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
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final report on OCLC’s proposed policy for use of records (pdf), and after reviewing the report, OCLC has formally withdrawn the policy.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
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!
The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has weighed in on OCLC’s proposed policy changes. Of note:
“The proposed policy appears to freeze OCLC’s role in the library community based on historical and current relationships. We share the concern, voiced by many, that the policy hinders rather than encourages innovation, and we urge the Review Board to carefully examine this issue. It is unclear that the policy has been constructed with a focus on an evolving role of OCLC in enhancing the missions of an international library community with diverse and complex interests.”
This may not seem like a strongly worded statement, but take a look at the list of consortia behind the statement (located at the bottom of the statement, linked above). Is your library, or geographic region, represented by one or more of these? Based on the consortia I recognize, this statement has thousands of libraries behind it.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you shall go far”, Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic statement, applies very well to this statement.
My own addition to the current state of events is that the broad-based library community needs to be strongly involved with the record use policy, especially now that OCLC has solidly entered the ILS arena with their new WorldCat functionality. If they are able to use access and use of the records as a way to encourage/coerce/retain customers, they likely someday will. It makes good business sense, even if it is lousy public relations.
Further reading:
Shane Fitzgerald, a Sociology student at University College in Dublin, Ireland (not Ohio), performed an experiment in March in which he placed several fake quotes about death in the Wikipedia entry for Maurice Jarre, who had just died, including this one:
“When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.”
His intention was to see how the fake, but seemingly relevant, information would be used on the internet. He expected it to be picked up by blogs and social networks, and wanted to see how far it would go.
To his surprise, the quotes were picked up by the major media, and appeared in many publications considered far more authoritative than Wikipedia. Fitzgerald notified many of the media outlets of the experiment, and many have issued corrections, including the Guardian. To his additional surprise, however, many have not issued corrections.
For most library people, there is a healthy respect for Wikipedia. It is a powerful tool, one that can save time and effort in research, and can answer many questions for which we do not require a high level of authority. One does need to understand how far the information is to be trusted. We see quite a few people who scorn any reliance on Wikipedia, some even in the library world (who should know better). One would expect that journalists would have at least the same level of skepticism.
Today I present a modified version of a (hopefully properly remembered) Japanese saying. The original, which refers to Fugu, a delicacy made from a toxin-containing pufferfish, is, to my memory:
Those who eat fugu are stupid. But those who don’t eat fugo are also stupid.
My version of this quote is:
Those who rely on Wikipedia are foolish. But those who don’t rely on Wikipedia are also foolish.
found through ResourceShelf
I suspect that Swine Flu is likely to be a common research question for reference departments around the world during the foreseeable future. I have had an interest in the 1918 influenza epidemic pandemic for several years, and have spent some time this weekend keeping an eye on various resources.
Several good places to start:
Recognize that there will be a great deal of information pouring through various media, much of it guesswork and possibly incorrect. Remember that the greatest strength of libraries is our offering not only unfettered access to information, but assisting users in using that information critically.
To illustrate this, I am also linking to one of the best articles I have read on the 1918 influenza pandemic, easily the worst outbreak in modern history: The Site of origin of the 1918 influenza pandemic and its public health implications. It details research into the origins of the outbreak, and makes a very strong case for the original location. Note, however, that even though this was published over five years ago, most histories (including the Wikipedia link earlier in this paragraph) either ignore it or continue with various misconceptions based on incomplete research.
The lesson: encourage thoroughness and critical thinking in research, and recognize that many can and do get it wrong (but many can and do get it right, as well).
Oracle has purchased Sun Microsystems.
This is significant on many levels. Many of our library systems run on software or hardware from these companies. The Voyager library I used to work for used an Oracle database running on a Sun Solaris server. The clients (Circulation, Cataloging, Acquisitions, etc.) for III’s Millennium system run on Java.
Many web-based software platforms use MySQL (an open-source database project owned by Sun), including many, many blogs (including this one) wikis and CMS.
Many of us use OpenOffice as either their primary or as an additional office suite.
I am not saying that we are at risk for losing these foundations of our library and internet software programs. The fact that OpenSolaris, Java, MySQL, and OpenOffice are all open source means that we can trust that they will be with us in some form for as long as there is a demand (a trust that cannot be equally placed with any closed source software, which can disappear with the collapse or acquisition of the company holding the software rights).
What I am sure of is that we will see changes. Oracle has a strategy, or if it doesn’t, it will. Some of these programs will likely see greater support and resources (hopefully OpenOffice), others will likely see less (hopefully none of them). Some may become more focused towards a particular segment of the technology world (watch MySQL for this possibility).
Look at what you use, and recognize that today marks a turning point for some of the software. Hopefully it is for the better.
found via TechCrunch and MetaFilter
Now that Google Ventures has been officially announced, I can go public with my own news:
Libology is one of the first group of startup companies which will be receiving Google Ventures funding. I have been in talks with someone from their Cambridge office over the past few weeks, just sent in the signed contract yesterday, and today the terms of the contract take effect.
The biggest change you will notice is that they requested some design changes to this blog, mainly to make it easier to integrate with other Google services. (See below for screenshots) If you are viewing this through a feed reader, check out the main page of this blog, or view this post.
Another change you may notice is that I will stop being critical in any way, shape or form when referring to Google or any of their partners, including OCLC.
And, of course, one must always remember what today is!
Google Style Main Page
Post Googlized
Today is the second annual celebration of Document Freedom Day!
So why are open document formats important? What happens when someone sends you a document created with Microsoft Word 2007, and saved with the default file format? You get a file with a .docx extension, and you have to find some way to convert it or obtain it in another format.
What happens when you encounter a file from a program you used 10 years ago, when the company is out of business, and you don’t know anyone who still uses it? This can be more challenging.
The purpose of open document formats is to ensure that the information about how the document was saved is available for any person/company to utilize. Importers for different programs and standalone converters can be created; the files themselves can sometimes be opened using simpler means.
The most forward-thinking and useful set of open document formats are those from the OASIS project. They are in use in several programs, but the highest profile of these is OpenOffice.org. The Open Document Format has proven to be very robust, and stores information in a manner that generally makes them much smaller in size than the Microsoft Office pre-2007 formats (I average about 10% on reports that I generate on a regular basis… that means 10% of the file size, not merely a 10% reduction!).
I like to do this demonstration: make a copy of a .odt (Open Document Text) file, then change the extension to .zip. Open the zipped file and start looking around. Any graphics embedded within the file are saved in a separate folder. You will find the raw text of the file in files. All in all, this is a very open way to store and retrieve information from files that you may not be able to open otherwise (plus it is a great way to extract the graphic files).
What can you do to improve things? Get OpenOffice (or try Go-oo, which bundles some great plugins and configuration settings) and try it out. It is different from Microsoft Office, but once you are familiar with the menu placements, you can do some wonderful things.
What else? If you are a Microsoft Office user, you can download and install the converters for ODF files.
Anything else? Yes… think about what your needs may be for 5, 10, 20 years down the road, and strive to use document formats that will fill those needs effectively. My recommendation lies with open formats rather than closed.
Added later: Thanks to Rose Guerrieri, Director of the Kent State University Trumbull Campus Library, for her reminder via the Ohiolink list!
Library Journal has announced the winners of the 2009 Movers & Shakers awards, and as usual, the recipients are fantastic and enthusiastic innovators who look for new ways for libraries to be better:
I hope each of them has read What We Need, and that this year marks a reversal of the trend of institutional discouragement that has plagued recipients in the past. If you have a Mover & Shaker in your organization, celebrate the award; if you have people who are potential movers and shakers (and I am not limiting this to the award), be sure to find ways to encourage them.
seen first on Stephen’s Lighthouse
Added 16 March 2009: LISNews posted a link to a Photo Gallery page on Library Journal… lots of smiling professionals!
The UCLA Library has acquired the library including many papers of Aldous Huxley, who died in 1963 (the same day as John F. Kennedy).
As Island is one of my favorite reads, this gives me one reason to actually want to visit Southern California.
found via LISNews
I don’t normally gush over new tech toys on this blog, but I suspect that we are about to witness a sea change in portable computing:
The Touch Book is a netbook-but-more from a company called Always Innovating. It reverses the fundamental design of notebook computing in that the processor/memory/storage is in the same part of the computer as the screen. So what do you get when you make that screen a touch screen as well? A tablet computer with a keyboard dock.
The idea behind Touch Book is making it as versitile as possible, allowing people to use it in different modes for different tasks.
Typing a document? Dock it in the keyboard. Watching a movie? Reverse the screen and fold it into a stand, or use the magnetic backing to attach the screen to a steel surface (like a refrigerator). Playing a game, reading a book, or surfing the web? Use the touch screen by itself for convenience.
This will be the first netbook to use the ARM Processor, which means that it runs without generating much heat (no fans to run and long battery life – 10-15 hours according to the company). It also means that it is an “instant on” device… no waiting for the computer to boot up. It sports high resolution, 3-D graphics, and is supposed to do a great job for watching movies. And it is very open… open source operating system, open architecture. There is a lot of room for innovation with this device.
This computer isn’t perfect (and it isn’t on the market yet… so any of these claims could be exaggerated), but it is a definite jump ahead for mobile computing. Microsoft has yet to announce whether Windows 7 will have an ARM version, so this may be limited to varieties of Linux and Android — but you will still be able to use it for anything the current crops of netbooks can do, with more versatility and for longer periods of time.
Here’s a demo video I found via Wired Blogs:
found via CrunchGear
Amazon.com has given in to the Publisher’s Guild on the issue of text-to-speech capabilities in the Kindle 2.
In their press release, Amazon states up front that “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given.“ In this statement, they are correct. If I read a book to someone who is visually or otherwise impaired, it takes a stretch of the imagination to suggest that I am actually staging a performance.
In addition, as I stated when the issue was first raised:
“How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader? In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?”
To state that a feature of your product is legal, and to understand the benefit that the feature would bring to users of the product, but to then allow it to be disabled arbitrarily by third parties strikes me as a company that is attempting to placate the “squeaky wheels” simply because they threaten legal action.
BookFinder.com Journal makes a comparison to the relationship between large-print books and magnifiers. Should the ability of consumers to use magnifiers while reading be controlled by the publisher (after all, it might be costing them large-print sales).
If you still feel that publishers should have the final say, then consider whether they should have this ability to control works that are in the public domain. It doesn’t matter whether it is the consumer’s right to use text-to-speech, according to this decision; it only matters that individual consumers cannot respond with the apparent impact that the Writer’s guild can muster.
There has been a similar theme in the bibliographical world lately – rules being put in place that attempt to ignore or even circumvent that which already exists, whether it is Public Domain, Fair Use, or the First Sale doctrine. OCLC, Google, and now Amazon have all implemented restrictions to their various offerings. OCLC, to their credit, has stepped back and is in the process of re-evaluating its approach towards licensing records. Google hasn’t even blinked about restricting access to Google Book items waaay beyond even the tightest of copyright interpretations. Amazon asserts the rights of users to use text-to-speech, but then allows those with a vested interest against it to control its use.
Yes, there is a pattern to all of this, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from continuing.
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.libology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Powered by FireStats