Libology Blog

Whether you are a web designer, or just want to test a given web page (your OPAC, for instance?) for accessibility, WebAnywhere is a great web-based resource.

What it is, simply put, is a screen reader that works within your browser without requiring a plug-in or specialty software.  Just enter the url of the website you wish to have read, and it simply works.

This is a great way to enable all your library computers to be a bit more accessible, without having to install anything; as well as providing a resource for those with visual limitations.

found via MetaFilter

As an accompaniment to this and this, I am including the text of OCLC’s proposed policy which was posted briefly yesterday before being removed and replaced with “We are reconsidering some aspects of the policy. More information will be available in the near future.”

Debate and discussion are healthy, especially in world of libraries.  Understanding why this policy was proposed, and why it bothers some people, is critical to the understanding of who we are and where we are going.

The text located within this post has been copied from http://marc.coffeecode.net/oclc_2008_11_02/.  I did not see OCLC’s page, and cannot guarantee that it is unchanged.  I have no reason to believe that it isn’t what existed on OCLC’s site on Sunday.

Much of what is contained here is fair and reasonable; at issue, I believe, is the concept of controlling the data contained within OCLC records through licensing.  I feel that the removal of the policy from their website is a signal that OCLC is truly attempting to do what is right for all involved, and that they can craft a policy that will express that.  This is not the 800 pound gorilla that will get it’s way no matter what, but a tiger whose instinct is to protect its territory.  We should respect that territory, while at the same time respecting our own rights to the data at issue.

The text of the since-removed policy:

———————————————————————————————-

Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records

The Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records have been updated to become the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records. The policy is scheduled to become effective mid-February 2009, to give OCLC member libraries and other organizations time to implement any changes resulting from the update. Until that time, the Guidelines will remain in effect.
Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records
A. Intent of the Policy

OCLC® encourages and supports the widespread, non-commercial use of WorldCat Records (as defined below) for scholarship and research in furtherance of innovation that complements OCLC’s products and services for the benefit of libraries, museums, archives and other cultural heritage institutions and their respective patrons by

1. promoting the evolution of libraries, archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions, the use of their collections and the advancement of their professions;
2. increasing availability of library, archive, museum and other cultural heritage institution resources to individual users; and/or
3. furthering ease of access to and use of world-wide scientific, literary and educational knowledge and information.

This “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records” is designed to foster such use while protecting the rights of OCLC’s membership and its investment in WorldCat, and ensuring that the use of WorldCat Records hereunder provides a benefit to the OCLC membership. Benefit to the OCLC membership may take the form of reciprocal linking, metadata, remuneration, services-in-kind or other negotiated value. This Policy governs all Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records unless a separate written agreement is made with OCLC. Please read the entire Policy and the documents incorporated herein by reference to ensure full understanding of the Policy.

This Policy covers WorldCat Records as defined below. This Policy may also govern the Use and Transfer of WorldCat bibliographic data available through other services to the extent determined by OCLC. Please check the FAQ regularly for the applicability of this Policy to other services.
B. Definitions

1. “Policy” means this “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records”, as modified by OCLC from time to time.
2. “WorldCat” is the OCLC online union catalog, an electronic database of bibliographic records and other information maintained by OCLC;
3. A “WorldCat Record” is a bibliographic record meeting one or more of the following criteria unless otherwise specified by this Policy:
1. a bibliographic record obtained directly from WorldCat through the use of an OCLC product or service; or
2. a bibliographic record (i) identified as Derived from WorldCat by the party from which the WorldCat Record is received; or (ii) which is otherwise known by the recipient to have been Derived from WorldCat at any time prior to receipt. Please see the FAQ for information on fields, subfields and other factors that can indicate whether a bibliographic record has been Derived from WorldCat.

The Use and Transfer of data extracted from a WorldCat Record is subject to this Policy whether or not the extracted data itself meets one or more of the criteria described in this Section B.3 and shall be included within the term “WorldCat Record”.
An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record.
4. A bibliographic record in WorldCat is designated as the “Original Cataloging” of the agency represented in the OCLC MARC 040 field, subfield a (original cataloging agency).
5. The “FAQ” is the Frequently Asked Questions document providing more information regarding this Policy, as updated by OCLC from time to time, which is located at: http://purl.org/oclc/wcrup-faq.
6. An “OCLC Member” is an organization that is listed on OCLC’s membership roster as a Governing Member or Member of OCLC.
7. A “Non-OCLC Member” is any party (including an individual) who is not an OCLC Member.
8. A bibliographic record is “Derived” from WorldCat if it was copied or otherwise obtained from WorldCat at any time prior to receipt.
9. “Use” means use in accordance with the requirements and intent of this Policy without making a Transfer to another person or organization.
10. “Non-Commercial Use” means Use for the purposes of research, teaching, scholarship or private study provided such use is not Commercial Use.
11. “Commercial Use” means Use in any manner that supports, is intended for or directed toward or results in commercial advantage or monetary compensation, including, without limitation, any sale of WorldCat Records.
12. “Reasonable Use” means Use of WorldCat Records that is reasonable for the intended Non-Commercial Use and consistent with the intent of this Policy. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “Reasonable Use” does not include any Use of WorldCat Records that:
1. discourages the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat, thus damaging OCLC Members’ investment in WorldCat, and/or
2. substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat, for example for the purpose of providing cataloging services to libraries or other organizations. Please see the FAQ for a discussion of Z39.50 for cataloging using WorldCat-derived bibliographic records.
13. “Transfer” means conveyance to another OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member by exchange, merger, sharing, gift, providing the capability to download or otherwise electronically copy or any other means.
14. “Commercial Transfer” means Transfer of WorldCat Records for Commercial Use by the recipient.
15. “Holdings” means OCLC institution symbols attached to a record, indicating libraries that own, license or otherwise provide access to the item described by the record. An OCLC institution symbol is a unique identifier assigned by OCLC to Members.
16. “WorldCat Record Use Form” means the form prescribed by OCLC for purposes of contacting OCLC with proposals for Use and/or Transfer of WorldCat Records which are not authorized by this Policy. The WorldCat Record Use Form is located at: http://purl.org/oclc/wcrup-form.

C. Use of WorldCat Records

1. Each OCLC Member and Non-OCLC Member may Use WorldCat Records in accordance with this Policy.
2. Subject to the restrictions set forth in this Policy, OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members are granted the non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free right to:
1. reproduce WorldCat Records, incorporate WorldCat Records into works and base works on WorldCat Records; and
2. display WorldCat Records, works incorporating WorldCat Records and works based on WorldCat Records;
for Non-Commercial Use.
3. The following restrictions apply to Use of WorldCat Records:
1. Reasonable Use. Use of WorldCat Records authorized by this Policy is limited to Reasonable Use except as otherwise authorized by written agreement with OCLC.
2. Commercial Use Prohibited. Commercial Use of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party wishing to make such Use. [OCLC has a standard agreement available which authorizes the processing (for a fee) of WorldCat Records received from OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members.] The WorldCat Record Use Form should be used to initiate discussions with OCLC regarding an agreement authorizing Commercial Use of WorldCat Records. OCLC may refuse to authorize Commercial Use of WorldCat Records, without liability, in its sole discretion.

D. Transfer of WorldCat Records

1.
1. Subject to the restrictions set forth in this Policy, an OCLC Member may Transfer WorldCat Records of its own Holdings to other OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members for Use in accordance with this Policy.
2. A Non-OCLC Member may Transfer WorldCat Records of its own Holdings to OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members under separate agreement with OCLC. The Non-OCLC Member wishing to make such a Transfer must submit a WorldCat Record Use Form to OCLC for approval of the proposed Transfer. OCLC’s approval of the Transfer described in the WorldCat Record Use Form: (i) must be in writing; (ii) may be conditioned upon agreement to additional terms and conditions determined by OCLC; and (iii) may be withheld by OCLC, without liability, within its sole discretion.
2. The following restrictions apply to Transfer of WorldCat Records:
1. Attribution. WorldCat and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. must be clearly identified as the source of WorldCat Records Transferred. Please see the FAQ for information about appropriate attribution of WorldCat and OCLC.
2. Modification Restriction. The OCLC number (if any), the link to this Policy and any additional means of attribution (besides the link to this Policy) may not be removed from any WorldCat Record.
3. Commercial Transfer Prohibited. Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party that will receive the WorldCat Records. The WorldCat Record Use Form should be used to initiate discussions with OCLC regarding an agreement authorizing Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records. OCLC may refuse to authorize Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records, without liability, in its sole discretion.
4. Copy of Policy. If an OCLC Member Transfers WorldCat Records of its own Holdings under Section D.1.a above, the OCLC Member will provide the party receiving the WorldCat Records with a copy of this Policy (or a link by which this Policy may be accessed) and indicate that Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is permitted only in accordance with the Policy.
3. The Transfer of WorldCat Records by an OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member which do not represent its own Holdings requires submission of a WorldCat Record Use Form to OCLC for approval of the proposed Transfer. OCLC’s approval of the Transfer described in the WorldCat Record Use Form: (i) must be in writing; (ii) may be conditioned upon agreement to additional terms and conditions determined by OCLC; and (iii) may be withheld by OCLC, without liability, within its sole discretion.
4. WorldCat Records, a work incorporating WorldCat Records or a work based on WorldCat Records which are Transferred may be Used by the recipient only under the terms of this Policy. Additional or different terms may not be imposed. Any link to this Policy in a WorldCat Record that is Transferred may not be removed, hidden, deactivated or obscured.

E. Additional Provisions

1. The rights to Use and Transfer WorldCat Records afforded by this Policy shall automatically terminate upon any breach of the terms of this Policy. The OCLC Member(s) and/or Non-OCLC Member(s) involved in any breach of this Policy shall provide such assistance as is reasonably requested by OCLC to remedy the breach.
2. WORLDCAT RECORDS ARE PROVIDED AND/OR MADE AVAILABLE “AS IS”. NEITHER THE ORIGINAL CATALOGING LIBRARY NOR OCLC WARRANTS THE COMPLETENESS OF WORLDCAT RECORDS.
3. Neither this Policy nor the transactions contemplated herein serve to transfer any ownership right or interest in or to WorldCat or WorldCat Records, including, without limitation, the intellectual property rights therein.
4. When an organization makes bibliographic information available to OCLC which is subject to Use or Transfer restrictions which are different than those set forth in this Policy, and OCLC nevertheless elects to accept the information for addition to WorldCat, OCLC will inform OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members of the restrictions, and the rights to Use and Transfer such information will be subject to such restrictions.
5. Regardless of the source from which WorldCat Records are received, Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is authorized solely by OCLC pursuant to this Policy. Accordingly, this Policy constitutes a direct contractual relationship between OCLC and the party obtaining WorldCat Records, and may be enforced by OCLC directly against such party.
6. OCLC has the sole discretion to determine whether any Use and/or Transfer of WorldCat Records complies with this Policy. In the event OCLC identifies a Use and/or Transfer which does not comply with this Policy, OCLC shall notify the relevant OCLC Member(s) and/or Non-OCLC Member(s) and such parties agree to work with OCLC to resolve the noncompliance.
7. This Policy is the final, complete and exclusive statement of the agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Once applicable to a given Use or Transfer of WorldCat Records, no provision of this Policy may be changed, modified or supplemented except in a written document signed by the parties. OCLC may issue a modified version of this Policy or a substitute for this Policy at any time and the modified or substitute version will apply to any Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records after the date of issuance (or other effective date specified by OCLC).
8. If any provision of this Policy is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this Policy, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable. No term or provision of this Policy shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
9. This Policy shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio and the United States of America, without regard to principles of conflict of laws, except (i) as otherwise provided in a separate agreement with OCLC which incorporates this Policy; or (ii) as otherwise required by applicable law.

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 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!

The International Music Score Library Project is a great concept:  a collection of public domain musical scores made freely available to musicians, composers, and everyone else as well!

Note also that the site was built using MediaWiki software.

found via MetaFilter

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

The Annenberg Media website at learner.org is a resource that offers on-demand streaming video for “schools, colleges, libraries, public broadcasting stations, public access channels, and other community agencies”.

These are top-notch programs, several which I recognize as having been used in college-level learning. I stumbled upon this site while attempting to locate a replacement copy of one of the videos offered on the site.  They do require registration (free) in order to view the video streams.

Subject areas include:

• Arts
• Foreign Language
• Literature and Language Arts
• Mathematics
• Science
• Social Studies and History

Two additional subject area not listed on the site’s menu are:

• Education
• Education Reform

I am not sure why these aren’t listed, but here they are in case you find them helpful.  Chalk this up to my always being curious about how web menus are set up (thanks RFS!)

The quality of the video stream is as good as any I have encountered.  The only suggestion I have to the viewer is if you are using Firefox, you should install the MediaPlayerConnect add-on.  You will find this to be a great addition to the browser and saves you from all the WMP (Windows Media Player) plugin mess.

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

Footnote is an interesting social network:  it contains entries and social linking for dead people.

The concept seems morbid at first thought; however, it does provide a structured place to remember the dead, as well as provide links to others they were connected with.

Areas of the site worth noting are the Pearl Harbor Muster Rolls and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.  There are also a variety of Revolutionary and Civil War lists.

To gain an appreciation of the social aspect of this site, check out the Recent Connections page.

Keep this site in mind for the potential geneological information.

found via TechCrunch

A Simple Book Repair Manual is a web-based guide created and hosted by the Dartmouth College Library.  It covers what a library needs to set up a toolkit and make straightforward repairs.

Conservation Book Repair : A training manual by Artemis BonaDea is a pdf formatted book from 1995 (200 pages - complete 12MB pdf here) written by a Conservation Technician (who is now Curator of the Alaska Heritage Museum).

Bookbinding and the Conservation of books : A Dictionary of Descriptive Terminology, hosted on the Stanford University web site, is exactly as described, a dictionary of terminology.

Add these to your collection of useful links!

found via MetaFilter (warning : as addictive a blog as exists anywhere)

The Great Pandemic : The United States in 1918-1919 is a single resource on a specific topic, but it presents it very well.  Created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it focuses on personal stories from influenza survivors, telling the story of the outbreak from its origins in Haskell County, Kansas through its worldwide spread.

If you are not familiar with this event, this is a great place to start.  If you are familiar, this is a great review and a way to introduce this important historical event to others.

found via ResourceShelf

One of my lesser known interests is road signs.  I enjoy looking through various Rules of the Road sign pages, odd signs found on various roads, and pictures of road signs in foreign countries.  Making sense of some of the Mexican road signs during my visit last year was a challenge (a funny moment came with the understanding that “Returno” wasn’t a place, but a permitted area for a U-turn).

With that in mind, Manual of Traffic Signs is a fascinating site which focuses on United States signage.

found via ResourceShelf

This is one of those resources which you hope will not have to be used, but when it helps someone find the information they need, it can be invaluable:

The Unidentified Decedent Reporting System (Warning:  site is definitely not for the squeamish) is the National Association of Medical Examiners online tool for posting information about unidentified bodies across the U.S.  It is a distinctly depressing web site, with hints of sadness and loss in dozens of lives, and the realization that for many of these people there are families and friends without answers.

Along with the Doe Network, this site can help to bring closure to tragedy.

from ResourceShelf

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

100 Unbelievably Useful Reference Sites You’ve Never Heard Of is the title of a post on the TeachingTips blog. And yes, there are a lot of interesting and useful links to be found (though I suspect you may recall hearing about a few of them before…)

found via LISNews

OCLC: A Review (PDF here) is the title of an essay by Jeffrey Beall that is included in a book titled Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front.

First, let me reiterate my own attitude about OCLC: They are, for good and for bad, the 800 pound gorilla of the library world. Decisions that they make, and the approach they take towards librarianship, effect us dramatically, and there is not much that we can individually do about it.

They have done great things, from WorldCat.org to providing as complete a set of bibliographic records as exists in the world. Among the negatives are the cost barriers that can eat away much of the budget of smaller libraries, as well as the one-way trip that bibliographic information seems to make into their system.

This article, however, is a strong attack on OCLC that simply overreaches. Many of the projects run by OCLC, including WorldCat, have benefitted from their monolithic approach, and while I would much prefer to see them be more open and flexible, I still appreciate their scope and vision.

One example of the style of his argument: He opens the article with criticism for the title of Karen Schneider’s posts on ALA TechSource (”How OPACs Suck” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)). He states that her title is “specious, of course” because “they have quietly and efficiently been linking researchers and others with desired information for about twenty years.” He does not address the main concerns of the posts, which is how library search tools have fallen behind, and that the search capabilities that people have grown to expect are lacking in many of the major ILS OPACs.

It would be interesting to see an article that addressed each of her points in detail, explaining how the results she retrieved from various libraries in Part 1 are both valid and desired. What we get is his calling the TechSource editor “spineless” for allowing “such rubbish to be published”.

Near the end of the essay he also takes on Lorcan Dempsey, OCLC Chief Strategist and Vice President of Research. Again, he doesn’t quote, doesn’t give specifics, and doesn’t keep it on an opinion level:

“Have you ever tried reading one of his articles? They are some of the most incoherent and desultory articles in the history of information.”

“…of course, has a blog. He lives for new technology. It seems as if he thinks that any new library or information technology is automatically better than the technology that predates it and it must be implemented immediately, especially if OCLC has a hand in it.”

I use these two examples because I have been reading Karen and Lorcan’s blogs for some time. I saw Lorcan Dempsey present at the Ohio State University Library 2.0 Seminar last year. I can vouch that they have substance behind what they write, and that they are well worth reading. His blanket portrayal of OCLC as existing only to “separate libraries from their money” reminds me of a library director I met who once referred to the OCLC logo as a “swastika”.

And so, about this essay? Read it and recognize that there are some very valid criticisms contained within. Some of these are criticisms that I have expressed over the years. However, beware the hyperbole and the personal nature of his criticism, for they strongly overshadow that which is worth stating.

found via ResourceShelf

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)

Think of Infochimps.org as not only a wikipedia of data sets, but as potentially the greatest data mash-up tool yet.

Imagine having loads of census, weather, sports, and other statistical data available in one big database.  Then standardize the fields so that you can interconnect the data sets with each other.  From the Infochimps site:

“A central, community-driven repository solves these problems and presents amazing possibilities. Once we interconnect the datasets along concepts they share, instead of 100,000 datasets, there’s just one. Study the physics of baseball by comparing the hourly weather during every single baseball game to game outcomes. Uncover political campaign irregularities by comparing neighborhood per-capita income, historical voter trends, and public campaign finance records. Plan real-estate decisions based on what news-and-other-media keywords rank highly in each area.”

Still don’t see the possibilities?  Browse through the datasets that are already loaded.  Then check out what is coming in the near future.  This will likely be the first place we will want to go for statistical information, as long as it is fast and easy to extract what we need.  I am looking forward to seeing what they (or some other enterprising web designers) come up with to work with data on the web.

(does this sound vaguely familiar?  you might be thinking of Freebase.com, previously discussed here)

found via Open Access News