Project Blacklight: a next generation library catalog at a first generation university-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Project Blacklight: a next generation library catalog at a first generation university

Published:2009-03-06 Issue:1 Volume:27 Page:57-67
ISSN:0737-8831
Container-title:Library Hi Tech
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Sadler Elizabeth (Bess)

Abstract

PurposeThis paper sets out to provide an overview of the open source online public access catalog (OPAC) software known as Blacklight. It includes a discussion of the reasons why the University of Virginia decided to create the Blacklight project, rationale behind design decisions, an overview of the technologies used, and some examples of interface designs and object behaviors.Design/methodology/approachDesign approaches discussed include open source methodologies, model/view/controller development patterns, and strategies for efficient staff training and utilization.FindingsThe Blacklight project is not yet complete, but initial usability testing is favorable. The project shows particular promise among previously underserved populations such as music researchers, and for previously under‐used collections.Practical implicationsLibraries who are considering de‐coupling their OPAC from their Integrated Library System will find useful information about this process as undertaken by the University of Virginia, as well as more information about Blacklight, and more information about whether Blacklight might be a good fit for their library.Originality/valueBlacklight is an open source OPAC system that is particularly well suited to large libraries with diverse collections. It is the only open source OPAC system with a focus on creating customized interfaces for specific populations.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems

Reference5 articles.

1. Schneider, K. (2006a), “ALA TechSource | How OPACs suck. Part 1: relevance rank (or the lack of it)”, available at: www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how‐opacs‐suck‐part‐1‐relevance‐rank‐or‐the‐lack‐of‐it.html.

2. Schneider, K. (2006b), “ALA TechSource | How OPACs suck. Part 2: the checklist of shame”, available at: www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/04/how‐opacs‐suck‐part‐2‐the‐checklist‐of‐shame.html.

3. Schneider, K. (2006c), “ALA TechSource | How OPACs suck. Part 3: the big picture”, available at: www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/05/how‐opacs‐suck‐part‐3‐the‐big‐picture.html.

4. Gospodnetic, O. and Hatcher, E. (2005), Lucene in Action, Manning Publications, Greenwich, CT.

5. Rappoport, A. (n.d.), “Faceted metadata search – search tools report”, available at: www.searchtools.com/info/faceted‐metadata.html.

Cited by 18 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Knowledge Organization Affordances in a Faceted Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC);Cataloging & Classification Quarterly;2021-12-20

2. Pretrained Transformers for Text Ranking: BERT and Beyond;Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies;2021-10-29

3. A Review Development of Digital Library Resources at University Level;Education Research International;2021-02-16

4. The impact of technology on user-centric discovery;Information Services & Use;2019-12-13

5. Enhancing the Discovery of Tabletop Games;Library Resources & Technical Services;2019-07-12