Libology Blog

I thought I’d try something new and summarize the software that I use on a regular basis.  I have been thinking about this, as I have recently switched from one software program to another in a couple of areas, and have been thinking about the evolution of the programs I have used over the years.  This may become an annual (or occasional) update, or this may be the only installment.  I also note which items have Portable Apps alternatives, as I use these a great deal.

Here they are:

• Operating Systems : Windows XP is still my primary day-to-day system at home, on my notebook, and at work.  I use Ubuntu linux on a regular basis (I am set up to dual-boot both at home and on my notebook computer), but haven’t yet made the jump.  Yet.  I use Mac OS-X (Leopard) occasionally on my wife’s computer (usually when setting something up for her).
• Web Browsers : Firefox (PortableApps) is my preferred browser (and has been since it was at version 0.6 or so).  I occasionally use Google Chrome, which is definitely faster, but my habitual use of certain add-ons (see below) keeps me from getting comfortable.  I use Internet Explorer 7 when I want to run Windows Update.  My only complaints are occasional memory hog problems with Firefox.
• Firefox Add-Ons : Zotero, Groowe Search Toolbar, Web Developer Toolbar, Operator, Cooliris, Add to Search Bar.  Learn them, use them, love them.
• E-Mail : Thunderbird (PortableApps) is my primary e-mail client, although I feel it needs a good updating (version 3, anyone?).  I use Microsoft Outlook 2003 at work, mainly because we use the calendar features quite a bit.  An add-on that makes Outlook worth using, however, is Xobni (”inbox” spelled backwards).  If you use Outlook, get Xobni - you will not be disappointed.  I am eagerly awaiting a Thunderbird version.
• Office Suites : I recently switched to Go-Oo from OpenOffice 3 (PortableApps).  It wasn’t too hard of a change, as it is an implementation of OpenOffice with some very intelligent add-ons and configuration.  It is very smooth and easy to use, and hasn’t given me any problems yet.  I still use Microsoft Office 2003 at work, but am rapidly switching to Go-Oo for everything but Access.  Even that may change, as MS Access lacks some desired report functionality that exists in the Sun Report Builder.
• Text Editors : I recently switched from SciTE to Notepad++ (PortableApp) when I needed better control over the encoding of the text.  Both are excellent for editing HTML and CSS, as well as editing a variety of text files.
• Web Design : I primarily use a text editor (see above), but when I want something more powerful, I use Amaya, or sometimes Aptana.  If you need a basic WYSIWYG designer, I recommend Komposer (PortableApps).  I use FileZilla (PortableApps) as my FTP client.
• Photo Software : I currently use IrfanView, but suspect that this may change in the near future, as my needs are changing.
• Online Software : I use WordPress for blogging; Gregarius as a blog reader; Gallery for photo storage and viewing; I am trying out OpenGoo for online applications (calendar, tasks, contacts, basic word processing); OpenBiblio for my church’s ILS; Scriblio and Drupal for OPAC replacements (just playing around with them); and TextPattern as a Content Managment System.
• Security : ZoneAlarm firewall; AVG Free anti-virus; Clean-Up!; and HijackThis.
• CD Authoring : I switched from CDBurnerXP to InfraRecorder (PortableApps) earlier this year.  I haven’t tried the newest version of CDBurnerXP, so there may be some switching back in the future.
• Odds and Ends : 7-Zip (PortableApps) for compressing and decompressing all sorts of files; PDF Creator; MarcEdit.

If you are looking for a common thread, there is this:  all of these, except for two of the operating systems, and the software on my work PC, don’t cost anything.  Much of it is Open Source (of which I am an advocate).  You can do a lot with an internet-connected computer, a sub-$100 per year web hosting service, and some trial-and-error experimentation.

I hope this list helps to inform, and perhaps even connects someone else with software that I have grown to enjoy using for everyday tasks.  It has been interesting to see just how much software becomes part of my daily routines, and how much value I get from the above programs.

2008 was an uncertain year for Libraryland.  Ideas and tools abound for how we can do more with what we have, and we are becoming more aware of what it is we have : data and the systems to organize it.

There are some serious storm clouds on the horizon:

• The economy is in a condition which hasn’t been seen since the 1930s, and most sectors are wondering if and when we will see the bottom.  This will affect libraries in two ways : Public libraries will see rising use in ways they have only dreamed of, and all libraries will see their funding and other resources fade.  This includes lower tax revenue for publicly funded libraries, lower dollars for state-supported organizations, and fewer funds for academic libraries as enrollment drops and higher education struggles to make ends meet.  These effects will be delayed somewhat, so there is time to prepare.
• Organizations and companies have finally discovered the value of data and other stored information.  The movement towards openness is being countered by a tightening of control.  Google Books, OCLC, and a variety of publishers are attempting to control access and use of what they have stored in their systems, sometimes even from the creators of the data/information.
• Costs for software, services and access are still driving upward at a rate that is unsustainable in the current economy.  Book publishers are already cutting back on the number of new authors they take a risk in publishing; journal subscriptions are still all over the place, with some titles having exorbitant rates, and others being published Open Access; software and service contracts are expensive, with the added stress and cost of switching to other systems keeping many from exploring other options.

What can libraries do?  Re-read the opening paragraph:  Ideas and tools abound for how we can do more with what we have.  Each library should look at their environment and evaluate what they can do differently.  Every service you offer should be examined for changes that will cost less and perhaps even offer more.  A few examples:

• On a larger scale:  what do you pay, in real dollars for your Integrated Library System (ILS), assuming you have one?  What would it cost you in staff time and money to switch to an open source alternative?  Companies are out there that offer support packages; I suspect that many libraries could offer much more with fewer resources in this area.  If you don’t currently have one, this may be a great time to begin that project.
• Do you offer laptop computers for checkout?  For staff use?  How much did each of them cost?  How much would be saved by selecting netbooks during their replacement schedule?  Perhaps you could even get two netbooks for less than the cost of each notebook.  This won’t work if higher-level software is needed (such as Photoshop), but most of a notebook’s use is in the realm of office software and internet use, which are the netbook’s bread and butter.
• Hire and retain people with tech savvy and curiousity, and give them the time and resources to experiment with new services and technology.  Do you really need to spend thousands of dollars to display book covers on your OPAC?  Is the cost of an OPAC upgrade preventing you from implementing one?  Can you add social networking features (reviews, recommendations, etc.) without wondering where the money will come from?  The answers may surprise you.  $100 and 100 hours of staff time can give you options for all of the above in a small-to-mid-sized library, if you have the environment to let it happen.

It is generally understood that new business opportunities are created in economic downturns, and that it is a great environment for a small company with an understanding of what the public wants.  The same goes for libraries and library organizations.  When everyone else is looking to protect what they already have (while spending lots of money in the process), those who develop new, inexpensive ideas are poised to suceed.  In libraryspeak : serve your patrons better for less money, and become the library you have dreamed of.  Your best opportunity may in fact exist now.

one of the links found via Open Access News

The State Library of Ohio has just released a Request For Proposal for an Open Source Statewide Resource Sharing System (Pdf).

Their summary page (which will soon contain an F.A.Q.) states that

The desired product would provide a seamless resource sharing solution, developed and released under an open source framework, in an environment of disparate integrated library systems (ILSs).

Looking briefly through the document, it looks to me as if the closest software in the library world is the Open-ILS Evergreen project, which is the platform for Georgia Library Pines system.  The largest challenge might be the system’s need to communicate with a wide variety of existing ILS platforms.

The timeline is ambitious:  Proposals are due by the end of January; a vendor will be selected and contracts signed by mid-March, a test system will be in place by September, and the system as a whole will go live in February 2010.  Wow.

Assuming that the vendor selection process goes well (Equinox and LibLime, are you ready?), this will be a very exciting time to be involved with Ohio libraries!  I am psyched!

The Open and Libraries Class Journal is a new, peer-reviewed journal on open access and libraries, and the first issue contains the “final papers for the Open Movement and Libraries class (LIBR287-06) at San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science.”

Each and every one of these articles looks interesting…

via Open Access News

OCLC released their updated Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records yesterday, with implementation scheduled for mid-February.  If you see the phrase

We are reconsidering some aspects of the policy. More information will be available in the near future.

then you might suspect that it created quite a fuss.  It did, and OCLC responded by removing the policy from their web site.

Someone saved a copy of the web page; I will include the text of the policy in the next post.

The core criticism of the policy changes seem to revolve around the licensing of the records.  OCLC planned to include a license statement in a 996 field (from Terry’s Worklog):

996 $aOCLCWCRUP $iUse and transfer of this record is governed by the OCLC® Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records.
$uhttp://purl.org/oclc/wcrup

Limits would include use of the records in anything that “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat, for example for the purpose of providing cataloging services to libraries or other organizations.”  Cataloging services aside, how large does a union catalog have to be before it replicates the function of WorldCat, namely finding a library that owns a particular book?  Ohio’s Ohiolink sized?  Illinois’ I-Share sized?  Georgia’s Pines sized?

What about the OpenLibrary project?  Or LibraryThing?  Using information derived from an OCLC record without including the OCLC number and other OCLC references (like the above statement) would violate their terms, as I read them.  However, the last time I checked, the data itself is not covered under copyright and should be able to be extracted and expressed in creative ways (as long as OCLC’s creative way of expressing the data is not infringed).

We need to recognize the difference between the data held in these records and the expression of that data.  To enter into license agreements that suggest that we cannot recognize the data separate from the expression goes against core library principles.  This feels, in some ways, like the Major League Baseball statistics copyright battle from a few years back, in which the idea of the data itself being public domain was upheld.

One final note:  keep in mind the who and how behind the creation of these records.  We create them.  OCLC gathers them, disseminates them, and puts them to mostly good use.  If OCLC didn’t exist, there would be a need for some organization with a similar purpose.  They are not evil, they are not out to get us; they are, however, overreaching at times.

originally found via Thingology

It is all rumor at this point, but apparently OCLC will be making an announcement on November 2nd regarding its record use policy, and that using any OCLC records services (including WorldCat?) will imply acceptance of said policy.

Some people are worried about the services they have built around OCLC’s records; others feel that the policy may expand the application of the records; most are waiting and seeing.

Many libraries, including my own place of work, have integrated OCLC services into the OPAC and have a significant number of OCLC provided (not necessarily created) MARC records.

So we wait and see… will it be the lady or the tiger, or simply the 800 pound (mostly benevolent) gorilla of of the library jungle we have come to know so well?

Sources / further reading:

Next Generation Cataloging for Libraries (Ngc4Lib) list

Thingology Blog

Panlibus Blog

—————————-

Update:  I hadn’t noticed a communication in the comments section of the Thingology Blog from Karen Calhoun, OCLC’s Vice President of WorldCat and Metadata Services, regarding this news.  She stresses that it is simply their updating of their 20+ year-old policy to reflect the expanded opportunities for the use of OCLC records.  So, depending on the actual language of the changes, this seems to be the lady, or at worst an 800 pound lady gorilla.  This may go down as an example, both for good and bad, of the rapidity of communication in the blogosphere.

Thanks to Karen for quickly stepping in, and to Mark Barnes for posting her statement as a comment.

So… how will this affect us?  Wait and see, with patience.

I am playing catch-up in many areas right now, and as a result there hasn’t been as much activity here.  Hopefully the time of less activity has reached a middle…

An interesting new feature that has begun to appear in OPACs is the ability to send the location/call# of an item to your cell phone as a Short Message Service (SMS) text.  The Iowa City Public Library has implemented this into their Innovative (III) catalog, as you can see in this example.  It becomes the equivalent of writing yourself a quick note for when you are physically in the library to find the item.

While this service might seem to be targeted to a small portion of library users, I suspect that it is worthwhile to implement. if only because the people who will use it will find it exceptionally handy.

found via The Shifted Librarian

Google Books can now be embedded into a web page in a similar way that a YouTube video is able to be embedded.

Besides the “nifty cool” aspect of this, I can see one element of this that should make anyone involved with library web pages interested:   what a wonderous add-on to an OPAC!  No longer would we be limited to a link to the book in Google, but our users can potentially browse through a book during their search!  Examples here and here.

According to the Embedded Viewer API Developers Guide, identifiers for the books can be ISBN, OCLC, LCCN, and Book Search Volume numbers, or the Google Book Search URL for one-off uses.

Here is an example for a particular item being presented in WordPress. Do a search for “Wilbur Wright” to see why I chose it:

via LISNews and Technology Bites for WP solution

I missed this last month, but a post on the LibraryLaw Blog suggests that book jackets may be protected under a clause in the copyright law aimed for advertisements and commentaries.

found via LISNews

Exciting news in the browser wars:  Google is releasing has released a beta version of a web browser that it is calling Chrome.

Why does this matter?  The open-source browser will feature:

1. Every tab running in isolation from the other tabs - if something goes kablooey, you only lose that one particular tab.
2. Streamlined code designed for efficient running of online software, which translates into faster speeds and greater stability.
3. A new Javascript engine designed with future web applications in mind (and optimized versions of Google Apps, I bet).

Even if Chrome doesn’t become a contender (and you won’t catch me making that bet) these and other features will certainly set the stage for advancements in other web browsers.

Google has released a 40 page comic book (web version) (Pdf version) detailing their reasons for creating Chrome and highlighting its features.

Why should this excite libraries?  Just remember that the most exciting integrated library system out there, Evergreen, uses the XPCOM framework from the Mozilla project, and Chrome can likely be used in similar ways.

Here is a screen capture of Chrome’s logo (which reminds me a bit of the alien camera thingy in the 1953 version of War of the Worlds).

thanks to CNet News for reporting the leak…

After much anticipation, version 2.0 of the Social Opac (SOPAC) went live this morning at the Darien Library in Connecticut.

It looks very good… excellent, in fact.  I am already looking forward to playing with this version of the software.  What I really like at first glance:

• It was created with everyone in mind:  in theory can be coupled with any ILS for both the catalog and patron information.
• It is designed to allow sharing of reviews and other public content between libraries, thereby creating a larger social “pool”.
• The design is clean and looks to be well laid out.

The only problematic aspect I see initially is that it fails XHTML validation in a fairly dramatic way:  the doctype is listed as XHTML 1.0 Strict, but appears to have over 50 problems with the home page alone (over 200 for an OPAC search result page).  By just looking at the numbers, each type of page comes dramatically closer to validating as HTML 4.01 Strict (19 errors and 67 errors respectively) which seems odd to me.

Compromises in validation often have to be accepted for results pages, but I see no reason for not having a standards-compliant entry page.  I suspect that this could be a great “clean up” project once the dust has settled from the upgrade.

Overall, this is a great accomplishment, and a great piece of software.  This is certain to grab a lot of well-deserved attention, and will hopefully inspire all ILS and OPAC creators to improve their products.

thanks to Jessamyn for her post

Saw a shelf browse created for an Innovative (III) OPAC that is quite neat.  It lives on a development site for the Cambridge Public Library in Ontario, Canada and integrates Syndetic Solutions book covers into a pseudo-shelf listing.  Here is a direct link to a record.

Note that this has been done without resorting to Flash.  Try turning off the page’s CSS and you will see that it works just fine (just with a different scroll direction).  The page’s html still doesn’t validate, but I suspect that there aren’t any III opacs that validate properly, though I hope to be proven wrong someday.

Someday libraries will collectively understand what a good API can do for our web presence, and then the ILS companies will improve their products accordingly.  At least I hope so….

thanks to Mike Cunningham for posting the link to the Innovative User’s Group list

The Koha Integrated Library System (ILS) has just released version 3.0 of their software.  This New Zealand-based open source project is quite mature and provides many libraries cost-effective means to run their operations.

The release notes for this version show that the biggest changes are in the database storage (Zebra) and improvements in standard APIs (such as COinS and OpenSearch).  Additionally, their attention to accessibility, staff templates, and additional modules is commendable.

thanks to Catalogablog for the heads-up

Read Lori Ayre’s blog post at TechEssence to find out what she means by “Learned Helplessness”. I think she hits the nail on the head, then drives it home. I will be watching her future posts….

Zoomii Books is not library related… yet. It is a virtual bookshelf built around Amazon’s book cover images and inventory. However, the concept would make for an excellent method of “browsing” a library catalog. The company founder has even mentioned that he would love to adapt the software to work with a library catalog.

It reminds me very much of a Firefox add-on called PicLens, which uses a similar interface for viewing a large number of images. If you haven’t tried it, you really should, if only to experience how much it improves image search and browse.

Mentioned on the NCG4lib list by B.G. Sloan

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been making some changes to the Scriblio installation on Libology.

The improved:

• I installed the Pop Blue theme, mainly because I didn’t like the way the default Scriblio theme used screen space. I like the layout, but need to format the content sections in the search results pages, as it looks more like gibberish than holdings information.
• I upgraded WordPress to the current version. This would have been done several weeks ago, except that the database is so large that I had to experiment with a wide variety of backup processes before finding one that worked.
• The facets work! Yea!

The not-improved:

• It is still slow, slow, slow. I was talking with a database programmer over the weekend, and she confirmed my guess that it is probably an indexing issue. Now to figure out the details…
• Book covers are gone with the upgrade, even though the placeholders are still there. I haven’t spent any time figuring out why.

I am a little happier, but still wouldn’t consider using this as a replacement for my work’s OPAC. Time and effort will tell. I am learning a lot, which was the point all along.

Making a Business Case for Open Source ILS is a column by Marshall Breeding that appeared in the March 2008 issue of Computers in Libraries.

You may remember Marshall from his annual survey of Integrated Library Systems (the words behind the ILS acronym). If you think the idea of using an open source ILS is interesting, then you should read this column.

His comments highlight one of the interesting aspects of how libraries approach technology : we tend to hang on to technology, even if it causes us added work and grief, until there is a critical mass of other libraries that switch. Part of this is human nature and a healthy dose of conservatism. Part of this, however, is a symptom of what has been holding us back.

On a small scale (i.e. within our own libraries and/or systems), we need to be inventive and creative. We need to be constantly trying new technology and ways to improve our services. This can be as simple as trying a different web browser, or altering our work flow. It can be as complex as trying out a new OPAC or ILS to see how they compare and contrast to the current offerings.

With Open Source, the primary cost in all of this is time. What you gain, both individually and as an institution, is the broader understanding of what exists and what is possible. You better appreciate what you currently have, and you discover the possible improvements (and/or trade-offs) that come with the new.

Am I saying that your library needs to download and install the latest version of Evergreen or Koha, or set up an alternate OPAC like Scriblio or vufind? Nope. You should learn what they can do, play with their OPACs, and then decide if you want to experiment a bit. This will cost time, and you have to decide what amount of time you can afford. You also have to decide what amount of time you can afford not to learn and experiment, and what that will cost your library in the long run.

found via GuidePosts

I have loaded another piece of library software on Libology : OpenBiblio.  It is an open source ILS (Integrated Library System) designed for schools, churches, and smaller libraries.

I am impressed with it so far.  It doesn’t have a lot, but what is there works fast, and the software seems very stable. It has circulation, cataloging, and administrative modules, as well as a basic reporting tool.  You can see the main screen here (although you need a login to actually go into the modules themselves… if you are curious, I can set you up with something temporary… let me know)

Most of all, it is written in php and runs on a mysql database, meaning that I can modify pretty much any part of it, given time and incentive.  I have a desire to update the Opac most of all:  it is table-based, and I know that it could be much more flexible and usable (not to mention standards compliant) with some adaptation.  Can you say microformats?

There are currently about 1800 items in the collection, which belongs to a church which is tired of paying a three-figure annual support fee for 10-year-old software.  The collection consists primarily of Christian materials, so keep that in mind when you check out the Opac.

Karen Coyle writes about what is needed for the libraries of the world that don’t have the resources needed to install and use a full-featured integrated library system (ILS).

There must be a minor psychic link involved (don’t worry Karen, your secrets are safe with me! ), because just a few minutes before she posted this I was explaining to someone the benefits of a fully online ILS that would allow libraries to get by using only an internet connection. There are a few (very few) systems that follow this philosophy, and I am looking through them to see if any are fully fleshed out. I will post what I find out.

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