The World eBook Fair begins this Saturday, July 4th, coinciding with Project Gutenberg’s 39th anniversary.
To celebrate, the World eBook Fair members are providing free access to over two million books between July 4th and August 4th.
found via ResourceShelf
In a merging of two of my great interests, NASA has issued a Request For Information (ROI) on how best to “analyze and catalog notes from spaceflight pioneer Wernher von Braun into an electronic, searchable database or other system.“
Sample Page from Von Braun's Notes
At first glance, this is something that would be solved by using library tools and software. However, the list of potential ways to set this up seems to illustrate the gaps in library technology (all points are mine):
This project begs for a combination of a traditional database (for storing and searching text) with the added functionality provided by social software products. Nothing in the list is beyond the current means of technology… think of a wiki combined with flickr-type functionality that can utilize PDF documents and you have a good starting point.
Why hasn’t this been done? How many libraries and archives have document sets like this that could become a researcher’s favorite collection, with the right application of technology? Have any been digitized with a social annotation feature?
Why do I suspect that the development of this will come from outside the library community? We should already have projects that utilize this kind of mash-up philosophy… our collections could be so much more powerful.
There are some great things being done in the library technology realm, and many people and projects that are worth praising. But now and then I see something like this and wonder how we missed this obvious application of existing technologies.
found via ResourceShelf and Wired Science
What is the future of the library? is a video that presents the library as a solution to the digitial divide, providing access and empowerment to those who otherwise would not have the access or the ability to effectively utilize the internet.
At first the video may seem to be all about buzzwords, but by the end you should have some thought-provoking questions forming within your mind. I recommend at least two viewings, and quite a bit of time to think about where we might be headed.
This is a great example of asking excellent questions in order to move the conversation forward.
found via The Proverbial Lone Wolf Librarian
The Review Board on Principles of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship has released their final report on OCLC’s proposed policy for use of records (pdf), and after reviewing the report, OCLC has formally withdrawn the policy.
This conclusion to the records policy proposal is the best that could be imagined. OCLC has listened to criticism from the greater library community, considered both the policy and it’s criticism through the efforts of the Review Board, and has responded in a way that allows everyone to move forward with a greater understanding of how best to go about updating the policy.
I suggested early on that OCLC was a tiger, instinctively defending its territory. This still feels like a proper metaphor: the movement towards creating a policy without proper input from the library community, and the subsequent review and withdrawing of the policy, seems more like an organization that didn’t realize the true implications of what it was putting in place, as opposed to one that was attempting a power grab to create a monopoly.
This was, and remains, a critical issue for libraries. The ability to use the metadata representing our collections (as well as connecting them to collections and resources beyond what we own) is critical to our future ability to offer services in ways that will serve our patrons best.
I certainly hope that OCLC sets up a policy creation board similar to the review board – one that seeks a wide a range of ideas, opinion and input. This will ensure a policy that takes a broader and more complete view of the use of cataloging records, but will also strengthen OCLC, because a membership organization is stronger when the constituent members are consistently heard and respected. This has happened with the Review Board, and if OCLC continues to encourage it, everyone will come out ahead.
To OCLC: You have responded well, and in the process have created an opportunity to solidify your position as a membership organization. Keep up the good work and you will benefit, along with your members.
To the Review Board: The report is well-written, and does an excellent job of stating what was wrong with the policy (and the process of creating the policy), as well as providing a constructive means to create a new policy that will properly reflect the needs and desires of the membership as a whole.
To detractors of the policy: Those who offered strong, but constructive, criticism deserve recognition. This was an emotional debate, and keeping focused on the issues at hand has ultimately won the day. The best, and most complete, resource of commentary and information is the Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change page.
This has been an education for all involved: the power of sustained commentary, of constructive criticism, of listening as well as talking, and of reviewing and changing positions when necessary. Everyone should keep it up.
resources: ResourceShelf & Disruptive Library Technology Jester
The American Libraries article is just one of many to explain the issues facing Ohio, but I found the following information worth posting:
Strickland’s office was also flooded with phone calls; gubernatorial spokesperson Amanda Wurst said in the June 23 Toledo Blade that “there were 1,356 calls through our switchboard, 80% of which were regarding library funding.” On a normal day, the office receives 150 calls, she added.
On another front, Save Ohio Libraries has created a Flyer for tomorrow’s Statehouse rally in Columbus (Pdf):
Save Ohio Libraries Rally Flyer
Odds and Ends:
Save Ohio Libraries is the rallying cry as well as the focus of this week’s activities.
The Save Ohio Libraries Facebook page is rapidly approaching 12,000 members (and has gone from 11,543 to 11,768 as I have written this post). If you are a FB member, add to that number. Also, become a fan of Governor Ted Strickland and post a message on his board. As events around the world in recent months have shown, social networking has an impact, and one of the ways to have an impact is a large group of people all taking a step in the same direction.
Rallies are being planned in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Centerville, London, Portsmouth, and (just organized tonight) Columbus. If you can add a few bodies to the gatherings, do so!
One additional thought to add to this: this is growing beyond Ohio. There are many people from other states who are watching this with concern and support. The success or failure of these efforts (both the efforts to drastically reduce library funding to help balance the state’s budget, as well as our efforts to preserve library services) will make it easier/harder for other states to do the same. Broadcasting the understanding that cutting library services only hurts recovery efforts by the states will not only benefit libraries across the country, but will also benefit the overall economy.
Make yourself heard!
Here are two quick and effective ways for Ohioans to contact the Governor’s office and convey our thoughts on the library aspect of the budget crisis:
Contact the Governor is a standard contact form that resides on the official governor’s web site.
Ted Strickland’s FaceBook Page is amazing at this moment… there seems to be miles of supportive library comments posted on his wall. Every single post is about library funding. If you are a member of FB, I suggest that you consider adding your thoughts to the list. Note that you have to “Become a supporter” in order to post a comment, but the most important criticism should come from those who support you.
Here is what I posted in both spaces:
Governor Strickland: Please recognize that libraries allow those with limited means to access information and technology. To severely cut funding at the same time that circumstances are pushing more people into the “limited means” category will only delay (and perhaps suppress) Ohio’s recovery. Libraries do not expect to be exempted from budget cuts, but the severe level of the cuts means that many services and locations will not survive, just when people will need them the most.
Note that I do not suggest that libraries not face any budget cuts. This is a statewide crisis, with many causes, and it will require intelligent and shared sacrifices by many. To not expect any cuts would be unrealistic. To implement modest cuts, combined with options to more effectively and efficiently serve patrons, could transform this into a win-win scenario.
I feel that there is a great deal of room for increased efficiency in library operations, especially when it comes to technology. There are efforts to do this on a multi-state level, which is a solid step in the right direction. Other steps can be taken statewide to save money and increase participation. Efforts to find and implement technological efficiency at individual libraries themselves can provide greater service and budgetary savings in the long term.
A few items of note to update yesterday’s post:
The Library is Now Closed (a.k.a. Shuttered Library) is a blog created by an Ohio librarian named Mike (didn’t see a last name) which is compiling links to a vast amount of information and resources for libraries and supporters in Ohio. (thanks Jessamyn!)
Save Ohio Libraries is a blog detailing actions that people and libraries can take to, as the title suggests, save Ohio libraries.
A couple of additional links to Pdf articles that I missed yesterday, both from the “Balanced Budget Framework” page. Note that neither of these have been properly named; save them to your hard drive and add “.pdf” to the end of the file name so that your computer will know how to open them (or you can open your Pdf reader and open the files from the program’s “File” menu):
It’s happening, folks. State and local budgets are under extreme pressure, and tough decisions are being made by Governors, state officials, countys counties, towns and taxing districts. Libraries that rely on public funding are now almost certainly facing severe cuts.
In Ohio, state funding for libraries is facing a proposed $227 million cut over the next two years… a nearly 50% cut. Ohio’s libraries happen to be, for interesting historical reasons (Pdf), very reliant on state-level funding for their operations.
When one reads Governor Strickland’s budget statement, as well as the overview of affects on various agencies (Pdf), it becomes obvious that the cuts are being shared by many agencies that will have trouble absorbing them (Pdf), and that most will have to significantly scale back services in order to survive at all.
Think about your library’s budget… what percentage of it could disappear before you would face staff cuts, reduced hours, and elimination of programs? I suspect that these effects would appear well before the 50% mark. When one considers that funding to supporting organizations (such as OhioLink) is also being cut, the impact may be greater still.
At what point would the basic operation of your library be at stake? This number is different for every library, as it depends on your physical presence (building size, layout, holdings, etc.) as well as staff training. Cross-trained staff who have a good overall sense of the many facets of a dynamic library are able to provide far more services for their salaries than those who are compartmentalized.
What can be done? At this point, the options are limited. Library administrators will soon be forced to simply react to events, and have lost the window of opportunity to make anticipatory changes in their organization. When I wrote about this last January, I was guessing that the effects would be most pronounced in the 2010-11 budget cycle (instead of this one). California, and now Ohio, suggest that things are happening faster than many anticipated.
What can we do at our libraries? Make it clear to those you serve, as well as those who fund you, what is at stake. Whatever changes you make, let them know what you are doing, and why. If you eliminate services, or reduce hours, or cut staff, that information needs to be disseminated, if only to lay a foundation for restoring them in the future. When you find a way to save or restore a service, or more effectively utilize staff time and ability (see below), this needs to be conveyed, as well.
Of greater importance, undertake an assessment of your organization’s abilities. Find out what the library staff can do, and what your resources truly are. By effectively applying their skills, you likely can make better use of your staff than you currently are. Find out what can be cut from the budget that can be done for less simply by utilizing less expensive resources and well-applied staff time.
Laying off a staff position will save a given block of money. Eliminating the outsourcing of a service that costs even more, but can be done by that person in 15-20 hours per week, creates a win-win situation for your library. There are many victories to be had in the line items of your budget. The question remains: is there time to find and implement them?
The fundamental approach to this has to be dynamic… anticipate changes, and be prepared to adapt. The most adaptable area of your library is the people who do the work. If everyone works together, sacrifices together, strives to find ways to save money by better utilizing their skills and time… if all of this can happen at your library, you have a much better chance to ride this out.
found on LISNews
If you are involved with the selection or ordering process, then you are very likely to be familiar with searching for items by the International Standard Book Number, or ISBN. The newer, 13-digit ISBN is actually based on the European Article Number, or EAN, which makes books consistent with most international trade goods. The EAN was developed as an expansion of the common Universal Product Code, or UPC.
Enough theory? How about web sites that offer lookup services that can help you find booksellers, prices, and even reviews and summaries of the books you wish to acquire?
For comparison, here are links to results for the same book (Stephen King : The Dark Tower):
Sources and further information:
About Herbs, Botanicals, & Other Products has been launched by the Memorial Sloan-Ketterling Cancer Center.
This is a great starting point for finding definitive information on medical use of many nature-derived products and natural healing techniques, including:
The alphabetical list of their articles is a great starting point. The articles focus on cancer treatment, but the information and resources will offer insight for a broad range of questions.
found via ResourceShelf
Love that New Book Smell? Or do you prefer Classic Musty Smell? Perhaps your preference leans towards Crunchy Bacon or Cats?
Smell Of Books has got your scent (and Sensibility!).
found via LISNews
Blogs Falling in an Empty Forest is a New York Times article about blogging, specifically about the study showing an estimated 95% of blogs have not been updated in over 4 months.
Does this signal an end to blogging? The death of a communication tool? Not at all. As the article points out, much of the information conveyed through blogging can also be conveyed through other tools, such as Facebook and Twitter.
As with all tools, users will seek out the tool that best fits their task (or at least the best that fits their skill set, and will still accomplish the task). Blogging was an early “web 2.0″ tool, and was adopted and adapted to serve many purposes. Through a combination of better tools for specific tasks, loss of interest/time/support for the creators, and the limits of readers to follow more than a given number of blogs on a particular topic, it is no surprise that many blogs are going into hibernation.
There is also a discussion regarding the expectations of the blogger. If one strives for fame, fortune and glory, go for it… but a majority of bloggers will not achieve that level. I suspect that more than a few people set goals beyond what the market could provide their particular skill set and audience.
When I set out to start blogging, I simply wanted to utilize a forum that would allow me to collect thoughts and ideas that I felt were important, and to use it to organize my own interests and actions, as well as to convey what I posted to those who might be interested. Over time the focus has expanded to include more of my thoughts and ideas (I still cringe a bit when using the word “I”), but still focuses on what is happening in the library technology world.
Blogging has been harder to maintain than I originally thought, but it has also been far more rewarding. I am still searching for the balance between all of the activities that demand attention, but I suspect that Libology will remain in the “active” category for some time.
found via ResourceShelf
Amidst a great many other topics, HTML 5 has been on my mind the past couple of weeks. It started on Tuesday, May 26th, with Kevin Yank posting HTML 5 : Now or Never? on the SitePoint blog. He was floating the question of whether or not they should look into publishing a book on HTML 5 now, or if they need to wait until it matures enough for developers to use with confidence. If you read his post, and especially if you look over the comments, you will see that there is a full range of opinions (including that HTML 5 should never be implemented) by developers about the topic.
This remained a relatively minor, background issue until two days later, Thursday, May 28th. On that day Google announce the existence of a new project called Google Wave. My initial thought was that Google was simply creating their version of a FaceBook/Twitter/Blogging style platform. The more I looked, the more I realized that this was much different, and much more important, than a differently branded service. Wave is something that has the potential to change many, many aspects of how we use the internet.
What is Google Wave? I have spent a good part of last week trying to distill it into a couple of paragraphs, and am not having much success. The overall essence of it is something that I haven’t yet wrapped my head around, but here are a few aspects of it that will hopefully illustrate some of it:
It is a communication platform that allows users to send, receive, and use a variety of information (think communications like e-mails, IM, tweets, feeds, etc.) in a way that offers greater control, speed, and usability. Messaging becomes “real-time”, with your keystrokes being sent live to the person you are communcating with (unless you select to hold the message until you are ready). The effect of this is that it becomes possible to hold a real-time conversation with others utilizing a variety of communication forms simultaneously. You can incorporate text, images, documents, and other digital formats into the conversation in a free-flowing manner that saves time, effort and reduces confusion.
To quote from the introduction to an interview, “Email is asynchronous conversation. Instant messaging, by contrast, is synchronous. Wave is both.“ Possibly the best general description of Wave could be that it lets users and groups easily communicate and collaborate in one interface, using whatever editing/communication/collaboration techniques fit the task at hand. Think of it as a collaboration mash-up tool.
A few places to find further info:
Watch for the technological shift from these developments. This will not only give us new and improved tools to perform tasks and work together (think of the possibilities for online meetings and conferencing), but will set standards for what will be expected from web presences. Our OPACS may have some new goals to aim for.
Note added later: I have had a busy week, and forgot to actually address the relationship between HTML 5 and Google Wave. I do so in another post, Why HTML 5. Apologies for not getting it right the first time!
Got an update from Linda Hulbert via SERIALST regarding their issues with Wiley (which I posted on Libology last week). Wiley demonstrated that they could be flexible, and in doing so has allowed a library to continue to provide their content, and allows them to continue to be the company providing content. This is a win-win situation, in which everyone makes adjustments in a way that ultimately benefits all involved:
I am happy to report that Wiley got back to me directly the day after the original post. The other happy news is that St. Thomas will be treated as a single site permitting us to sign the BAL license (Basic Access License) and not be required to use the EAL (Enhanced Access License).
We have looked at the language of both licenses closely to see what best serves the University of St. Thomas. We are grateful for the opportunity to choose rather than be locked into a kind of license because of a multi-site designation. I wish that everyone had the choice.
It appears to us that the BAL will meet all of our needs. We’ve read the license, the EBSCO license detail and looked at the Wiley FAQ. The only difference we can tell is that in the BAL, ILL is not explicit, but it is inferred and electronic course-packs are not explicit but they are also inferred. More than silent on the matter, the language permits the activities without so naming them.
We worried about two more areas: access in perpetuity for the content purchased (to obviate the need for purchasing paper, too) and usage data. The license, the FAQ and EBSCO’s review all indicate that we have access in perpetuity to subscribed data either by their supplying archival copy or continued access online. I would imagine, although it is not stated, that as long as we have any online Wiley content we will have access to purchased content online. While we subscribe we have access back to 1997, if available. I would not expect them to continue access to unpurchased content after cancellation.
Usage data: This is a change. At one point the EAL was required for usage data but that is no longer true. Both the FAQ and the license indicate that BAL license users will have usage data.
The benefits they list at their FAQ for all subscribers: Free access to Counter-compliant usage data; unlimited concurrent users, free course-pack and walk-in user access; content back to 1997 where available and perpetual access to content back to 1997.
We have a few things to negotiate with Wiley – our institution prefers licenses to be silent on governing law if we can’t have Minnesota and we would like to have a co-signed license. But in all the important ways, we are thrilled with the BAL.
So, these are our experiences. This is all good for UST.
I thought I would share some of the comments I got back from colleagues from various lists. Because some were directed just to me, I am going to have them all be anonymous.
Overall, what I see is that Wiley has replaced Elsevier as the least valued ‘partner’ in the scholarly communication chain. Because we have a choice, we are comfortable doing business with Wiley.
Her e-mail, with comments from her colleagues, can be found at the SERIALST Archive.
The National Library of Australia has launched the beta of their new search interface, SBDS Prototype (SBDS stands for Single Business Discovery Service, I think), and the search experience is not only better than any other library-related search I have used, it is faster than most of them as well!
Other reactions:
This is an excellent example of what is possible today, and what we should all strive for in our search interfaces. There is such a diversity of resources, and unifying these into a usable and fast single-search service is a credit to the developers at the National Library of Australia.
A post on the SERIALST list yesterday by Linda Hulbert, Associate Director of Collection Management and Services at the O’Shaughnessy-Frey Library in St. Paul, Minnesota details one library’s response to contractual conditions being imposed by Wiley. I found it interesting because it highlights the challenges facing not only libraries, but content providers, and the perils of inflexibility.
The entire post can be found on the SERIALST Archive; I am including a large part of it in this post:
Another company is looking at the Elsevier model and using it. Unfortunately, unlike Elsevier where a library might get more content than they could pay for and unlike Elsevier which does not require that a library participate, Wiley is requiring all multi-site libraries to have a no-cancellation, minimum life time spend. Add insult to injury, we are not a multi-site library by any other vendor’s definition! But Wiley has designated us so. Without recourse.
So, I am sending this letter to many people at Wiley and in the library community. Please, help resist these kinds of publisher practices.
*****
I am writing to you today in your capacity as someone concerned with [higher education, customer service] at John Wiley and Sons.Wiley provides an EAL license which has three major features: two year agreement, a guaranteed minimum spend (no cancellations without adding titles) (ala Elsevier) and, for that ‘lock-in,’ libraries will have a cap on the annual inflationary increases. Wiley requires multi-site libraries – which they have declared we are – enter into an EAL license for electronic journal content.
We have two problems with this rigid requirement:
1. Wiley is now treating my university as a multi-campus university. Let me assure you that all other vendors treat us a single site because, while we have libraries in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have a single IP address, single president, and a single Accounts Payable for all campuses (including Rome which has 4 seminarians studying abroad!).
2. The EAL license is required for all online journal content we purchase from Wiley/Blackwell in 2010. Currently, our online-only spend is about $3,000, our print +online is over $33,000, and our total spend is about $66,000 for journal content with Wiley. What does that mean for the University of St. Thomas? We would not be able to cancel – i.e. lower our ‘current’ spend. That means that as tuition dollars dry up, as the university’s contribution to the libraries shrink, we cannot cancel titles in the Wiley contract. It’s ironic that while we would be locked into a multi-year contract during these incredibly unpredictable and difficult financial times, Wiley could change their title list at will – buying or selling titles as the market dictates.
We have spoken with your representative, Diane Conroy, and there are no alternatives IF we want online journal content from Wiley. She is adamant.
Hence, our only option is to cancel all of our online content. I assume that is not Wiley’s goal but the only one we see available to us since we cannot agree to a multi-year, dollar spend commitment. We will cancel what we can – I can see about $30,000 in cancellations (27 titles) without too much pain. We will purchase print-only in the cases where we have had print +online and we will cancel our online-only and move back to print-only. As we all know, even good content that is print-only will become marginalized by our users and as it does, we’ll easily be able to justify canceling the remaining print titles. And, of course, we will not be purchasing new journal content from Wiley.
When September comes, if we have no agreement with Wiley for 2010 permitting cancellation and permitting single year subscriptions, we will have to take these draconian steps.
I will be sharing this letter with the Wiley board of directors, others in Wiley management, the serials community, the licensing community and other colleagues in the library community.
Thank you for your attention.
We in the library community need to be prepared to bend, but not to break. If a vendor isn’t meeting us halfway, then we need to consider walking away. There is always more than one way to achieve our mission, and we have to have that in mind and act accordingly. I hope Wiley takes notice of this library’s action, and looks to see how it can best serve both their customers, as well as their company’s, needs.
Common Chemistry is a resource from Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) which allows one to search for chemical information using a variety of search terms, whether the terms be common names (aspirin, table salt), basic chemical names (acetylsalicylic acid, sodium chloride), or even the official CAS registration number (50-78-2, 7647-14-5).
Although this does not search the entire CAS database, it is an excellent starting point for most of the chemical information questions posed students and the general public.
Note the link to the Wikipedia entry (just above the disclaimer) for many, but not all, results; not many “authoritative” resources are confident enough in their users to connect them with resources developed and maintained by the crowd.
found via ResourceShelf
Eric Shonfeld at TechCrunch writes:
“Once again, the Internet is shifting before our eyes. Information is increasingly being distributed and presented in real-time streams instead of dedicated Web pages. The shift is palpable, even if it is only in its early stages.”
Twitter. RSS. Facebook. Digg. You-Name-It-Feed. It is becoming apparent that this is the next big shift in internet usage, and, as with the previous shifts, it is hard to guess what the effects will be, and who will be affected.
And this, like previous shifts, will not supplant previous internet use trends. HTML, or some form of it, will still be very dominant. Blogs and Wikis will continue to exist, and will be useful tools for certain types of communication and interaction. Integration will continue to be the norm, with the “now” infusing itself throughout. How will this change be considered dramatic?
“Traffic occurs in bursts, depending on what people are paying attention to at that second across a variety of services. Someone might notice an obscure blog post on Twitter, where it starts spreading, then it moves to FriendFeed and Facebook and desktop stream readers such as Tweetdeck or Seesmic desktop and before you know it, a hundred thousand people are reading that article. The stream creates a different form of syndication which cannot be licensed and cannot be controlled.”
This “cannot be licensed and cannot be controlled.” Think about this. How much of your web presence is based on control: control of layout, content, contributors, and most of all, control over the rate at which change occurs? For a library web site, how much of this control is able to be ceded before the concept of a library web site itself changes, without controls?
As with many future technology issues, now is the time to begin thinking, discussing, understanding all of this. We cannot begin the process of deciding or planning, because none of us can predict how this will play out. What will we have in place to deal with this, to anticipate this, to harness this? One benefit of this process will be the inevitable inspiration that some will have about the potential of streams; a future must-have library web site technology might come from this.
Start thinking!
Cory Doctorow has an interesting take on the differing attitude of copyright between those who wish to wish to honor a creative work and those who wish to diminish it. An excerpt:
“The upshot of this is that you’re on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn’t confer any right to make it a part of your creative life.”
An added bonus is a reference to a Firefly-based fan fiction that I hadn’t encountered before, titled My Own Kind of Freedom.
found via Library Link of the Day (16 May 2009)
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.libology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Powered by FireStats