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).

A somewhat rambling essay, but one that is important nonetheless:

Joe Wilcox has posted an interesting essay at Microsoft Watch regarding Google’s merger with DoubleClick, the internet advertising company.  I strongly disagree with some of his interpretations (he tries to have it both ways, and by defending Microsoft and chastising Google, he simply muddies the water), but the essay has me thinking about the good and bad of monopolies in libraryland.

First, is the love-hate relationship I have with “monopolies”.  Oftentimes a monopoly reduces choices for the user/consumer, and oftentimes the litmus test for this is whether the company/organization channels its energy towards preventing competition, rather than out-performing competition.  Efforts towards providing a better product/service than one’s competitor are rarely in vain.  Even if a company fails, the level of product/service is usually improved across the board.

Next, the concept of open standards is, for better or worse, tied up with monopolies.  A group with a monopoly is able to set standards much more effectively.  If the standards are set in a fair manner, i.e. not simply to prevent competition against one’s own product/service, then the monopoly can actually be more efficient.  If not, it isn’t truly an open standard, as much as it is a proprietary standard.

Libraries, then… we are swimming in a sea of standards, and companies that create them.  We are living with standards that work only for us, such as MARC, and aren’t of much (if any) benefit outside libraries.  The bibliographic information contained within them is of great benefit and value, but the standard is not very useful.

However, so much of our energies are tied up in this standard (and others, if we think about it), and it is dragging us down.  It is important to understand that the information is what has value; the value in how we store and access it is reflected in the ease of use, and the interest in using that storage/access method.

MARC has lost it’s luster, and we should move forward.  The information, however, is more valuable than ever, and we need to figure out how to maximize this value.  Making it easy for everyone to use, not only libraries, should be our top priority.  When Amazon or Google (or companies/groups like them) really want to access our bibliographic records, and use their structure, this will be when we know we have fixed the worst of our problems.  Is FRBR/RDA the answer?  I suspect not, simply because a new way needs to be much easier to describe and apply.

Google is, and has been for a while, the 800 pound gorilla in the search business.  This came about because their search tools were, and are, simply better than their competitors.  I don’t think this will last forever, but there are many benefits to their dominance.  They are able to set “standards” for web design that encourage compliant web site design and discourage  link farms and spam sites.  They have mastered, to a large extent, the art of interpreting the keyword search.  People now think in keywords when they search (which is why the natural language search engines are languishing in obscurity).

In libraryland, OCLC is our 800 pound gorilla.  When they come out with something new (and the last couple of years have been fantastic, with WorldCat leading the way), libraries pay attention.  If they set a particular course, it makes a great deal of sense to follow that same path.

Is this the best way, though?  Should the 800 pounders lead the way in information discovery?  How might they prevent innovation from happening, or are we doing that to ourselves already?  Is the slow pace of FRBR/RDA a reflection of the size of the beast as it slouches towards Bethlehem to be born, or simply the complexity of the solution?

One thing I have noticed on many blogs and listservs is that we love to talk about what is wrong and right about libraries and technology and search, but it is usually individuals and small groups taking the lead and deciding to blaze a new trail.  Open-ILS and LibraryThing are but two examples of dozens where people saw a need and decided to take charge of fulfilling it.

Why haven’t we come up with a new way to deal with bibliographic information?  Does one person, or a group, need to simply decide to do it?  The library community seems to be spinning its wheels on the issue, so perhaps this is the case.

Who wants to take on the challenge?

For those of you using the Firefox web browser (and if not, why?) here is an add-on that is currently impressing me to pieces : Add to Search Bar.

It isn’t flashy, or obvious, but it does one thing that makes it highly recommended in the library world : you can visit an OPAC search page, right-click in the search box, and add that search to your built-in Firefox toolbar. It’s that easy.

I have tested it on Millenium and Voyager with 100% success. I don’t know how it will handle other OPACs or search tools, but the ability to search my workplace’s collection without having to go through the multiple layers of our web site will save a great deal of time and effort.

Add to Search Bar web site.

found via ResourceShelf

MasterKey is an interesting prototype of a new meta-search engine.  I like search tools that generate metadata (in the form of subjects, authors, etc. to narrow one’s search) on the fly.  Vivisimo was the first of these that I encountered, and MasterKey is an excellent example of how to do this in a usable manner.

One thing that needs to be addressed, however:  once you have narrowed your search results, there doesn’t seem to be any straightforward way to go back to a broader set of results, short of modifying the info in the search box.  One has to expect to be able to back up and explore other areas with as much ease as narrowing the search in the first place.

from Catalogablog