Over the coming months, a major topic of discussion here at LibraryLaws.org will be the challenges faced by law libraries in creating usable online catalogs (the artists hopefully eventually formerly known as OPACs). The catalog problem is an extremely popular subject of debate throughout the Library 2.0 blogosphere. To see just one example of the excellent questions being raised, take a look at Karen Schneider's ongoing series over at ALA TechSource, "How OPACS Suck" (Part 1 and Part 2).

In recent months, many new tools have been developed that raise the bar for online catalogs and force ILS vendors to reconsider their current offerings. The most impressive is the new Endeca powered catalog at North Carolina State University. By completely bypassing their ILS feature package and using tools developed in the world of e-commerce, NC State and Endeca have created a catalog the actually returns usable search results and provides patrons with easy to use features that make searching the catalog a surprisingly brainless endeavor.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of law libraries will be unable to follow NC State's lead. Most academic law libraries are either members of a much larger consortium of university libraries or simply "piggyback" onto whatever ILS that consortium uses (even if the law library isn't technically a member of the consortium). This leaves the law library with little or no control over which ILS it uses or what specific features of that ILS are activated. As for public, court, and firm libraries, the funds simply don't exist to invest in a high end integrated library system. With few exceptions, the cheaper solutions adopted by these institutions translate into fewer available features for their online catalog (if they even have one). This also holds true for many independent law school libraries that are not affiliated with a larger university.

Truth is, most law libraries simply have to make do with what they're given. This leaves little opportunity for improvements to the library's online catalog. That is why direct access to the underlying data is so important. Innovative Interfaces, for example, provides libraries with the option of using an Oracle database to store all of the data used by the ILS. But it costs extra. And unless you work for an academic law library whose university library system has opted to purchase the Oracle (or equivalent) feature, the odds of getting direct access to your library's data are steep, to say the least.

But in those instances where direct access is possible, the sky is the limit, provided you have systems personnel capable of building tools to make use of the data. Your library is no longer limited to the features available on the ILS or to the limited number of features actually activated by your university library system. With direct data access, you can build any search interface you want. ANY search interface.

Of course, then you have to have to "roll your own" relevance ranking algorithm that will bring back meaningful search results. Then again, it can't be that hard to improve on the algorithm built in to a typical ILS...