I would like to clarify some comments Daniel Jones posted last week
regarding automated bindery preparation systems.

Virginia Commonwealth University does not have a "consortium" to
share in a license for the ABLE system.  When we went through the
RFP process last year, one of our bidders (Southeast Bindery) did
have the ABLE system but this bidder was not awarded our binding
contract.  Our binding contract, like many contracts, does call for
an automated bindery prep system with several elements required and
other elements preferred. I also wrote into the RFP's secondary
product/service requirements that

"The Contract should cooperate in efforts to interface the binding
preparation system with other automated systems used by the
library.  Cooperation should include, but not be limited to,
providing all object and sources codes or other specifications
needed."

This was included because I worked with the NOTIS Preservation
Interest Group on building support for an integrated binding module
in NOTIS.  AVIAC (a group of vendors with automated binding systems
-- sorry, the text of the acronym escapes me now) has identified
elements American bindery preparation software packages share with
NOTIS and is moving toward standardization and eventually,
integration.   I wanted our commercial binder's systems people to
talk to me and work with our systems people to test/resolve
programs if one could be developed.  Writing it into the contract
is one way to get authorization and support for projects that will
benefit not just our local needs but the entire profession.

I would like to stress that at this time there is no software
package offered by a commercial library binder that interfaces with
any ILS.  Some institutions have developed in-house programs for
their own needs but none is on the market for sale or incorporation
into another institution's system.  (Somebody please correct me if
I'm wrong about this.)  I have seen the ABLE system demonstrated
and worked with it on visits to other libraries.  In my opinion, it
is no better or worse than any other automated binding system
available.  What constitutes "the top of the line in binding
systems" is amorphous at this point in time.

Anyone interested in VCU's RFP can find it in the Stanford
University Library gopher supporting Conservation OnLine (CoOL)
with RFPs from other insitutions.  Perhaps also of interest:  Erich
Kesse (Preservation Officer at the Univ. of Florida-Gainesville)
compiled the results of a survey he conducted for the NOTIS
Preservation Interest Group on automated binding programs.  I have
copies of this survey available on request.  I'll see about posting
it on CoOL.  Discussions in the preservation field on automated
binding programs can be searched in the CoOL archives via keyword
search.

Patricia Palmer
Head, Preservation Services
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, VA
PEPALMER@GEMS.VCU.EDU