The National Library of Australia has launched the beta of their new search interface, SBDS Prototype (SBDS stands for Single Business Discovery Service, I think), and the search experience is not only better than any other library-related search I have used, it is faster than most of them as well!

Other reactions:

• Roy Tennant at LibraryJournal.comt
• Roy Tennant at HangingTogether.org
• Lorcan Demsey (1)
• Lorcan Demsey (2)

This is an excellent example of what is possible today, and what we should all strive for in our search interfaces.  There is such a diversity of resources, and unifying these into a usable and fast single-search service is a credit to the developers at the National Library of Australia.

The debate about OCLC’s revision of their Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is heating up.  The core issue appears to be the licensing of WorldCat records and the limitations imposed, namely that “data extracted from a WorldCat Record” cannot be used in anything that “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat”.

Aaron Swartz, with the Open Library project, has posted a really interesting overview of OCLC, although his intro suggests that he feels that the 800 pound gorilla comparison is closer to the mark.  He followed up with quotes from and comments about Karen Calhoun’s post to OCLC members comment from his first post (thanks for setting this straight, Aaron!) He did not have a link to Karen’s post, and I wasn’t able to locate it via a search.

There is a podcast on Panlibus of Karen Calhoun and Roy Tennant discussing the policy.  I haven’t had a chance to listen yet.

Karen did post comments on November 4th on OCLC’s Metalogue blog.  Read the comments, especially Jonathan Rochkind’s (Nov 5, 1:41 p.m.); then check out his own blog posts on the topic (I would link to individual posts, but there are quite a few, and they are all worth reading — scroll back to November 3rd and read forward).

I am still fairly certain that OCLC is taking on the tiger’s role:  territorial and instinctive.  The more thought I give to it, however, the stronger the argument for opening the records and information becomes:  the data doesn’t belong to anyone (and if it did, it would belong to the libraries that created it in the first place) and OCLC is playing a losing game if it insists on full ownership and control.

A couple of posts about sandboxes have caught my eye:

• LISNews posted about Peter Morville (writer of Ambient Findability, which if you haven’t read – you should) and his Flickr “sandbox for collecting search examples, patterns, and anti-patterns.”
• Roy Tennant writes about the benefits of libraries having a sandbox to try out new software and technology, in particular he points out the University of Cincinnati’s sandbox.

I have, in a somewhat disorganized manner, been creating and working with sandboxes for several years.  Libology is, at least in its first phase, my effort to make a structured sandbox for my own efforts, with an eye towards demonstrating how various tools can work for libraries.  These have been scattered throughout several other domains, and one of my first tasks will be to combine what I have done so far under one domain.

Web hosting is inexpensive.  A site that can run blogs, discussion lists, wikis, CMSs, and a great many other helpful tools can be had for about $5 per month.  An individual or group, taking things one step at a time, can learn a lot from simply getting a site and setting up various software.  There is no better way, in my opinion, to learn about open source and web 2.0 than to jump in the sandbox and start playing!

Columbus is an exciting town when you are interested in libraries.  This was driven home by the Code4lib Conference Proposal : Columbus, OH page of Roy Tennant’s website.  Take a look, and see if you agree.

The Code4Lib Conference has been something which I have really wanted to attend, but haven’t been able to travel to do so.  2009 may be my year!

The Library Software Manifesto was compiled by Roy Tennant (with input from many others) and should be read by everyone who uses an Integrated Library System (ILS).

Why?  Reviewing the manifesto puts one into the mindset of critically reviewing your ILS, detailing its strength and weaknesses from your perspective.

What did I get out of it?

• A great deal of of the manifesto deals with open and honest communication – in both directions.  This includes the vendor being straightforward about what their system can and cannot do, as well as the consumer communicating their needs and issues clearly and with the understanding of what can reasonably be done by the vendor in response.
• Another large part of the manifesto deals with access.  There is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to connect to our system in various ways in order to better understand our data, or to enhance our offerings.  One of the shocks at my current job is how clunky the default reporting tool is in our product, compared to my previous place of work.  Setting up this access was complicated, but the end result was powerful and relatively easy to learn.  There is no reason why we shouldn’t have direct, read-only access to our own database.
• Thinking about the Evergreen project in relation to this manifesto is illuminating.  Open Source is going to transform the ILS landscape, sooner or later, especially when people recognize that the access and communication issues improve dramatically for a healthy open source project.  The downside will be some of the documentation issues (often times a problem with open source… rare are the people who like to write software documentation, and valuable are their contributions), and the need to actively engage the community.  Note:  I am not specifically discussing Evergreen’s documentation, which I have only viewed once or twice… I am referring to open source as a whole.
• I like the last point:  “…lighten up and have fun!”  There is more than enough mind-numbing detail for us to deal with; if we all make an effort to enjoy our work as well as helping others to do so, then we are all better off.

So, read the manifesto, note the issues that exist with your current system, but also note the issues that exist on your institution’s side, as well.  Think about all of it, and remember it in the future, especially when it is time to consider changing to a new system.  This may be the single best tool for you to begin that process.

No brand new flashy sites in this post; just a small collection of links on how one deals with the demands of time, projects and learning:

Big or Small? — Jen Riley at the Indiana University Digital Library Program has a post regarding doing a few big vs. many small projects.

Nicole’s Burnout Blues — Karen Schneider, a.k.a. Free Range Librarian, gives her tips on preventing burnout.

Three Hard Things — new guy at OCLC Roy Tennant’s follow-up to his Five Easy Pieces essay three years ago.

Each of these pieces speak to me, as I am preparing to start a relatively involved project that will require a fair amount of time management.  It could work, mainly because the time involved can be very flexible (and who needs sleep when you have a project?).

However, most everyone I know is trying to balance their time, effort, energy, and resources.  Perhaps there is a helpful nugget or two for everyone who follows the links….