Information commons in a library is an idea being considered by most academic libraries, especially if they have plans to make changes to their allocation of space.  Michael Stephens at ALA TechSource writes about his tour of Loyola University’s new information commons, and it sounds like they have a really well-thought out design.

I especially like that they developed core principles (the ultimate purpose of the space) and recognized the need to address a range of users and uses of the commons.

Almost completely off-topic:  I spent a wonderful hour at Loyola in 1990 or so when I drove a friend there so that she could prepare for starting classes.  I was very stressed out for a variety of reasons, and sitting on the beach, watching the waves crash on the shore while I soaked up some sun made all the difference.  I am glad that the commons allows for people to look up from their work and see the lake… it will certainly help to relax a few people when they most need it.

Go to WorldCat and type in a search.  The results contain books, video, audio, you name it.  One of the more recent additions is the Digital Images Collections, which can be wonderful to view.  How to find them, though?

Type in your search terms, then add cntnt (”Content” without the vowels) as an additional term (which acts as a limit).  Viola!

Try chicago cubs cntnt

Try airplanes cntnt

Try carnegie libraries cntnt

You get the idea…

found via the WorldCat blog

Tomorrow (Tuesday) is National Library Workers Day, and everyone should take a moment today (before the rush) and think about those who make libraries better by the quality of both their attitude and the work they do.

Have someone in mind?  Post them on the website for all to see!

found via ResourceShelf

ILS Basic Discovery Interfaces, a.k.a the Berkeley Accord

In what may turn out to be a historically significant event in the history of library tech, a group called the ILS Discovery Task Force has generated an outline detailing what amounts to an Application Programming Interface (API) for the library OPAC. They are calling this the Berkeley Accord. Not only have they hashed out the basic understanding, but the following companies/organizations have undersigned the document:

1. Talis
2. Ex Libris
3. LibLime
4. BiblioCommons
5. SirsiDynix
6. Polaris Library Systems
7. VTLS
8. California Digital Library
9. OCLC
10. AquaBrowser

What does this mean? This means that sometime in the hopefully not-too-distant future, someone can create an online search tool and know that it will work with OPACs from many different ILSs. Much like browsing the web is a similar experience with Internet Explorer 7, or Opera 9, or Firefox 3 (because they use a shared understanding of how to display the html and css found on the web) searching various libraries using the same interface (because they use a shared understanding of how to access the information in the ILS) can make research more effective for everyone.

If this is realized, it will make our jobs easier, our patrons happier, and the institution of the library more powerful and effective. It can be a “win” for everyone who recognizes that the future is dependent on advancing search technology and interoperability.

Of note is the lone abstention: Innovative Interfaces, Inc (III). They indicate that while they agree with the general principles, they cannot offer their support until much greater detail is known about the framework. My initial thought is to question this: if you feel that this is a good foundation, then agree to it and work to build upon it. If there are flaws, express them and work to build support on an improved foundation. What comes to mind is a zen koan:

“When walking, just walk. When sitting, just sit. Above all, don’t wobble.”

found via a posting on NGC4lib (Next Generation Catalog for Libraries) by Eric Leese Morgan

Marshall Breeding provides his annual overview of the shifts and trends in the world of the Integrated Library System (ILS) in the current issue of Library Journal.

Of interest is the definite movement of the open source systems, Koha and Evergreen, into the mix.  I’m surprised that they haven’t made this much impact in the past year or two, but I suspect that contracts and switching effort has made the library world very hesitant to try out new technologies at the level of the ILS and OPAC until they sense that others are using them effectively.

We could stand more experimenting, even on the sandbox level… who knows how much better we could be with a bit of time and effort?

It’s a simple truth, and we all know it, but it still makes for a humorous punchline  over coffee:

On A Clare Day, 2 April 2008

Thanks to Donna, former co-worker extraordinaire, for passing that along!

A couple of posts about sandboxes have caught my eye:

• LISNews posted about Peter Morville (writer of Ambient Findability, which if you haven’t read – you should) and his Flickr “sandbox for collecting search examples, patterns, and anti-patterns.”
• Roy Tennant writes about the benefits of libraries having a sandbox to try out new software and technology, in particular he points out the University of Cincinnati’s sandbox.

I have, in a somewhat disorganized manner, been creating and working with sandboxes for several years.  Libology is, at least in its first phase, my effort to make a structured sandbox for my own efforts, with an eye towards demonstrating how various tools can work for libraries.  These have been scattered throughout several other domains, and one of my first tasks will be to combine what I have done so far under one domain.

Web hosting is inexpensive.  A site that can run blogs, discussion lists, wikis, CMSs, and a great many other helpful tools can be had for about $5 per month.  An individual or group, taking things one step at a time, can learn a lot from simply getting a site and setting up various software.  There is no better way, in my opinion, to learn about open source and web 2.0 than to jump in the sandbox and start playing!