyword search box and faceted navigation is very good in both catalogs as is the enriched content. The book jackets, summaries, and reviews are all a nice added feature. Bibliomation’s links to relevant materials was a little more robust than PINES but neither of them could rival a librarian with good reader advisory skills and familiarity with the collection. The account management tools in both catalogs are also a nice feature that many library users have come to expect. The book bag feature found in PINES is new to me but has great sharing potential among both patrons and librarians. I am looking forward to exploring this option. The two weakest features in both catalogs were the relevancy ranking and user contribution. Both seem to be key elements for the next generation OPAC and both seem to be missing from the current version used by PINES and Biliomation. It will be interesting to see how these catalogs evolve over the next several years. SIRSIDynix does not seem to be developing many forward thinking changes in Horizon. Evergreen may fare better because it is open source. We’ll have to wait and see if collaborative and generous minds get together to take advantage of new technologies that will provide improvements to the system. I think it’s a very exciting time in OPAC development. There are many good catalogs accessed via the internet and maybe in a few years there can be some really great ones.
Appendix A. Comparison of Catalog Features
Catalog Feature Bibliomation Catalog PINES Catalog
User-Friendly Web Interface No Yes
One Stop Search Capacity No No
Simple Keyword Search Box Yes Yes
Spelling Correction Option No Yes
Enriched Content Yes Yes
Relevancy Rankings No No
Faceted Navigation Yes Yes
User Contribution/ Interaction No No
Account Management Tools Yes Yes
Total Score 4 out 9 6 out of 9
Works Cited -
Bibliomation Catalog: http://bibcat1.biblio.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=116E6190116CR.4333&menu=home&aspect=subtab71&npp=10&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=newtwn&ri=&term=&index=.GW&aspect=subtab71&x=29&y=12#focus
Bibliomation Information Page: http://biblio.org/
Bibliomation’s Evergreen Demo Page: http://acorn.biblio.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml
Evergreen Information Page: http://www.open-ils.org/
PINES Catalog http://gapines.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml
Wang, Sharon Q. and Melissa A. Marshall. “The Next Generation OPAC.” Information Technologies and Libraries Sept. 2010: 241-250. Print.