Libology Blog

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), passed by Congress last August and due to be enforced beginning February 10th, is designed to protect children from exposure to products containing unsafe levels of lead or phthalate.  All well and good.  There has been some controversy regarding the application of the law to resale shops and such, but there now seems to be the potential for this to impact libraries in a big way.

Apparently the General Counsel of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has ruled that the law applies to public, school, academic, and museum libraries.  This means that all products designed for children under 12 years of age (think children’s books) would need to be tested or removed, or children under the age of 12 would need to be barred from visiting the library.

The American Library Association’s district office in Washington D.C. has issed a District Dispatch summarizing the issue, and they have also released a letter sent to congressional members last month requesting an exemption from the law, including a link to research done by the publishing community on the potential for exposure to these chemicals through books (which was rejected by the CPSC General Counsel).

thanks to Sia Stewart for her Facebook posting of the dispatch!

—- 10 minutes later —-

The CPSC posted a clarification yesterday that suggests that libraries might not qualify… they don’t mention libraries, and their General Counsel previously said that it does apply, but what they state does suggest an exemption.

(didn’t see this until after posting)

The Creative Commons blog has a thought-provoking post about CC licensed music.  It seems that the latest Nine Inch Nails album, Ghost I-IV, is available under a CC license.  This means that you can legally download it from any of the dozens (if not hundreds) of dowloading services on the web… for free.

However, the album is listed as the best-selling album for 2008 on Amazon.com’s MP3 store.  Give that some thought, because it signals that the transition to a new business model is well under way.  If that many people are paying for the download, you know many more are downloading the CC version; people are still still paying for Amazon’s download because they feel that NIN is worth it.

The music industry has been the razor’s edge of this new business model’s birth, though not without conflict.  Those of us who work with books and journals should pay attention, because at some time in the not-too-distant future, our media will undergo these sorts of transformations.  What do libraries need to do in order to adapt?  What do we need to do in order to lead the way?

found via the Lessig blog

DSpace, the open-source digital repository system, reached the 500 installation mark earlier this month.  Earlier this year I did a bit of research on various repository solutions, and DSpace was the one I was most impressed with, and it seems that quite a few people agree.

Check out their list of known installations to see some great examples.

found 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.

The 2008 Presidential Election Search Engine is a Google Custom Search Engine created by the University of Kansas Library.

It is a great resource in that one can find the needles of information in the haystack of campaign rhetoric.

found via “Organizing the 2008 Presidential Election”, from College and Resource Libraries, October 2008, p. 540.

Jessamyn has the best overview of the Sarah Palin / Librarian debate that I have seen so far.  The key to this, and to any other emotionally charged story, is to check your facts, and remember that everyone gets it wrong sometimes (so don’t be so sure about something even if you are sure).

Unrelated, but soberingly relevant, is the United Airlines “bankruptcy” story from a couple of days ago.  The source seemed reliable, but the information was old.  Again, some basic fact checking in the early stages of this would have saved a whole lot of grief.

Update:  This New York Times article has a great overview of the UAL story… (thanks LISNews )

TeleRead has an excellent post dissecting the recent ruling against the author of the Harry Potter Lexicon.  It examines the Fair Use aspects of copyright as they apply to this particular case.

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

The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2012 has been posted!  A couple of samples:

• 28. IBM has never made typewriters.
• 60. Students always had Goosebumps.

What library-related items can be added to this list?  The absence of Card Catalogs?  Computers being available for patron use?

Also:  What brand-new addition, change, or development in our culture will become the norm for the class of 2030 (being born as this is written)?

from ResourceShelf

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.

In February, I wrote about the shootings at Northern Illinois University, which happened about 100 yards away from a former co-worker (and current friend). I stressed that until something like this happens in your community, it seems remote and somehow not fully real. However, we must strive to remember that these things happen in real communities, to real people, and that individuals, organizations and institutions (such as libraries) can do much to be better prepared for tragedy.

Jessamyn at Librarian.net writes about a horrific murder which indirectly involved the local public library, and how they have reacted. As you read her post, and the news articles she links to, ask yourself what your library or organization can do now to be prepared for not only this type of event, or a shooting, or a book challenge, but what you can do to simply be prepared.

Once you have thought about it, discuss it with your co-workers and community members. Solicit ideas. Take the best ideas and put them into action. You may never need this, but if the unthinkable happens you will be in far better shape than if the only response is “we never imagined it could happen here!”

Do it this time, starting today… because you cannot predict where, or in what form, the next horrific event will occur. At worst, you will be prepared for something that may not happen; at best you may save lives.

An interesting situation is brewing over at the TechCrunch blog.  Michael Arrington, upset over the Associated Press going after bloggers who quote from AP stories, has argued that the AP is not taking Fair Use into consideration and has declared that he will not report on stories distributed by AP.

Extreme?  Not if you take into consideration the APs rate schedule for online quoting of their articles.  If your quote of an AP source contains just five words, you are supposed to pay them $12.50!  I doubt that there are many AP articles short enough to make a five word quote not fall into Fair Use (plus, I assume under this fee schedule that quoting just four words is free).

The new twist is that an AP article about the controversy contains a 22-word quote from the TechCrunch blog that Arrington says was “in clear violation of their warped interpretation of copyright law”.  His response:  his lawyer is submitting a takedown request and a bill for $12.50, in order to hold the AP to their own standards.

I have written about “copyfraud” before, most notably here, but this is a fantastic example as it involves a company that derives tremendous benefits from the application of Fair Use.

Microsoft announced today that they are shutting down their book digitization project.

They also announced that the Live Search Books site will be shut down sometimes next week.

This is a disappointment in that I was hoping that the competition factor would push both Microsoft and Google to extend their respective projects further and further, thereby making that which we could access better and better.  Hopefully both Google and the Internet Archive keep up the good work, and that we reach the point where books are as easy to locate and access online as are many other forms of information (such as news, journals, etc.).

from TechCrunch

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)

Its the first annual Document Freedom Day!

Document Freedom means open standards and free document formats.  Take a few minutes to check out what this means to libraries, society, and to you.

For me, well, I have been a fan of open standards for years (I do too much xhtml/css to not appreciate standards), and I also feel that the Open Document Format (ODF) is not only more flexible than closed formats, but I like that I can rename the file with a .zip extension, then open it up and see (and extract, if needed) all the separate elements that make up the document.

found via Linux.com

In an article in today’s New York Times about magazines making their backfiles freely available online, there is a discussion about one magazine in particular:  Sports Illustrated.

Starting this Thursday, March 20th, the entire run of SI will be available through their new site, called The Vault.  Read the article to get the gist, but it sounds like they have gone the extra mile to make it easy to use, comprehensive, and powerful.  I am not terribly interested in sports, but I suspect that the Vault will be my first stop for sports-related questions (maybe second after Wikipedia, depending on the question).

from the SerialsT list

Data on Demand is a collection of data sets put together by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  It contains data for a variety of topics, such as campaign fundraising, home foreclosures, popular baby names, and school instructional hours.

This is a great ready-reference list for libraries in Wisconsin… it would be even greater to compile a database of available database sets like these across the country (or even around the world)!

from ResourceShelf

TimesMachine is a complete, easy to use browser for all New York Times editions between September 18, 1851 (their first date of publication) through December 31, 1922 (the day before copyright still exists).

from Metafilter