The New York Times Blog announced today that they have released an API for their Best Sellers list.  Library programmers should jump on this.  Imagine being able to display information about an item’s rankings – dates, placement, etc. – in your OPAC like you can show book covers, Google Books, etc.

The data only covers June 2008 forward, but they will be extending it back to 1930 within the next few months.

This is a great move by the NYT; their Best Sellers list is considered definitive, and encouraging its use and adaptation means it will continue to be influential.

found via Web4lib (thanks to Steve Toub)

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

continued from here…

Evergreen and Project Conifer (John Fink) was a progress report / Q&A session about the installation of the Evergreen ILS for a consortium of academic libraries (McMaster University, University of Windsor, and Laurentian University). John gave a fantastic overview of the project, intended to go live sometime next year. It is a large undertaking, especially considering that they are writing the code for the Acquisitions and Serials areas of the software. He had an observation that I found interesting (and have noticed as well): people using III’s Millennium ILS tend to have a higher opinion of the software than is deserved. It is good, and it works fairly well, but it is deeply flawed, in my opinion. I will add that users of Voyager need to be reminded of the good points of their system now and then, but that it is also flawed. I will say again that Evergreen is going to have a much bigger impact than people realize.

Open Book, a WordPress plugin (John Miedema) was another high-interest session, since I had installed and used the plugin just one week earlier. To discuss the plugin and the reasons behind its functionality and existence with the developer was a great experience. The group discussed Amazon, OCLC, and Google (and their relative restrictions and freedoms) at length. John is a great supporter of the Open Library project, and for good reason.

Metasearch / APIs / Facebook for Libraries (David Fiander, Geoff Sinclair, Me) was a bit of a blur, since I was at the front and trying to think as effectively as possible (more challenging some days than others). I got to discuss my idea (a piece of software that uses an API that is as straightforward as possible, which passes requests to various library and bibliographic systems and returns the results… this could allow search tools and OPAC overlays to work with a standard set of rules, as well as allowing meta-search tools to become more effective), but didn’t feel that any brainstorming actually took place. If someone doesn’t point out a big flaw in my thinking (especially when I am stretching my abilities beyond their comfort zone) I suspect that I am politely being listened to. Maybe not…

The Wrap-up went fine, but there wasn’t a call for action, or a consensus as to what should come next from all of this. I can’t say I expected one, but I was hoping to have some sort of Eureka moment. I did have a strong feeling that I was going to put everything together in an interesting way during the drive home on Saturday, but it didn’t happen that way (keep reading).

We then walked over to the BiblioCommons office for a buffet tray/beer/wine dinner party. I had some great conversations here, and completely forgot to find out what exactly it is that makes people speak of BiblioCommons in reverent tones. There isn’t a lot of information out there beyond it being a “complete social discovery system for libraries” (from their website). People whose opinions I respect are very impressed with it, and I was in a conversation with one of the people directly involved and never asked one question about it. Shame on me!

I ended up skipping the pub night outing, as I stopped by the hotel and felt tired, and spent the time putting pictures online. I went to bed early, and slept very fitfully, until about 4 a.m. That was when the gunshots began. There were 7 ro 8 of them, from at least two guns, sounding like they were just outside the building. I woke at the first shot, rolled out of bed (away from the window) on the second, and duck-walked to the bathroom with my phone as they continued. I was on the third floor, so I don’t think I was likely to get caught in the line of fire (I figure they were either shooting at each other, or shooting into the air). It was a very unpleasant experience, and I didn’t get to sleep for quite a while (and didn’t sleep well then). When my alarm went off, I decided to cancel my sightseeing activities, get some more rest, and leave Toronto straight from the hotel.

So that’s why I didn’t spend the trip thinking about neat library technology and such. Too bad, because this was as good a conference as I have ever attended, and I complimpent John, William and Stacy on their excellent work. I encourage more groups to consider this format (it would work well as part of a standard conference format as well… just set up a block of time, or a conference track, as an unconference).

ILS Basic Discovery Interfaces, a.k.a the Berkeley Accord

In what may turn out to be a historically significant event in the history of library tech, a group called the ILS Discovery Task Force has generated an outline detailing what amounts to an Application Programming Interface (API) for the library OPAC. They are calling this the Berkeley Accord. Not only have they hashed out the basic understanding, but the following companies/organizations have undersigned the document:

1. Talis
2. Ex Libris
3. LibLime
4. BiblioCommons
5. SirsiDynix
6. Polaris Library Systems
7. VTLS
8. California Digital Library
9. OCLC
10. AquaBrowser

What does this mean? This means that sometime in the hopefully not-too-distant future, someone can create an online search tool and know that it will work with OPACs from many different ILSs. Much like browsing the web is a similar experience with Internet Explorer 7, or Opera 9, or Firefox 3 (because they use a shared understanding of how to display the html and css found on the web) searching various libraries using the same interface (because they use a shared understanding of how to access the information in the ILS) can make research more effective for everyone.

If this is realized, it will make our jobs easier, our patrons happier, and the institution of the library more powerful and effective. It can be a “win” for everyone who recognizes that the future is dependent on advancing search technology and interoperability.

Of note is the lone abstention: Innovative Interfaces, Inc (III). They indicate that while they agree with the general principles, they cannot offer their support until much greater detail is known about the framework. My initial thought is to question this: if you feel that this is a good foundation, then agree to it and work to build upon it. If there are flaws, express them and work to build support on an improved foundation. What comes to mind is a zen koan:

“When walking, just walk. When sitting, just sit. Above all, don’t wobble.”

found via a posting on NGC4lib (Next Generation Catalog for Libraries) by Eric Leese Morgan

This is a few days old, but it is still an important bit of news : Google has opened it’s Application Programming Interface (API) to developers. What this means for libraries is that they now have the potential to link their catalogs, via ISBN, OCLC, or LCCN numbers, to items available through the Google Book Search.

As with many of Google’s offerings, there are caveats : there doesn’t seem to be a way to generate any information to indicate full-text availability (the information from Google loads after your OPAC entry), which makes it harder to know just how much it adds to your collection.

As time goes by, however, this could become a powerful tool to leverage our library presence… this is another step in making as much information available to the user as possible, and making it easy to find as well. Libraries should look into making this work for them… everyone stands to benefit.

from Open Access News, LISNews, Official Google Blog

Issue 1 of the Code4Lib Journal is now available!

The journal is an open-access journal dealing with, well, the more techie aspects of libraries. Even if you aren’t into systems and web coding, you should still look this over. The articles give a snapshot of creative technical solutions for libraries, and include:

• Beyond OPAC 2.0, an overview of CatalogWS, an application programming interface (API) for library catalogs. The idea behind the software is to create a universal way to access library catalog information across different Integrated Library Systems (ILS).
• Book Review : The Success of Open Source, by Steven Weber, which is actually a fantastic brief overview of what Open Source is, from a library perspective.
• 700 Dollars and a Dream, which is a column about a small library that installed and implemented Koha, an open-source Integrated Library System (ILS).

Even if you aren’t into the tech aspects of libraries, check out this journal. It never hurts to look into the leading edge of the profession, and you might encounter a new solution for your own library!

found nearly simultaneously via Catalogablog and a Web4Lib list posting by Tom Keays