A List Apart has been a steady source of thought-provoking inspiration over the years, not only from a website building perspective, but also because much of what they publish crosses boundaries and impacts other projects and interests in my life.

Their current article, Accent Folding, greatly impacts library data in general, and library catalogs in particular.  It deals with the issue of Unicode and pattern recognition, namely how one creates search tools that allow for variations in how words containing accents, stress marks, and other non-ascii characters.  The most succinct example:

There is no excuse for your software to play dumb when the user types “cafe” instead of “café.”

The article presents methods of “normalizing” text to allow for proper matching, and should be read by anyone who gets to deal with library data for reports and searching aids.  If you know how to use regular expressions, you will likely be in for a treat.

The other example they present, this time to demonstrate the limitations of accent folding, uses Japanese to illustrate just how differently the same data can be presented:

These four sentences all say “Children like to watch television” in Japanese:

• Kanji: 子供はテレビを見るのが好きです。
• Hiragana: こども は てれび を みる の が すき です 。
• Romaji: kodomo wa terebi o miru noga suki desu.
• Cyrillic: кодомо ва тэрэби о миру нога суки дэсу.

Even if you don’t end up applying this directly to your work, the information in this article will help your appreciation for the challenges contained within your data, and how tough it can be to make it “just work” sometimes.

This is a couple of months old, but it is worth highlighting:

Unlocking the Passion Paradox

Kenneth Eikenberry illustrates the benefits of being passionate about your work, and how one can encourage and develop those passions.

From the post:

When you are passionate about an activity, event or situation, your satisfaction, success and productivity all skyrocket. If you want those benefits more of the time, it isn’t enough to wait for that passionate feeling; you must look for the opportunities, because until you look, you won’t find your passion.

He extols the benefits of having a good attitude, especially looking for the positive aspects of one’s work, as well as seeking out opportunities to apply your strengths through volunteer work or hobbies.  I can certainly vouch for these methods; they can certainly make a difference in your life, as well as providing benefits to others.

found via Library Garden

Bill Mayer, the University Librarian at American University, has been implementing some fairly radical (for libraries) changes in how the library exists on campus and interacts with the university community:

Next Steps : Change at American University

I really don’t have much of an opinion on any particular changes, mainly because I think that any library needs to seek out the ways to best serve their community.  This means hanging on to traditional ways of service, while at the same time implementing out new tools and ways to connect people with what they seek.  The best results for this process will be different for different libraries and communities.

I was, however, impressed with his approach:

…one word kept coming up over and over again: trust. “Trust is the most important aspect of the work we do—without it, there can be no change, no movement, no growth,” he said. I asked him how one goes about building trust and his response was simple: listening. “You ask questions and then you listen to what others say and suggest, and then you build up together from there. That’s a key part. If an administrator doesn’t ask, or even worse, asks but doesn’t include aspects that staff suggest, then you lose trust.”

If he walks that talk, then I think he has a good chance of finding the right balance for American University.

The American Antiquary Society has a great visual reference on the Anatomy of a Catalog Record:

found via Catalogablog

While clearing out old lists of post inspirations, I ran across a post on Commonplace.net that still gets my brain going:

At my place of work, my desk is in close proximity to our two catalogers.  The conversations that ensue about cataloging standards, MARC, and such are often interesting, and occasionally stray into realms so esoteric that it becomes a challenge to keep up with the thread of conversation.

My rare contribution usually boils down to “I am an agnostic as to what standards are used, but the basic storage and retrieval of cataloging information should be as granular and relational as can be achieved.”

By granular, I mean that information should be divided into small, well-defined chunks.  When an author is listed as “Smith, John, 1947-” I cringe a little.  Dividing the author’s first and last (and middle) names into separate fields makes a world of sense, especially when you encounter authors with multiple middle or last names (or both).  Instead, MARC relegates the name into one string.  This also creates problems with cultural differences in how given and family names are presented.

Another problem is that this information exists separately in each bibliographic record.  If our data storage systems were to store author/creator information in a relational manner, we could have one record for “Smith, John, 1947-”.  This would make it much easier in the unfortunate circumstance that the author becomes “Smith, John, 1947-2010″.

Most library software uses granular and relational database methods for the storage of circulation and acquisitions information.  It is our bibliographic information that is stuck in an inefficient rut.

The strongest argument I can think of for changing this is that is is very easy to create scripts and use software to put together small pieces of information to create an easy-to-understand string; it is much, much harder to take that string and break it into well-defined and usable chunks in order to use the information in new ways.

The future of data is not so much everyone using the same specific standards, but using standards that can be compared and used in ways that are compatible.  We can easily build MARC records from a granular relational database; cataloging need not change how it views and edits records (not much, at least), but the current methods are holding libraries back.

ALA Learning’s Top Ten Customer Service Skills for Library Staff is not only a great review of those habits that can make us more effective when we interact with the public, but are also good reminders of what we can do to improve communication and collaboration with co-workers, vendors, family, friends, strangers, etc.

found via MLxperience

Baker & Taylor has the next big thing in ebooks. Really!

As with all of  the “next big things” we see in digital technology, we get to “wait and see”.

However, reading the post makes me marvel at the possibilities that this could provide to libraries that use Baker & Taylor and their Yankee Book Peddler (YBP) subsidiary.  Imagine being able to offer e-books bundled with any print copies purchased, with cataloging services included.

found via LISNews

I see these types of messages all the time on library-related websites, and I agree that it sends the message that those who manage those sites don’t have a good grasp of current web technology:

Time to Update? by David Lee King.

Check the web sites that your library presents to the world.  If you see messages like those highlighted by David, start talking to people about getting them up to date (or better yet, getting rid of them, since a good standards-designed site will work well across browsers and browser versions).

OCLC is previewing their new Policies Directory site, which is set to go live on December 13th.  To try it out, point your browser to:

https://policies-preview.oclc.org/

• Authorization:  100028264
• Password:  oclc

Be sure to enter your OCLC Institution Symbol to view your library’s directory information.

Be sure to visit OCLC’s overview of changes to the directory, which includes the link to the live directory.

found via ResourceShelf

How College Students Seek Information in the Digital Age (pdf) is a report from Project Information Literacy, maintained by the Information School at the University of Washington that contains a few surprises for libraries:

• Course readings were the first place most students turn to for course-related research (97%).
• Over 80% of students used library-provided research databases.
• Usage of library offering (research databases, OPAC, print materials, and study areas) were all above 50%.

Now the not so good:

• All interactive library research (talk to a librarian, attend a training session, use chat, e-mail or other online “Ask A Librarian” service) fell below 25%.
• Students are missing out on potential resources (including library research assistance), simply because those resources are not within their range of research activity.

Where are students going for assistance?  They tend to go to their instructors for guidance and assistance, but otherwise they simply use the resources they already know about, or discover in the course of their research.

What might this mean for libraries?  We should push for better interaction with instructors, so that they will be more likely to understand the full range of resources available for students to use, and will be more likely to refer students to an interactive library resource (which was only done 26% of the time — and the only result on the survey below 60%).

We also should examine our online presence.  How does it present research resources?  Will someone looking for a particular type of information be able to locate all the resources that the library has to offer?  Print and online library guides for these activities can also be very beneficial.

This report should be read, and reviewed, with each of our libraries in mind.  By understanding that the people we interact with are only one-fourth of the population using our resources, we can begin to re-focus our efforts to ensure that what we have to offer will be used effectively.

found via Bill Drew, who found it via the Free Range Librarian

The Library 101 video debuted today at the Internet Librarian conference.  Created by Michael Porter (a.k.a. Libraryman) and David Lee King, the video is a foot-tapping, library-rocking tour-de-force.  Clear the next eight minutes in your schedule, put on some headphones, and enjoy:

The Library 101 website not only has the video, but also a collection of essays by prominent library supporters, as well as a “101 Resources and Things to Know” page that provides a great overview of just what they are striving to communicate.

To settle any bar bets, as well as disclose a connection:  I am in the video.  I first appear at the 30 second mark (though all you see is my arm and notebook computer), but show up later in full frame.

My using the computer for the “1″ and “0″ was the solution to a problem:  when the call went out for pictures of library people holding sheets of paper containing the magic numbers, I was on vacation in Branson, Missouri.  No printer.  I could probably have found a Kinkos, but it wouldn’t have gone over well with my family because, you see, I was on vacation.  Drawing the numbers might have worked for someone with artistic talent; not for me.

I really like my idea of using the computer… it fits the theme of the video:

So, I hope you watched and enjoyed the video… Michael and David deserve some serious positive feedback for their ideas and efforts.

Want to Innovate? Stop Working So Hard is a post on Librarian by Day by Bobbi Newman that reminds us that the ideas most likely to transform the way we work tend to come at moments of relaxation.

Not convinced?  Check out the linked articles and video (thought he New Yorker article requires you to be a subscriber) for more in-depth persuasion.

This isn’t a call to slack, but an emphasis on prioritizing your downtime, and to recognize when an idea has that extra something to make your library world that much better.  How much time can you save by making changes to your work flow?  What activities and results should be priorities?  Can you achieve more with less effort?

Probably!

Google is celebrating the 57th anniversary of the first barcode patent by (surprise!) replacing their logo:

Having played around with barcodes over the years, I got curious.  I printed out the page, plugged in my declawed CueCat, and scanned the barcode.  The result was both expected and surprising:  “gOOGLE”.

I haven’t been able to determine which barcode format is being used, and I have tested about 25 different formats.  Some sources are indicating that the format is Code 128, but I haven’t been able to replicate that even though I have tried several different barcode generators.

Why lead with the lowercase “g”?  Why have “OOGLE” in uppercase?  Why celebrate the 57th anniversary?  I am curious, but have not found any clues, nor has Google posted anything on either their official blog or the logos page.

I think barcode standards are under-appreciated in the library world.  They have done more to aid our handling of materials than anything short of computers, with which they are intertwined.  They serve as perhaps the best example of a standard that benefits all users, and I suspect they will be around in some form or another for quite a while.

Update:

Following some information found on TechCrunch led me to the Google zxing project.  Running the barcode09.gif file through their barcode recognition software generates “Google” with the format of CODE_128.  Within the Google sofware family, at least, the barcode works as I would expect.

My favorite example of “proper” library terminology that doesn’t relate to the language in use by the general public (or most library employees for that matter) is Cookery.

The Library of Congress is in the process of retiring the subject heading for “Cookery” and replacing it in most cases with “Cooking” (Pdf).

found via Catalogablog

Lorcan Demsey discusses a previous post about Metadata that he wrote a couple of years ago, and the implications for how we approach the creation and selection of information about information.  His four categories:

1. Professional. Produced by staff in support of particular business aims. Think of cataloging, or data produced within the book industry, or A&I data.
2. Crowdsourced. Produced by users of systems.Think of tags, reviews and ratings on consumer sites.
3. Programmatically promoted. Think of automatic extraction of metadata from digital files, automatic classifcation, entity identification, and so on.
4. Intentional. Data about choices and transactions which support analytics or business intelligence services. Think about ranking, relating, recommending in consumer sites (e.g people who like this also like this) based on collected transaction data.

The traditional library approach has been the first category (Professional).  The downside is that it it far too time consuming to keep up with the firehose of new resources.  When was the last time you heard someone discuss cataloging the internet?

The challenge with the remaining options is the opposite.  There is a great deal of metadata being generated, and the challenge is to organize and/or standardize what we use.

Where does this leave library catalogers, and libraries in general?  How should we focus our efforts?  Should we focus on traditional metadata creation, or should we attempt to update and adapt our processes and standards to a changing world?  Potential rewards, and possible troubles await either choice.  Can we forge a path that allows us to do both, or is that doomed to failure.

Just some things to think about….

Circulating Zen posts about dealing with a staffing issue on a holiday weekend. She is faced with a student worker scheduled to cover several shifts (allowing other students to travel home for the holiday weekend) who has come down with influenza.

Her solution is one that doesn’t fit the guidelines of her workplace.  It does, however, fit the guidelines of her work ethic : professionalism.

Read her post, and remember the instances where you, and others, have stepped beyond your working hours, your job classification, or some other guideline to solve a problem.  Why is this done?  Someone sees a need, determines a solution that fulfills the need in a way that best serves the principles of libraries and their own work ethic, and follows through.

Simple?   Not really.  It is easy to say “not my job” or “I’m simply following the rules”.  Far more challenging is determining when and how to step beyond what you are supposed to do, and do what is truly called for in the situation.  Especially since the person potentially exposes themself to criticism by doing so.

Circulating Zen sums it up well:  “I shouldn’t pawn it off on anyone else. It’s not professional.”

The Future of Libraries, With or Without Books is a rarity : a mass-media (CNN) news article about the ongoing evolution of libraries that doesn’t dwell in stereotypes, cliches or “gee-whiz” style examples.  What the reader gets is a well-written news article that paints a well-balanced picture of the issues and general direction of the library world.

Good work, CNN!

found via Helene Blowers on FB

HealthBase is a health information search tool created by Netbase that should be on your short list of resources.

Search results are drawn from a diverse range of resources, including WebMD, PubMed, Medline Plus, and the Mayo Clinic.  NetBase uses a semantic-based indexing system to obtain the context of articles, and provides targeted results categories to allow the user to find specific information on their topic.

It is a very useful service, with the usual caveats regarding health information on the web (they also index health information from Wikipedia, so be sure to check sources).

found via ResourceShelf and TechCrunch

As the Google Books settlement works its way to becoming reality, it is becoming apparent that Google Books will be transformed into something very much resembling a library.

Think of how this might change our roles in society.

found via LISNews

The State of Ohio has launched an iTunes site that is designed “to share educational resources, professional development materials, and student videos which have been produced by members of higher education, the K-12 community, and community partners free of charge with unlimited access.”

There is a wide range of material available, and it is great to see them open to everyone, with the only requirement being the iTunes software.

Launch the site within your installed iTunes, and see a model for what other states, educational institutions, and libraries can do with their media content.

discovered via the OhioLINK Digital Resources Management Committee (Drmc) list