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):

• Users should be able to see the notes as they exist.
• The text in the notes, as well as all labels and notations, should be fully keyword searchable.
• All elements of the notes, including text, formulas, diagrams, etc. should be able to be targeted and described in a way that allows for keyword searching.  This includes “tagging”, but also commentary, description and critique.
• Users should be able to define relationships (create links) between ideas within the notes, as well as documents and other resources from other collections.  For instance, someone seeking information on the Saturn V Engine Bell should find all drawings, notes, diagrams, and formulas within the notes, as well as outside resources relating to all of these.

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

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:

• Zinc (and many other vitamins and minerals)
• Willow Bark
• Massage Therapy

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

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.

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

The Legal Technology blog on the Law.com website recently listed ten resources for free case law, detailing their respective strengths:

Get Your Free Case Law on the Web

found via ResourceShelf, crediting Law Librarian Blog

Wolfram|Alpha is a new type of internet resource that has just gone “live”.  Many are calling it a new type of “search engine”, which it technically is, but it isn’t a search engine in the way we are used to envisioning one.  Others are calling it an “answer engine”, which isn’t a bad description.  Wolfram takes the user’s query and builds a response from a variety of resources that resembles what one might get from an almanac or or encyclopedic resource.  Wolfram’s own “about” page avoids any particular label.

Right now it has a relatively limited set of resources.  It does well with towns, states, people, movies, word definitions and many scientific questions in the areas of mathematics and chemistry (which is understandable considering that it was built using Mathematica as the foundation.  It doesn’t do well with music, books, television shows, and abstract concepts.  Much of this has to do with the data sets and methodology that is in place, and I expect to see much greater depth and breadth represented as time goes on.

I have spent a bit of time last night and this afternoon playing with it, and am fairly impressed.  Try a few queries, and be sure to view the “Source Information” link at the bottom of the results.  This provides a fairly generic listing of the resources used for that type of query.  Not all of the sources were necessarily used for your particluar query, but were the sources from which the data was extracted.  One can see that with the addition of additional resources, Wolfram could become powerful first step for research.

Some sample queries:

• DeKalb, Illinois
• World According to Garp (movie)
• World According to Garp (novel) [note that this one fails... no resources yet for literature]
• Heaviest Gas Element [many variations of this don't work, an example of syntax, I suppose]

and it doesn’t know quite how to handle leading articles, either:

• The World According to Garp (movie)

This is going to be a great reference; it needs time to mature and for additional data sets to be included.  This is certainly one place where the use of library cataloging information would be very, very beneficial.  Imagine being able to connect the dots between books, authors, publication dates, settings/locales, etc. and other data sets.

There are many sources of data that are mostly silos waiting to be tapped, Infochimps.org being one example.  How quickly and effectively they are able to incorporate useful data will partly determine how successful this resource becomes.  Improving their context recognition (i.e. figuring out what a person wants to know based on their typed input) is the other, perhaps harder, challenge.

Other sources of commentary and information:

• Resource Shelf’s Brief Users Guide to Wolfram
• Quizzing the World’s First Answer Engine
• MetaFilter’s entry, and resulting discussion/commentary
• Wikipedia’s Wolfram Alpha entry

In closing, I like their nod to 2001, A Space Odyssey in their load exceeded error screen:

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...

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

Evernote is an online service that serves an interesting purpose:  it allows you to indicate digital items that you wish to remember, it stores them, and then makes the entire collection searchable.

Or more specifically, you can have it remember all your blog posts, tweets, iPhone items (photographs, etc.), typed notes, e-mails… whatever you tell it to store.  Everything gets indexed in their database, and will be there for you to retrieve at whatever time you wish to do so.

Right now this is simply a neat idea, and assuming that it works as smoothly as it’s description, a good way of archiving the wide varieties of communication and digital storage we use in our daily lives.  However, I think it is more than that… I suspect that this is the social leading edge of what is becoming more and more necessary in the digital age: the necessity of having some sort of structure to the hodge-podge of data that accumulates like peanut shells in a sports bar.

Another way of viewing this is that it is similar to the ideas behind the Semantic Web.  This isn’t a perfect match, of course, but the ability to match up commonalities between different chunks of data is the goal in each of these endeavors.  Understand that the amount and variation of the data is not going to be reduced in the years to come… we are going to need tools like this just to keep abreast of the tide of information that we will encounter.

Watch for other companies to address this idea; I will likely wait for something that can reside on my own server space (perhaps syncing indexes with others for greater effect), and preferably open source, rather than trust that this or some other cloud will achieve permanence.

found via the Proverbial Lone Wolf Librarian

It is nearly time for Marshall Breeding’s annual Automation Systems Marketplace report, published in the April 1st edition of Library Journal.  This is as comprehensive and informative a report on the software we use to organize and present our collections as exists, and it portrays trends within the library community.

Paired with his announcement, however, was a request for library staff to review their listing on lib-web-cats, an online database of libraries, their basic directory information, and the software packages they use.  Find your library, review the information, and add / update / remove any information needed to make your listing current.

encountered on GuidePosts

The Washington State Library has compiled a group of resources called Hard Times in Washington Libraries for the purpose of giving libraries, library staff, and library users ideas and tools to adapt to the current and upcoming fiscal crunch.

Included in the staff section of Hard Times are resources for Grants, learning opportunities, and advocacy, as well as a blog for ongoing additions and updates.

They have also created a page on WebJunction Washington containing resources that library staff can use to help patrons.  It was through this resource that I found a great four-page document called Shifting Gears : Rethinking Resources in Tough Times (pdf) created by Rose Chenowith, Library Development Consultant for the Alliance Library System in Illinois, who has worked with Reaching Forward South (my former place of conference).

This is a model for one way that libraries can get the word out and make a difference.  Ask yourself what you can do.  Check out what resources your area can provide.  WebJunction, your state library, your regional library systems, and various community organizations offer many resources that can make a difference for you, your library, and your library’s patrons.

found via LISNews

Media-Morphosis : How the Internet will Devour, Transform, or Destroy Your Favorite Medium is an essay by Cory Doctorow on Internet Evolution.  Think of it as another way of describing the times in which we are living.  Then start thinking about things that the Internet will Devour, Transform, or Destroy that aren’t “mediums”….

found via LISNews

The ARL’s Ad Hoc Task Force has submitted their final report (pdf) on the OCLC license policy change, and there is a great deal of constructive advice for OCLC to use.  The report’s Summary of Recommendations:

1. OCLC needs to develop a new policy regarding the transfer and use of WorldCat records that results from a wide  community review of issues; from member library engagement that builds understanding and consensus; and from a careful, widely discussed exploration of how the policy will achieve articulated goals, including whether or how restraints in record sharing may be needed. The currently proposed policy does not meet these criteria.
2. The policy needs to be written in a manner that can be understood and accepted by the community (e.g., as were the prior guidelines). This includes using a positive tone, a full description of Reasonable Use, and a consistent integration with FAQs that will need to be linked to, and thus incorporated in, the policy.
3. The policy statement should include explicit and specific explanation of its intent and how it carries out that intent.
4. Before a policy is implemented, member libraries need an opportunity to analyze how it impacts their operating environments, existing third-party or other agreements, and legal or regulatory environments and resolve implementation questions raised by that review. Specific issues that need more analysis and development in the current proposed policy include: its application to “data extracted from a WorldCat record,” a possible broader definition of Original Cataloging, inconsistencies between the policy and the FAQs (e.g., in allowable uses of Z39.50), the definition of “commercial” use, and the concept of binding downstream users to a separate license. The process for developing the policy with community engagement may uncover additional issues that require more analysis in order to make the policy operational.
5. The policy addressing the use and transfer of WorldCat Records should not apply to records from other OCLC services that make use of WorldCat data, such as Identities. Separate policies should be developed for these services.
6. Recognizing that the policy will be a living document applied in a changing environment, there needs to be a member-community process for ongoing periodic review of applications and interpretations of the policy, e.g., through the work of a continuing review board. Agreements (and denials of agreements) for uses of records, such as those made (or denied) for commercial use, are also integral to the interpretation of how WorldCat records should be used and transferred. Information on these agreements and decisions should be incorporated into the review process.

In essence:  a community-based organization should use community-derived methods for implementing change.

found via ResourceShelf

Found via the posting of Beth Bernhardt’s ALA Midwinter presentation, Dealing with Free E-Journals : Are they worth the effort? (PowerPoint) , are several sites featuring links to free online journals:

• The Free Medical Journals Site
• Electronic Library of Mathematics : Mathematical Journals (plus a no-graphics version)

As well as these sites with article-level searching:

• SciELO (focusing on Latin American and Caribbean countries)
• HighWire Press

thanks to Open Access News

Gramophone Archive is the complete, searchable collection of every issue of The Gramophone since April 1923.

Enjoy audiophiles!

found via MetaFilter

Cybermetrics Lab, a research group based in Spain, has released a listing of the top 300 digital repositories in the world, which include a Top 300 Repository List and a Top 300 Institutional List.

This looks to be a great way to explore and discover new reference resources.  Take a look at the lists, follow a few links, see if you don’t find something worthwhile!

found on Stephen’s Lighthouse

If you have been concerned about the possible effects of the global financial crisis on libraries, you aren’t alone.  The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has issued a statement that is not only short, succinct, and dire, but also proposes some solutions that would not only aid libraries and consortia, but the content providers from whom they purchase.

ICOLC Economic Statement.

This is a very powerful and constructive statement which is meant to initiate some significant changes in the way resources are offered, selected, and purchased.  My compliments to those who crafted the statement; it is a good, proactive document.  Adopting its suggestions will benefit everyone.  From the statements:

“While there may be practical limits to this principle, publishers, authors, scholars, and libraries will be best served by those solutions that retain as much access to as much content as possible.”

Note that there are many, many adopters of this statement, including CARLI in Illinois, as well as INFOhio, OHIOLink, OhioNet, and OPLIN, all in Ohio.  Check the list at the bottom of the statement to see if your consortial partners have adopted it.

found via the Disruptive Library Technology Jester

Find Any Film is a British site that strives to be the starting point for locating films for purchase and/or viewing.

It is not nearly as comprehensive as the Internet Movie Database (I could not find The Story of English, the award-winning PBS Miniseries), nor does it provide a wealth of detail, but it certainly seems to be worth adding to one’s list of references.

found via ResourceShelf

A recent post, and the resulting discussion, on Metafilter has put me in a Unicode font frenzy.  A few links of note from there and elsewhere:

• decodeunicode.org is a wiki-based collection of Unicode characters.  You can browse as well as search through the character sets.  There is a lot to see here, and you may get into your own font frenzy; you have been warned.
• FileFormat.info has a Unicode section that provides some great resources, including a UTF-8 Browser Test Page.
• Unicode.org, the official Unicode organization, has a great comprehensive Code Charts.
• Sil.org has an excellent introduction to the Unicode standard, as well as a collection of downloadable fonts and software, including my favorite font for print:  Gentium.
• An additional font family that offers great Unicode support is DejaVu, which was recommended in the MetaFilter comments.
• Two interesting characters I had not encountered before:  Reference Mark (※) and Irony Mark (؟).

As someone who has worked with an ILS that didn’t have Unicode support, which was then upgraded to support Unicode, and then changed jobs and is now working with an ILS with very limited Unicode support, I have a great appreciation for the benefits of Unicode.

Libraries should, in all that they do, attempt to store and present data in Unicode.  This includes our catalogs, web sites, and other data repositories.  Even if you offer very little outside of the standard Western characters, it makes your data that much more accessible and useful.

Papers of the War Department : 1784 to 1800 is a searchable archive of documents from the early history of the United States that, until recently, were thought to have been irretrievably lost in a fire.  Over the past decade, researchers have searched for copies of these documents in collections throughout the country, and have reconstructed the collection online.

This could also be viewed as a lesson of the benefits of distributed copies of valuable documents/information.

found in MetaFilter