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

The Lepper Library in Lisbon, Ohio has initiated a new program to deal with severe budget cuts:  they are asking their users to help out by sponsoring magazine subscriptions.

This is a creative and interesting way to help maintain and even expand a collection.  I could even see an effort to encourage people to purchase books by their favorite authors for the library’s collection (perhaps they could be given the first hold slot for checking out the item).

This isn’t as good of an option for academic libraries, but I suspect that there are some possibilities in this approach.

found via Save Ohio Libraries

The Ohio Library Council has announced that they are canceling their annual conference due to low expectations of attendance.  The organization surveyed library directors throughout Ohio and determined that most libraries simply don’t have the funds to participate.

Is this the beginning of a slew of cancellations, or will it be limited to areas where funding is being drastically cut?  ALA 2009 apparently did well, but will smaller, regional conferences survive?

Watch for conferences to scale down, or even combine with other events, over the next couple of years in order to provide more “bang for the buck”.  If you are a speaker/presenter, look at how you might be able to benefit conferences in your area… they might need all the help they can get.

found via Save Ohio Libraries and The Limnal Librarian

The deal has finally been closed, and the state of Ohio has a new two-year budget.  The proposed cuts to libraries were scaled back by two-thirds, to about 11%.  All told, library funding is expected to drop between 25-30% from last year.

This is still not a good situation, but libraries are still better off than many other state services.

It didn’t have to be this way.  The budget process was confrontational, and most people have a bad taste in their mouth.  Most of this was due to the inflexibility and charged rhetoric coming from the Governor.  I suspect that we will revisit this episode during next year’s election, and that Ted Strickland will not be viewed favorably as a result of his words and actions.

Because I feel strongly that criticism should be joined with the responsibility of offering one’s own solutions, I feel that the option of a temporary sales tax increase (not affecting food or drug purchases) would have provided a reliable cash flow without negatively impacting those least able to cope.  This was never even included as a possibility by the Governor, perhaps because of next year’s election, and we have a controversial gambling plan plus drastic cuts in libraries and social services as a result.

Ohio residents:  is your voter registration current?  If not, make it so, and remember everyone’s words and actions when you make your choices next year.

some sources found via SaveOhioLibraries

Last Saturday, Governor Ted Strickland suggested that Ohio Librarians ought to take a pay cut rather than be critical of his budget proposal:

As for libraries, which, in Strickland’s original budget framework were slated for a 30 percent cut in state assistance, the governor said that librarians across the state might consider a pay cut.

“Other leaders have taken a pay cut,” he said. “I’ve taken a pay cut.”

If this were a debate over a 5% or 10% overall cut in library funding, then yes, the option of cutting salaries could make a difference for libraries providing services.  We aren’t facing that level, however.  If all public library librarians were to forgo their entire salaries, it still wouldn’t prevent the closure of many libraries and the gutting of services at most of the rest.

This suggestion is the equivalent of suggesting that by clipping coupons and buying store brand items, an unemployed family could avoid foreclosure.  It just doesn’t make sense.

The Ohio budget mess has become entangled in a mass of politics.  Politicians all seem to have a position; nobody seems to have a solution.  A valid and fair solution is going to hurt, but it needs to be found (and quickly).

from Save Ohio Libraries

Note (added 9 July 2009): As this post was quoted by American Libraries yesterday, I thought it best to reiterate that, as is stated in the About section, this blog is not affiliated with my current place of employment.  I am responsible for the opinions expressed in the posts, as well as the topics discussed.  I do not feel that I was either misquoted or misattributed, but that it could be misinterpreted.

The American Libraries article is just one of many to explain the issues facing Ohio, but I found the following information worth posting:

Strickland’s office was also flooded with phone calls; gubernatorial spokesperson Amanda Wurst said in the June 23 Toledo Blade that “there were 1,356 calls through our switchboard, 80% of which were regarding library funding.” On a normal day, the office receives 150 calls, she added.

On another front, Save Ohio Libraries has created a Flyer for tomorrow’s Statehouse rally in Columbus (Pdf):

Save Ohio Libraries Rally Flyer

Odds and Ends:

Save Ohio Libraries is the rallying cry as well as the focus of this week’s activities.

The Save Ohio Libraries Facebook page is rapidly approaching 12,000 members (and has gone from 11,543 to 11,768 as I have written this post).  If you are a FB member, add to that number.  Also, become a fan of Governor Ted Strickland and post a message on his board.  As events around the world in recent months have shown, social networking has an impact, and one of the ways to have an impact is a large group of people all taking a step in the same direction.

Rallies are being planned in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Centerville, London, Portsmouth, and (just organized tonight) Columbus.  If you can add a few bodies to the gatherings, do so!

One additional thought to add to this:  this is growing beyond Ohio.  There are many people from other states who are watching this with concern and support.  The success or failure of these efforts (both the efforts to drastically reduce library funding to help balance the state’s budget, as well as our efforts to preserve library services) will make it easier/harder for other states to do the same.  Broadcasting the understanding that cutting library services only hurts recovery efforts by the states will not only benefit libraries across the country, but will also benefit the overall economy.

Make yourself heard!

Here are two quick and effective ways for Ohioans to contact the Governor’s office and convey our thoughts on the library aspect of the budget crisis:

Contact the Governor is a standard contact form that resides on the official governor’s web site.

Ted Strickland’s FaceBook Page is amazing at this moment… there seems to be miles of supportive library comments posted on his wall.  Every single post is about library funding.  If you are a member of FB, I suggest that you consider adding your thoughts to the list.  Note that you have to “Become a supporter” in order to post a comment, but the most important criticism should come from those who support you.

Here is what I posted in both spaces:

Governor Strickland:  Please recognize that libraries allow those with limited means to access information and technology.  To severely cut funding at the same time that circumstances are pushing more people into the “limited means” category will only delay (and perhaps suppress) Ohio’s recovery.  Libraries do not expect to be exempted from budget cuts, but the severe level of the cuts means that many services and locations will not survive, just when people will need them the most.

Note that I do not suggest that libraries not face any budget cuts.  This is a statewide crisis, with many causes, and it will require intelligent and shared sacrifices by many.  To not expect any cuts would be unrealistic.  To implement modest cuts, combined with options to more effectively and efficiently serve patrons, could transform this into a win-win scenario.

I feel that there is a great deal of room for increased efficiency in library operations, especially when it comes to technology.  There are efforts to do this on a multi-state level, which is a solid step in the right direction.  Other steps can be taken statewide to save money and increase participation.  Efforts to find and implement technological efficiency at individual libraries themselves can provide greater service and budgetary savings in the long term.

A few items of note to update yesterday’s post:

The Library is Now Closed (a.k.a. Shuttered Library) is a blog created by an Ohio librarian named Mike (didn’t see a last name) which is compiling links to a vast amount of information and resources for libraries and supporters in Ohio. (thanks Jessamyn!)

Save Ohio Libraries is a blog detailing actions that people and libraries can take to, as the title suggests, save Ohio libraries.

A couple of additional links to Pdf articles that I missed yesterday, both from the “Balanced Budget Framework” page.  Note that neither of these have been properly named; save them to your hard drive and add “.pdf” to the end of the file name so that your computer will know how to open them (or you can open your Pdf reader and open the files from the program’s “File” menu):

• Balance Sheet by Line Item (detailed budget information, including the Governor, Senate, and House versions of  budget allocations)
• Highlighted State Strategies (a list of a dozen states, with their approaches towards balancing their respective budgets)

It’s happening, folks.  State and local budgets are under extreme pressure, and tough decisions are being made by Governors, state officials, countys counties, towns and taxing districts.  Libraries that rely on public funding are now almost certainly facing severe cuts.

In Ohio, state funding for libraries is facing a proposed $227 million cut over the next two years… a nearly 50% cut.  Ohio’s libraries happen to be, for interesting historical reasons (Pdf), very reliant on state-level funding for their operations.

When one reads Governor Strickland’s budget statement, as well as the overview of affects on various agencies (Pdf), it becomes obvious that the cuts are being shared by many agencies that will have trouble absorbing them (Pdf), and that most will have to significantly scale back services in order to survive at all.

Think about your library’s budget… what percentage of it could disappear before you would face staff cuts, reduced hours, and elimination of programs?  I suspect that these effects would appear well before the 50% mark.  When one considers that funding to supporting organizations (such as OhioLink) is also being cut, the impact may be greater still.

At what point would the basic operation of your library be at stake?  This number is different for every library, as it depends on your physical presence (building size, layout, holdings, etc.) as well as staff training.  Cross-trained staff who have a good overall sense of the many facets of a dynamic library are able to provide far more services for their salaries than those who are compartmentalized.

What can be done?  At this point, the options are limited.  Library administrators will soon be forced to simply react to events, and have lost the window of opportunity to make anticipatory changes in their organization.  When I wrote about this last January, I was guessing that the effects would be most pronounced in the 2010-11 budget cycle (instead of this one).  California, and now Ohio, suggest that things are happening faster than many anticipated.

What can we do at our libraries?  Make it clear to those you serve, as well as those who fund you, what is at stake.  Whatever changes you make, let them know what you are doing, and why.  If you eliminate services, or reduce hours, or cut staff, that information needs to be disseminated, if only to lay a foundation for restoring them in the future.  When you find a way to save or restore a service, or more effectively utilize staff time and ability (see below), this needs to be conveyed, as well.

Of greater importance, undertake an assessment of your organization’s abilities.  Find out what the library staff can do, and what your resources truly are.  By effectively applying their skills, you likely can make better use of your staff than you currently are.  Find out what can be cut from the budget that can be done for less simply by utilizing less expensive resources and well-applied staff time.

Laying off a staff position will save a given block of money.  Eliminating the outsourcing of a service that costs even more, but can be done by that person in 15-20 hours per week, creates a win-win situation for your library.  There are many victories to be had in the line items of your budget.  The question remains:  is there time to find and implement them?

The fundamental approach to this has to be dynamic… anticipate changes, and be prepared to adapt.  The most adaptable area of your library is the people who do the work.  If everyone works together, sacrifices together, strives to find ways to save money by better utilizing their skills and time… if all of this can happen at your library, you have a much better chance to ride this out.

found on LISNews

Shane Fitzgerald, a Sociology student at University College in Dublin, Ireland (not Ohio), performed an experiment in March in which he placed several fake quotes about death in the Wikipedia entry for Maurice Jarre, who had just died, including this one:

“When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.”

His intention was to see how the fake, but seemingly relevant, information would be used on the internet.  He expected it to be picked up by blogs and social networks, and wanted to see how far it would go.

To his surprise, the quotes were picked up by the major media, and appeared in many publications considered far more authoritative than Wikipedia.  Fitzgerald notified many of the media outlets of the experiment, and many have issued corrections, including the Guardian.  To his additional surprise, however, many have not issued corrections.

For most library people, there is a healthy respect for Wikipedia.  It is a powerful tool, one that can save time and effort in research, and can answer many questions for which we do not require a high level of authority.  One does need to understand how far the information is to be trusted.  We see quite a few people who scorn any reliance on Wikipedia, some even in the library world (who should know better).  One would expect that journalists would have at least the same level of skepticism.

Today I present a modified version of a (hopefully properly remembered) Japanese saying.  The original, which refers to Fugu, a delicacy made from a toxin-containing pufferfish, is, to my memory:

Those who eat fugu are stupid.  But those who don’t eat fugo are also stupid.

My version of this quote is:

Those who rely on Wikipedia are foolish.  But those who don’t rely on Wikipedia are also foolish.

found through ResourceShelf

Research Libraries Clobber OCLC Policy is a title, and a descriptive one at that, for LibraryThing’s report of the ARL’s report on the OCLC licensing policy kerfluffle (I keep coming back to this word).

It is, however, an interesting read, one that holds much for one to consider as events unfold over the next few months.

In addition, Tim Spaulding states that “The full report makes for enjoyable reading—outside of Dublin, Ohio anyway.”  I have read the report, and can say I found it enjoyable (in the sense of celebrating the expression of shared ideals – I hold no enjoyment that this has become a divisive issue).  I live just a few miles from Dublin, so I suspect that I will have to travel there and re-read the report to see if this statement holds true.

Or perhaps it was meant to be taken figuratively? 

So you are an author.  You check your book’s entry on Amazon.com.  You see a review.  It is not good.  Someone bought a copy of your book and it was flawed.  You want to make it right.

What do you do?  You promise the reviewer that you will send a good copy via overnight delivery.  Then you realize that it is Christmas Eve, the reviewer lives in Ontario, Canada, you live in Ohio, and there is a massive snowstorm between the two locations.  The delivery services cannot deliver, bookstores are closed, and time is running out.

Then what do you do?

Perhaps what Whittenberg University professor Dan Fleisch did : You deliver it yourself.

via LISNews

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

ICOLC Economic Statement.

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

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

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

found via the Disruptive Library Technology Jester

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!

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

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….

Len Lindquist, Manager of Technology Services for the Prairie Area Library System, died last Thursday.  This is a sad loss for everyone connected with the system, because not only was he great at his job, he was an excellent person to work with.

He helped me a few years back, and by extension Reaching Forward South, when we brought the first generation of our website online.  We later switched to a hosted web service, but his efforts helped to give us the step up to a very effective web presence.

I last saw him about 1½ years ago, when I had lunch with him and a good mutual friend.  We talked about libraries and technology and other such stuff, and had a great time.  I would have truly enjoyed working with him more, but my move to Ohio cut that short.

He will be missed.

Last September I wrote about Libguides, an online service that creates web 2.0-style offerings for library web sites. I was impressed with the quality of their offerings, but had misgivings about the cost, especially when one considers that a library can do many of the same things with a bit of time and effort. Interestingly enough, that post is still high in my statistics, so people are interested in the idea and/or the company.

In a way, this is a sequel to that post, though not directly:

Interactive Course Assignment Pages (ICAP) is a site set up by Oregon State University (the “other” OSU to those of us who reside in Ohio) as an aid to creating Web/Library 2.0 home pages for college courses.

Blogs, Wikis and New Media is a site set up on WordPress.com, using WordPress software (same as this blog), that contains what was once held in the Utah State University’s courseware system.

These examples (and I am sure there are many more out there) show just how much can be done with time and effort, and minimal expense. We (meaning libraryland folk) oftentimes find it more satisfying to fit ourselves into someone else’s paradigm of how we should present ourselves on the web.

This is found in libraries that are locked into their institution’s web site, with perhaps the opac itself being the only area found outside the template.

This is found in libraries that are locked into their vendor’s offerings, perhaps customizing colors and wording, but otherwise sticking to yet another template.

This can be found in libraries that haven’t actively pursued their web presence at all, possibly because they feel they need to spend a lot of money or hire a web developer in order to do anything online.

This is also found, ironically, in libraries that throw Web 2.0 goodies onto their site without due consideration of how to effectively incorporate them into their services. Even though I strongly urge experimentation with new technology, too much of something can be more harmful than not enough.

Again, I urge libraries to look at your resources (servers you have access to, your employee’s skill sets, your budget) and figure out what you can do, and what you can expand into with a bit of learning and effort. Even if your resources are near to nothing, you can get a free blog on WordPress, and have someone learn the ins and outs in a relatively short time frame. For a small amount of money, you can get web hosting that will let you do most anything in the web 2.0 arena. The exception to this are those few tools which require a dedicated server, which gets more expensive and involved.

With just a couple of hours of work, I could set up web hosting, install a blog, e-mail lists, message boards, and a wiki. Customizing these (colors, options, etc.) would add some more time, but the net cost would be under $100 per year for a great many useful tools. Add to the mix: you get online storage for library promotions, information, and resources.

Hiring someone to do this setup wouldn’t add too much to your cost, perhaps even some form of trade (fine forgiveness, perhaps?). Imagine what your library might be able to do with something like this… and ask yourself what any or all of these tools would be worth. Not so much in money, but in time and effort.

Blogs, Wikis and New Media found via Weblog Tools Collections