Libology Blog

2008 was an uncertain year for Libraryland.  Ideas and tools abound for how we can do more with what we have, and we are becoming more aware of what it is we have : data and the systems to organize it.

There are some serious storm clouds on the horizon:

• The economy is in a condition which hasn’t been seen since the 1930s, and most sectors are wondering if and when we will see the bottom.  This will affect libraries in two ways : Public libraries will see rising use in ways they have only dreamed of, and all libraries will see their funding and other resources fade.  This includes lower tax revenue for publicly funded libraries, lower dollars for state-supported organizations, and fewer funds for academic libraries as enrollment drops and higher education struggles to make ends meet.  These effects will be delayed somewhat, so there is time to prepare.
• Organizations and companies have finally discovered the value of data and other stored information.  The movement towards openness is being countered by a tightening of control.  Google Books, OCLC, and a variety of publishers are attempting to control access and use of what they have stored in their systems, sometimes even from the creators of the data/information.
• Costs for software, services and access are still driving upward at a rate that is unsustainable in the current economy.  Book publishers are already cutting back on the number of new authors they take a risk in publishing; journal subscriptions are still all over the place, with some titles having exorbitant rates, and others being published Open Access; software and service contracts are expensive, with the added stress and cost of switching to other systems keeping many from exploring other options.

What can libraries do?  Re-read the opening paragraph:  Ideas and tools abound for how we can do more with what we have.  Each library should look at their environment and evaluate what they can do differently.  Every service you offer should be examined for changes that will cost less and perhaps even offer more.  A few examples:

• On a larger scale:  what do you pay, in real dollars for your Integrated Library System (ILS), assuming you have one?  What would it cost you in staff time and money to switch to an open source alternative?  Companies are out there that offer support packages; I suspect that many libraries could offer much more with fewer resources in this area.  If you don’t currently have one, this may be a great time to begin that project.
• Do you offer laptop computers for checkout?  For staff use?  How much did each of them cost?  How much would be saved by selecting netbooks during their replacement schedule?  Perhaps you could even get two netbooks for less than the cost of each notebook.  This won’t work if higher-level software is needed (such as Photoshop), but most of a notebook’s use is in the realm of office software and internet use, which are the netbook’s bread and butter.
• Hire and retain people with tech savvy and curiousity, and give them the time and resources to experiment with new services and technology.  Do you really need to spend thousands of dollars to display book covers on your OPAC?  Is the cost of an OPAC upgrade preventing you from implementing one?  Can you add social networking features (reviews, recommendations, etc.) without wondering where the money will come from?  The answers may surprise you.  $100 and 100 hours of staff time can give you options for all of the above in a small-to-mid-sized library, if you have the environment to let it happen.

It is generally understood that new business opportunities are created in economic downturns, and that it is a great environment for a small company with an understanding of what the public wants.  The same goes for libraries and library organizations.  When everyone else is looking to protect what they already have (while spending lots of money in the process), those who develop new, inexpensive ideas are poised to suceed.  In libraryspeak : serve your patrons better for less money, and become the library you have dreamed of.  Your best opportunity may in fact exist now.

one of the links found via Open Access News

The State Library of Ohio has just released a Request For Proposal for an Open Source Statewide Resource Sharing System (Pdf).

Their summary page (which will soon contain an F.A.Q.) states that

The desired product would provide a seamless resource sharing solution, developed and released under an open source framework, in an environment of disparate integrated library systems (ILSs).

Looking briefly through the document, it looks to me as if the closest software in the library world is the Open-ILS Evergreen project, which is the platform for Georgia Library Pines system.  The largest challenge might be the system’s need to communicate with a wide variety of existing ILS platforms.

The timeline is ambitious:  Proposals are due by the end of January; a vendor will be selected and contracts signed by mid-March, a test system will be in place by September, and the system as a whole will go live in February 2010.  Wow.

Assuming that the vendor selection process goes well (Equinox and LibLime, are you ready?), this will be a very exciting time to be involved with Ohio libraries!  I am psyched!

A Useful Amplification of Records That Are Unavoidably Needed Anyway is an essay by Brett Bonfield which, dare I phrase it this way, usefully amplifies several of the major web-based entities which are intertwined with libraries.  These include (but aren’t limited to) OCLC’s WorldCat, Amazon, and LibraryThing.  Brett clearly understands libraries, and does a great job detailing the interrelationships between all involved.

Not directly related to the essay, LibraryThing has posted an expansion of their Common Knowledge fields for Authors and Events.  This is an interesting read, as it addresses in a real-world way the need for authorities and relationships.

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

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

found via the LibraryThing blog

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

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

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

After much anticipation, version 2.0 of the Social Opac (SOPAC) went live this morning at the Darien Library in Connecticut.

It looks very good… excellent, in fact.  I am already looking forward to playing with this version of the software.  What I really like at first glance:

• It was created with everyone in mind:  in theory can be coupled with any ILS for both the catalog and patron information.
• It is designed to allow sharing of reviews and other public content between libraries, thereby creating a larger social “pool”.
• The design is clean and looks to be well laid out.

The only problematic aspect I see initially is that it fails XHTML validation in a fairly dramatic way:  the doctype is listed as XHTML 1.0 Strict, but appears to have over 50 problems with the home page alone (over 200 for an OPAC search result page).  By just looking at the numbers, each type of page comes dramatically closer to validating as HTML 4.01 Strict (19 errors and 67 errors respectively) which seems odd to me.

Compromises in validation often have to be accepted for results pages, but I see no reason for not having a standards-compliant entry page.  I suspect that this could be a great “clean up” project once the dust has settled from the upgrade.

Overall, this is a great accomplishment, and a great piece of software.  This is certain to grab a lot of well-deserved attention, and will hopefully inspire all ILS and OPAC creators to improve their products.

thanks to Jessamyn for her post

Saw a shelf browse created for an Innovative (III) OPAC that is quite neat.  It lives on a development site for the Cambridge Public Library in Ontario, Canada and integrates Syndetic Solutions book covers into a pseudo-shelf listing.  Here is a direct link to a record.

Note that this has been done without resorting to Flash.  Try turning off the page’s CSS and you will see that it works just fine (just with a different scroll direction).  The page’s html still doesn’t validate, but I suspect that there aren’t any III opacs that validate properly, though I hope to be proven wrong someday.

Someday libraries will collectively understand what a good API can do for our web presence, and then the ILS companies will improve their products accordingly.  At least I hope so….

thanks to Mike Cunningham for posting the link to the Innovative User’s Group list

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been making some changes to the Scriblio installation on Libology.

The improved:

• I installed the Pop Blue theme, mainly because I didn’t like the way the default Scriblio theme used screen space. I like the layout, but need to format the content sections in the search results pages, as it looks more like gibberish than holdings information.
• I upgraded WordPress to the current version. This would have been done several weeks ago, except that the database is so large that I had to experiment with a wide variety of backup processes before finding one that worked.
• The facets work! Yea!

The not-improved:

• It is still slow, slow, slow. I was talking with a database programmer over the weekend, and she confirmed my guess that it is probably an indexing issue. Now to figure out the details…
• Book covers are gone with the upgrade, even though the placeholders are still there. I haven’t spent any time figuring out why.

I am a little happier, but still wouldn’t consider using this as a replacement for my work’s OPAC. Time and effort will tell. I am learning a lot, which was the point all along.

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

I have loaded another piece of library software on Libology : OpenBiblio.  It is an open source ILS (Integrated Library System) designed for schools, churches, and smaller libraries.

I am impressed with it so far.  It doesn’t have a lot, but what is there works fast, and the software seems very stable. It has circulation, cataloging, and administrative modules, as well as a basic reporting tool.  You can see the main screen here (although you need a login to actually go into the modules themselves… if you are curious, I can set you up with something temporary… let me know)

Most of all, it is written in php and runs on a mysql database, meaning that I can modify pretty much any part of it, given time and incentive.  I have a desire to update the Opac most of all:  it is table-based, and I know that it could be much more flexible and usable (not to mention standards compliant) with some adaptation.  Can you say microformats?

There are currently about 1800 items in the collection, which belongs to a church which is tired of paying a three-figure annual support fee for 10-year-old software.  The collection consists primarily of Christian materials, so keep that in mind when you check out the Opac.

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)

APML stands for Attention Profiling Markup Language.  Its purpose is to permit a standardized way to gather and transfer your interests from site to site across the web.  It is built using XML, and is definitely a new technology that may or may not catch on.  It could become an important element of using the web, because of the benefits it offers to users.

For example, Amazon.com tracks what you purchase, what is on your wish list, and even what you view (while logged in).  If you incorporated this into your APML file (which could be stored with an online service, on your computer or flash drive, etc.) your interests could be applied to other APML-compatable websites.

This has the potential, as with much web 2.0 technology, of creating privacy issues and complications.  It also could save users an incredible amount of time and effort, as resources relating to their interests would gain relevance and become much easier to find.  Think of the potential for searching news sites, link services such as Digg, and many other specialized discovery tools.

And yes, as John Fudrow suggests, it has a lot of potential for libraries.  Imagine how our users could benefit from this, especially when you add “suggested by others who liked this” and other social connectivity tools.

Marshall Breeding provides his annual overview of the shifts and trends in the world of the Integrated Library System (ILS) in the current issue of Library Journal.

Of interest is the definite movement of the open source systems, Koha and Evergreen, into the mix.  I’m surprised that they haven’t made this much impact in the past year or two, but I suspect that contracts and switching effort has made the library world very hesitant to try out new technologies at the level of the ILS and OPAC until they sense that others are using them effectively.

We could stand more experimenting, even on the sandbox level… who knows how much better we could be with a bit of time and effort?

Libology’s Scriblio installation.
Scriblio, the open-source Library OPAC that runs on a WordPress installation, has been installed on Libology.  Several notes about this software installation:

• The library catalog contained within this installation of Scriblio is Capital University’s, located in Columbus, Ohio.  I could have used any of dozens of libraries, but since I work there, it made sense to create something I could use on a regular basis.
• The software is fairly close to the default installation, although I plan to tweak the design over the next few weeks.  I have several projects on my plate, and I am happy to have reached a “live” status for this, so I may put it aside while I finish the book.
• Many of the links, especially the related subject and author links, do not work.  I haven’t looked into this yet, so it may be something I didn’t do, or activate, or something.
• It runs very slowly, most of the time.  I am not sure how much of this is due to my hosting service’s specs (a new service, for me), how much is due to database clutter (I have neither indexed the tables, nor adjusted the cache settings yet), or how much is due to factors in how I set it up.  The database is about 2GB, so I would imagine that it might take a bit of time to conduct a search.
• Most of the time delay over the past couple of weeks has been due to my chasing a ghost in the php code.  I had been attempting to set up the “real time status” reporting (this tells the location, call number, and availability of each item), and couldn’t get it to work.  As I am relatively new to php, I assumed that I was missing something there.  It wasn’t until I decided to try to work backwards and find the reference in the html code that I found out that it wasn’t working because it was made invisible via the style sheet.  From there it was a very quick fix.
• To see a very well implemented Scriblio installation, check out Plymouth State University’s Lampson Library’s OPAC.  They have nearly twice the number of records in their system, but their response time is much faster.  They have also done a great job with the page layout… very little wasted space.

My feeling about the software, at this particular point, is that it is an incredible demonstration of what can be done with a solid piece of software (WordPress) and some well-focused creativity.  Casey Bisson and the rest of the people who created this software have done a terrific job.

The downside is that it seemed, to me, harder than it should have been to get my installation this far.  To set things up properly one needed be comfortable working with WordPress, PHP, HTML, and CSS.  And this is only to get everything installed, imported, and configured to show the real-time status of the items.  I am not complaining… this is a young project, and what might be easy for one library (or one developer) might be tougher for others.

So, the question is : should you try to do this.  If you are interested, I say go for it!  If you have ever installed WordPress before, then there isn’t much that won’t be familiar (mostly editing URLs in PHP and editing a style sheet).  This is a great way to push your own envelope, and to learn a few things along the way.  This has certainly been a good learning experience for me….