Libology Blog

Ixquick is a meta search tool, not unlike Dogpile.  The interesting twist, according to this press release,  is that it the company has chosen not to save any identifying information about your searches.

After trying out a few searches, I am impressed with how well it handles phone searches.

from BiblioTech Web

Librarians at the Gate is an article from The Nation magazine that covers several political and social issues central to libraries, including the eggshell topic of the Independant Libraries in Cuba (also here) project.

from ResourceShelf

In the 15 July 2006 issue of Library Journal, Jeffrey Beall writes a passioned defense of metadata against the forces of keyword searching. Much of what he says is valid, and I agree that metadata is necessary for effective storage and retrieval in the electronic age.

However, near the end of his essay he states:

There is also the problem of synonymy. For example, if a searcher needs information about plant science, but the best resources call it botany, then the searcher will likely be unsuccessful in his search. Our language is rich, and we often use many precise terms to represent a single concept. Full-text searching, however, is inherently imprecise in its execution.

This, to me, actually strikes me as one of the greatest challenges with the use of metadata: the need to know a controlled vocabulary. The average library user doesn’t necessarily know that botany, or cookery, or numismatics are the proper terms for subject searches, as opposed to more commonplace words.

Modern OPACs have plenty of “see” and “see also” examples, but this is only truly useful if the effort has been made to make the connections as complete as possible. I tend to use subjects only through the links available through results… results that I usually have reached by a keyword search. I like to tell patrons that, once you find a good result, track the subject headings to find other items, then check the shelves in each of the call number areas in which you found results.

The essay is well worth reading; we have a tendancy to forget the power of a controlled vocabulary and metadata, and it would be a shame to toss them aside in favor of the broad stroke of the keyword.

article discovered through Catalogablog

Published on E-LIS (E-Prints in Library and Information Science). this article compares and contrasts 10 online book retailers in a variety of ways.  Amazon.com and Amazon.uk topped out the rankings, but the rankings themselves go a long way in explaining what makes for an excellent online presence, whether or not you are in the retail business.

from ResourceShelf

…it didn’t, and won’t, appear so from the Earth (unless something goes very, very wrong)!

Nasa ; UniverseToday ; Bad Astronomy

Want to know what the top 100 viewed sites on Wikipedia are?  Check out WikiCharts!  (warning, people view all sorts of information that you may not wish to view… be warned)

from ResourceShelf

Reply.com is a valuation site for real estate and automobiles.  Type in an address, or select the year, make and model of a vehicle, and get the market value price.

from Resourceshelf

From the University of California, Calisphere is an archival collection of digitized images, maps, documents and more.

from ResourceShelf

Trulia is a Google Maps mashup which combines the map, at whatever zoom you choose, and real estate listings.

Hover over the marker and see the address and asking price of the property. Click and get the option to get more details, including a link to the realtor’s listing.

Really, really good if you are looking for property based on location.

From the folks at Google and a team from MIT comes YouOS, an experimental “web operating system” which basically gives you a computer desktop that you access through your web browser.

Why is this significant? This is more than your basic web 2.0 site, or a remotely hosted application: this could mean a change in how we approach public access computers. With stripped down hardware (motherboard, processor, minimal memory, monitor, mouse, keyboard, high-speed internet access) you can have a full-fledged system without needing to maintain the operating system and related software at the computer itself.

Check it out. Sign up for an account and see how it works. Remember that this is not only experimental software, but they are at the alpha stage of development… don’t expect Windows Vista visual quality or Linux stability.

By the way… this may settle the debate going on for the past few years about whether Google has an interest in developing operating systems and competing in that arena.

from OSDir

The New York Public Library is changing classification systems for their reference collection.  Over the years they have used a unique system developed by their first library director, Dr. John Shaw Billings, appropriately named the Billings System.  It hasn’t been updated since the 1950’s, however, and many books have been shelved according to size.

They are switching to the Library of Congress system, which ought to be quite a task, depending on the size of the collection.

This has me thinking about classification systems again, which I seem to delve into every few years.  I have this not-so-secret desire to create a new classification system, but haven’t been able to come up with one that is a clear improvement over existing systems without creating new problems.

In one sense, classification systems are becoming less critical.  With Integrated Library Systems and Online Public Access Catalogs becoming nearly ubiquitous, all one truly needs is a shelving order that allows one to locate a book quickly once you have the locator information.

This opens the possibility for organizing a library based on size, or color (as the Adobe Bookshop did a couple of years ago), which is an ongoing thought among library staff when patrons recall a book only for its size and color.  Color wouldn’t be a very efficient (or accessible) system, however.

Size could work very well, though.  If you created a system based on a library’s shelving units, and had the largest books on the lower shelves, and mass-market paperbacks on the top shelves, you could assign shelving locations based solely on the height and thickness of the item.  You could very efficiently use all of your shelf space, replacing discarded items with items of a like size.  All one would need was software that would track the available space and place books accordingly (sort of like defragmenting a hard drive).  It would impede shelf browsing; and a mis-shelved item is lost until the next inventory (unless it is is visually out of place).  Perhaps this would work well for closed stacks libraries.

Currently, the two dominant systems, at least in the U.S., are the Library of Congress System (LC), and the Dewey Decimal System (DDC).  Each has, in my opinion, significant shortcomings, but have been continually updated.

There are many other library classification systems in existence; I wonder if we are approaching the time when an open source, collaborative classification system will make sense?  There are a lot of pie-in-the-sky issues surrounding this, the largest being the fact that is is a massive undertaking for even a smaller library to completely change their classification.  This would involve updating each electronic record, as well as re-labeling and re-locating every item covered by the classification change.  I would have to be strongly convinced of the long-term benefits before starting down that road.

As a theoretical project, however, it is an interesting idea.  The system could be created and worked on without involving any physical libraries, perhaps as simply as creating a Wiki and recruiting volunteers.  Now all I need is the basic idea of what the classification will be built upon….

thought process started by BiblioTech Web

The Library of Congress Preservation Directorate has a site detailing methods for preserving items, and includes a section on dealing with water and mold damage.  Recommended reading for anyone dealing with archival materials.

from ResourceShelf

Google Scholar has added a feature which, well, makes their service more Google-esque.

Do a search, then click on “Related Articles” on a result that is closest to what you are looking for.

from the Official Google Blog

Jessamyn West did a couple of presentations for the library system that my library belongs to. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend (grrrrr… I have heard nothing but rave reviews for her presentations and would like to attend one someday), but one of my co-workers did. Rave review, of course!

I did meet her at ALA 2005, and she is as friendly in person as she seems online.

Maybe next time I can get to attend her session… meanwhile, I recommend her blog to anyone in the library field.

An interesting twist to the searching for airfare sites is Farecast, which maps up to one month worth of flights between selected cities to show how costs will vary based on the dates selected for travel.

Select the “Flexible Search” tab and select two cities to get started…

from ResourceShelf

Every library site should include definitions of basic terms, like the University of Southern California’s.

from ResourceShelf

This is likely much, much more information than most of us will ever need, but What is Inside a JPEG? has an excellent tutorial on how the JPEG format stores image information.

The rest of their tutorials are here.

from ResourceShelf

Thoughts during a vacation:

What do you know?

If you were on a certain NPR program, the proper response would be “Not much, you?”. However, we aren’t (at least I’m not), and my thoughts have gone in this direction:

The most dynamic, adaptive groups, whether they be workplaces, organizations, groups of friends, or families, strive to maximize their potential. When a member of a group has a certain knowledge or talent, allowing that to be expressed adds value to the overall group.

This knowledge/talent need not be in the “knows xhtml”/”graphic design”/”organized” variety (although these definitely do qualify). Think about how much you value the people in your workplace/families/organizations that provide positive attitudes to situations. How valuable is it to have someone who is described by the theme song from the Mary Tyler Moore show in your group? It can make a sick workplace tolerable, and a good workplace fun (and more productive).

The group as a whole must be open to changing how they do things, and the members of that group must recognize that personal ego can get into the way of success. This is not recommending “ego-less” existence, or that having an ego or pride in one’s accomplishments will doom the groups endeavor, but that when it impedes another group member’s exploration into their talents, or prevents a member from exploring new avenues (by keeping them locked into one area in which they have shown success), it becomes a handicap.

Ask yourself: What do you know? How can you channel this in new and creative ways to make your groups (family, organizations, workplace, etc.) better, stronger, faster?

In addition: What do the other members of your groups know? How can you find this out? What can you do to encourage the application of this knowledge to its best advantage?

Lastly: What would you like to know? What steps can you take to begin travelling down that path? How can you encourage others to take their first steps?

Recognize that all this begins with asking yourself the question: “What do you know?”. Then you simply expand on the theme.

Just a few thoughts I have had this week….

The newest version of the U.S. Government Manual is available online.  It is searchable and browsable.

from ResourceShelf

See here for my first post on this topic…

Google is looking to crack down on the use of the word “google” as a verb (as in googling) in order to protect their copyright.

My take on this is when you see a crowd that is moving, get in front, wave a flag, and use it to your advantage. In other words: Google should start an ad campaign and use “googling” and “google”(v) as a key part of the campaign. Most importantly, they should emphasize that other search enginges are merely search engines; to properly “google”(v) you need Google(n).

Just my $0.02