Libology Blog

HotStuff 2.0 is described by its creator, Dave Pattern, as “an automatically updated blog… [in which] a daily blog post is generated using a single word that has seen a marked increase in usage over the last few days.”  The best part is that this blog is built upon “nearly a thousand library related blogs” (including this one), and is a great way to explore library blogging.

Added features, all automatically generated, include word wheels, Hot or Not (I am currently #18… we shall see where that goes), and detail pages for each of the blogs, including a list of similar blogs.

Seriously, check this out.  If you don’t find at least one new and interesting blog, I’ll refund your annual subscription to Libology

found via Walt at Random

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 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

In Beverly, Massachusetts a mob of 20 LibraryThing enthusiasts cataloged the entire collection of St. John’s church library, as well as the rector’s book collection, consisting of over 2,000 books (averaging 100 books per person).

Akin to an Amish barn-raising, the idea was to get a group together and get the job done in one day.

found via the LibraryThing blog

* disclaimer:  I find this interesting on its own, but as I am in a middle of a months-long group project to move my church’s catalog to a different ILS (as well as getting them an OPAC) I can only feel jealous about the speed at which this was accomplished.

Google has reached a settlement with the group of publishers who filed suit in 2005 over the book digitization project.  It is a legal document with many elements, and I cannot hope to make an overall evaluation of the agreement with just the amount that I have browsed (much less with my limited ability to discern the true meaning of legalese).  However, there are a couple of sections that raise questions:

7.2 Fully Participating Library Uses… (b) Use of Library Digital Copies… (vii) Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use. The Fully Participating Library, if part of a Higher Education Institution, may allow faculty members and research staff of that Higher Education Institution to read, print, download or otherwise use up to five (5) pages of any Book from its LDC [Library Digital Copy] that is not Commercially Available for the following purposes: (1) personal scholarly use (for each Book, no more than once per person per term) and (2) classroom use in such Higher Education Institution that is limited to the instructors and students in the class and for the term in which the class is offered; provided that (a) the Fully Participating Library does not know at the time of such use that it is in material non-compliance with Section 8.2 (Security Standard, Security Implementation Plan and Security Audits) with respect to uses of the LDC authorized pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use), and (b) the Fully Participating Library keeps track of and reports all such uses of Books to the Registry in the course of the audit conducted pursuant to Section 8.2(c) (Audits) or, otherwise, upon reasonable request of the Registry, provided that such requests may be made no more than semi-annually. The Registry may make information from such reports regarding the usage of an individual Book available to the Rightsholder of such Book upon request of the Rightsholder. A Fully Participating Library may not read, print, download or otherwise use a Book or Insert through its LDC pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use) if such use is available through the Institutional Subscription and the Institutional Subscription service is offered or is available to the Fully Participating Library (whether for a fee or as a beta product) at the time such Fully Participating Library seeks to make such use.” (page 76)

The agreement defines Commercially Available as “…that the Rightsholder of such Book, or such Rightsholder’s designated agent, is, at the time in question, offering the Book (other than as derived from a Library Scan) for sale new through one or more then-customary channels of trade in the United States.” (Section 1.28 on page 4)  Does this mean that if a researcher or faculty is able to read (or print) only up to 5 pages of the scanned book each semester for personal scholarly use - and then only if the book is not able to be purchased through “customary channels of trade”?

Am I interpreting this correctly?  Is this not a severe restriction of the “Fair Use” clause of copyright?  Why would a researcher want to agree to such limitations when the physical item allows for a broader use?  I may be misreading this section, however, and hope to have it clarified in the near future.

Another section that gives me pause:

Section 3.8 (b) Effect of Changes in Law. Google will be able to take advantage of any future legislative change(s), such as legislation allowing the use of orphan works (if enacted), that put Google at a competitive disadvantage in its use of Books in any Google Products and Services that are subject to this Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Google may choose to receive the benefit of such change(s) only if a third party is actually taking advantage of such law(s) in connection with services that competitively disadvantage Google in its provision of any such Google Products and Services; provided, further, that no changes in the “fair use” doctrine as codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act shall trigger this Section 3.8(b) (Effect of Changes in Law).” (page 37)

So if a legislative body, such as the United States Congress, passes a law that allows for broader use of this type of material (i.e. a change in copyright law), Google can only put the broader use into Google Books if it can demonstrate that another company is already taking business away from them by implementing it; otherwise, Google must keep the higher restrictions in place.

In addition, what happens if “fair use” is broadened?  It won’t trigger this section.  Does that mean that Google can follow fair use, or that Google cannot?  The fair use provision seems to be placed on an equal footing as the “competitively disadvantage” clause.  Does Google pass along the broader use understanding, or does it just pass?

For better or worse, this settlement is going to dramatically change how libraries use electronic books.  Hopefully the overall agreeement implements a positive experience for all parties involved, and that my concerns (and the concerns of others) are either misread clauses or taking a section out of context.

The element of this agreement that holds great promise is the potential for institutional access to the entire collection of scanned books.  Imagine having millions of books available to our patrons via a usable and cost-effective agreement.  We are moving towards the future; are we ready for it (and the future for us)?

Further information and links:

• Contents of the Google Book Search Copyright Settlement
• Librarian.net
• Official Google Blog
• Panlibus Blog
• Open Access News

Walt Crawford has posted his list of 607 library-related blogs (this one included).  This is as definitive and current a list as one is likely to find, and Walt has done an excellent job compiling and checking the links.

If you cannot get your fill of library blogging from this source, then you are more hard core than I.

found via Walt at Random (also included)

The 2008 ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) survey has been released, and they have added a section on social networking (pdf version of chapter here).  Among the findings:

• Slightly over 85% of those surveyed use social networks, with Facebook and MySpace topping the list.
• Younger students (under 30) tended to use Facebook, while older ones tend towards MySpace.
• About 50% use social networking for discussing classwork with other students; only about 5% use it for discussing classwork with instructors.

The only one of these three that surprised me was the tendancy towards Facebook/MySpace by age.  I have thought of MySpace as appealing to younger users than Facebook.

Social networks are definitely here to stay.  In five years we may not be discussing Facebook or MySpace (because they might have been superceded by a yet un-created network), but people will be more interconnected, not less.

The third point is one that should make us take notice.  Half of the surveyed students have used social networks to discuss classwork; the main reason they haven’t discussed it with instructors (and by extension, the library folk) is that we view it as some sort of cyber malt shop, a place only for their peers.

If we make ourselves available on social networks, we aren’t going to find ourselves becoming an overnight sensation.  We will, however, give people one more way to view us as being there to assist them.

Whether we create OPAC search tools to embed (or even highlight the good ones that exist, like WorldCat and CiteMe in Facebook - also here), create an institutional identity, or just make ourselves more visible as individuals, there is much we can do to assist students and promote our services.

We can jump on board the trolley, or be left behind.  The choice is ours, both individually and collectively.  I am on Facebook and LinkedIn, btw… and you should be too.

found via Web4Lib — thanks Gerry McKiernan!

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

Walt Crawford (”The Library Voice of the Radical Middle”) has created a list of nearly 600 library-related blogs.  It is interesting to scan the list and marvel at how many are unknown to me.  I suspect that I could spend hours simply browsing through them…

Libology is in there, btw (kudos for being current!).

thanks to LISNews

Kete is billed as a combination of a digital archive, a content management system, and collaboration tools meant to allow the storage, control, and access of digital content.

Developed as an outgrowth of the Koha project, Kete has a pedigree worth checking out!

found via Catalogablog

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

After more than a year, there has been a bit of activity at the Google Librarian Central site, though not what was hoped for when I heard that they were preparing an update.

What they announced in a post titled “Endless Summer” was that they were closing down the Librarian Central Blog and communicating via their newsletter. Comments and suggestions will be handled by a web form submission.

Ouch! Double-Ouch!! This is better than the dead silence of the past year, but just barely. We have been moved back in time, relegated to Web 1.0.

They could have kept the blog alive by posting the individual newsletter items one-by-one. They could have used the blog for items posted or discussed elsewhere, but posted there because of their interest to libraries. They could have opened things up a bit and asked for volunteers to coordinate topics and ideas for better incorporating Google into libraries. Any of these would have been about the same amount of work, and would have preserved or improved the dynamic and social aspects of the site. They backed away instead.

We are left to wonder why.

Classify is a new service from OCLC which returns class numbers (Dewey, LC, and National Library of Medicine) assigned to books in WorldCat. This could be a good way to use the “wisdom of the crowd” when you are not 100% sure where to group a particular book.

I noticed that the url had a “2″ at the end, so I removed it to see what would happen. It appears to be an earlier version of the service. I didn’t have any luck with the first few ISBNs I entered, but the example links work well.

Any other changes to the url bounce the user to the DeweyBrowser, which is a lookup service from a couple of years back. Although it also has a “2″ at the end of the url, nothing happens when one changes it. So much for rewarding curiosity

Classify found via Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog

continued from here…

Evergreen and Project Conifer (John Fink) was a progress report / Q&A session about the installation of the Evergreen ILS for a consortium of academic libraries (McMaster University, University of Windsor, and Laurentian University). John gave a fantastic overview of the project, intended to go live sometime next year. It is a large undertaking, especially considering that they are writing the code for the Acquisitions and Serials areas of the software. He had an observation that I found interesting (and have noticed as well): people using III’s Millennium ILS tend to have a higher opinion of the software than is deserved. It is good, and it works fairly well, but it is deeply flawed, in my opinion. I will add that users of Voyager need to be reminded of the good points of their system now and then, but that it is also flawed. I will say again that Evergreen is going to have a much bigger impact than people realize.

Open Book, a WordPress plugin (John Miedema) was another high-interest session, since I had installed and used the plugin just one week earlier. To discuss the plugin and the reasons behind its functionality and existence with the developer was a great experience. The group discussed Amazon, OCLC, and Google (and their relative restrictions and freedoms) at length. John is a great supporter of the Open Library project, and for good reason.

Metasearch / APIs / Facebook for Libraries (David Fiander, Geoff Sinclair, Me) was a bit of a blur, since I was at the front and trying to think as effectively as possible (more challenging some days than others). I got to discuss my idea (a piece of software that uses an API that is as straightforward as possible, which passes requests to various library and bibliographic systems and returns the results… this could allow search tools and OPAC overlays to work with a standard set of rules, as well as allowing meta-search tools to become more effective), but didn’t feel that any brainstorming actually took place. If someone doesn’t point out a big flaw in my thinking (especially when I am stretching my abilities beyond their comfort zone) I suspect that I am politely being listened to. Maybe not…

The Wrap-up went fine, but there wasn’t a call for action, or a consensus as to what should come next from all of this. I can’t say I expected one, but I was hoping to have some sort of Eureka moment. I did have a strong feeling that I was going to put everything together in an interesting way during the drive home on Saturday, but it didn’t happen that way (keep reading).

We then walked over to the BiblioCommons office for a buffet tray/beer/wine dinner party. I had some great conversations here, and completely forgot to find out what exactly it is that makes people speak of BiblioCommons in reverent tones. There isn’t a lot of information out there beyond it being a “complete social discovery system for libraries” (from their website). People whose opinions I respect are very impressed with it, and I was in a conversation with one of the people directly involved and never asked one question about it. Shame on me!

I ended up skipping the pub night outing, as I stopped by the hotel and felt tired, and spent the time putting pictures online. I went to bed early, and slept very fitfully, until about 4 a.m. That was when the gunshots began. There were 7 ro 8 of them, from at least two guns, sounding like they were just outside the building. I woke at the first shot, rolled out of bed (away from the window) on the second, and duck-walked to the bathroom with my phone as they continued. I was on the third floor, so I don’t think I was likely to get caught in the line of fire (I figure they were either shooting at each other, or shooting into the air). It was a very unpleasant experience, and I didn’t get to sleep for quite a while (and didn’t sleep well then). When my alarm went off, I decided to cancel my sightseeing activities, get some more rest, and leave Toronto straight from the hotel.

So that’s why I didn’t spend the trip thinking about neat library technology and such. Too bad, because this was as good a conference as I have ever attended, and I complimpent John, William and Stacy on their excellent work. I encourage more groups to consider this format (it would work well as part of a standard conference format as well… just set up a block of time, or a conference track, as an unconference).

Previous posts here and here…

I attended the One Big Library Unconference (Facebook too) last Friday, and haven’t had a chance to post about it yet, so here goes:

I arrived in Toronto around 7 p.m. on Thursday after a smooth journey. I stayed in a hotel about 3 walking blocks from the conference venue, mainly so I could park the car on Thursday and walk everywhere. In daylight the neighborhood, part of Toronto’s Chinatown, reminded me of the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago: a wide variety of people in a busy, urban environment that feels very alive. At night it became somewhat worrisome: many homeless people sleeping in doorways and sidewalks, groups of people “hanging out” and looking a bit dangerous, and panhandlers approaching passers-by for change. I never felt directly threatened, but was very aware of the potential.

The conference was sponsored by York University, and held at the Centre for Social Innovation. The building was very warm, but the facilities were comfortable and pleasant. Everyone I came in contact with was fantastic.

How can I describe everything? Take about 70 people, self-selected to be interested in Libraries and Technology, everyone intent on learning and interacting with others of like mind. I have never seen a conference group as positively engaged in all that they were doing. I think this came about from a combination of the Unconference format, the selection of a well-defined yet general topic, and just the right amount of planning and structure (and not too much of either).

The organizers introduced themselves and described the day’s schedule process. The topics that had been submitted via the wiki were laid out on sheets of paper (see the photos in the second post for detail) on tables, along with blank sheets for newer ideas. I suggested what I had been brainstorming about during the previous day’s drive, and voted on the topics I most wanted to attend.

They ended up combining sessions in order to include all ideas, meaning that I co-presented with two other people (kind of strange, since I wanted a roundtable discussion in order to brainstorm). While they were tabulating the votes and arranging the schedule, we all attended the first session.

Zotero: Start watching for the next update of this incredible tool… it is about to become even more powerful. Then, once you have that gem, watch for the next big release. A great summary is located on their roadmap. I am left with an exceptionally strong positive feeling about this tool and the people developing it. Trevor Owens did a great job with the demo and presentation.

Drupal: This ended up being more of a detailed presentation of what it takes to implement a new web presence in an institution when it involves dozens of people in many departments. Politics, control over presentation of content, and seamless functionality were the main points discussed. On alternate days I think it might just be better for a small team (no more than four people) to install, configure and implement the system. The other days I suspect the “many hands” approach might be better. I had hoped for more tips on installing and configuring Drupal (having installed and configured it for the first time only a couple of weeks ago… watch for an announcement), but didn’t get that. Good session, nevertheless.

Lunch was buffet sandwiches and fruit (and a wonderful coffee bar that was open all day). The highlight was the tours offered to the building’s roof, which has a rooftop garden installed. I enjoyed taking pictures of the people in my tour group.

(more in part 2)

Revolution in the Stacks is the title of an article in the June 2008 issue of Governing magazine.  An exerpt:

“When library experts talk about the future, it’s remarkable how little the topic of books comes up. To be sure, libraries will carry books for as long as a critical mass of people wants to read them. The same is true of newspapers, magazines, CDs, DVDs and every other form of media that libraries have adopted over the years while following consumer tastes. Increasingly, however, libraries are talking about flipping the content equation around. That is, rather than thinking of themselves merely as a place to find content created by somebody else, the library will create content — and give patrons the tools to create content of their own.”

I don’t think that it is as cut-and-dry as the quote suggests, but we need to recognize that information is not only becoming easier to find, copy, and make available, but that we are going to discover that the next upheaval will be the combining of different resources to add depth and context to all of the information contained within them.

Our job will be making resources such as literary reviews, patron reviews, reading trends, additional sources, and whatever else is relevant to the topic available to users (and to us!).  Are we up to this?  We’d better be!

thanks to Jo Budler, Ohio State Librarian for sending the link!

OCLC and Google are exchanging parts of their data in a way that will likely change the way we view full-text scanned books:

• Google is providing linking information to OCLC in order to make Google Book Search items discoverable through WorldCat.
• OCLC is providing their cataloging records via libraries who are members of the Google Book Project in order to enhance Google Book Search, primarily by linking directly to WorldCat records.

I doubt that it will be long before this will be able to be used to enhance library OPACS.

found via ResourceShelf

(and the post title refers to this commercial)

I will definitely be attending the One Big Library Unconference next month in Toronto! I am enthusiastic about this, as it has been nearly a year since I have attended a conference, and I have been very curious about the unconference format. Having worked with Reaching Forward South for a few years, experiencing a participant-organized conference will be a big change.

This (un)conference is, partly because of it’s broad theme, a close fit for much of what fascinates me these days. Unstated, but implied, is the idea that the larger and more distinguished libraries need to join the tiny, underfunded community and special libraries in a way that the world as a whole can benefit. This is a challenging concept, and one that will strongly shape the library world in years to come.

Oh, yes… they’re in Facebook, too.