Google has made the jump into supporting Microformats as well as RDFa, calling their implementation “Rich Snippets”!

This is great news on several different levels. Semantic markup within web pages provides a way to target searches much more effectively.  TechCrunch provides an excellent example:

“If I was to write a post that mentioned “The President” without naming him, Google probably wouldn’t realize that I was talking about President Obama – it might think I was referring to another US president, or perhaps the leader of a company. But using RDFa I could tag the words “The President” with “Barack Obama”. That tag would be visible to machines spidering the page for indexing (resulting in smarter search results), but wouldn’t be shown to users reading the post. In effect, it’s a way to tell search engines about your content without exposing your visitors to extraneous text.”

In addition, sites that provide well-structured metadata have the potential to be much more usable (and useful).  Library web sites, especially OPACs and Resource pages, should include structured information that details the context of the displayed content.  Using microformats in our web sites will benefit everyone involved over time.  As David Peterson notes on the SitePoint blog:

“Now that Google is supporting structured data it is high time to learn how to use this stuff.”

I suspect that Swine Flu is likely to be a common research question for reference departments around the world during the foreseeable future.  I have had an interest in the 1918 influenza epidemic pandemic for several years, and have spent some time this weekend keeping an eye on various resources.

Several good places to start:

• Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Swine Influenza. Reliable and up-to-date information from the U.S. Government.
• CDC Human Swine Flu Investigation.  This page is linked from the above page, but is worthy of its own reference as it details the current state of the outbreak.
• Wikipedia has several pages that are relevant:  A general information Swine influenza page, a 2009 swine flu outbreak page, and a 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States page.  Each of these are especially valuable for their References and Further Reading pages.
• H1N1 Swine Flu Google Maps page.  This is an already sobering, world-wide view of the spread of the outbreak.  Note the legend detailing the meaning of the colors of the markers, as well as whether they contain dots.  Click on the markers for detailed information on that marker’s case(s).

Recognize that there will be a great deal of information pouring through various media, much of it guesswork and possibly incorrect.  Remember that the greatest strength of libraries is our offering not only unfettered access to information, but assisting users in using that information critically.

To illustrate this, I am also linking to one of the best articles I have read on the 1918 influenza pandemic, easily the worst outbreak in modern history:   The Site of origin of the 1918 influenza pandemic and its public health implications.  It details research into the origins of the outbreak, and makes a very strong case for the original location.  Note, however, that even though this was published over five years ago, most histories (including the Wikipedia link earlier in this paragraph) either ignore it or continue with various misconceptions based on incomplete research.

The lesson: encourage thoroughness and critical thinking in research, and recognize that many can and do get it wrong (but many can and do get it right, as well).

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? 

The Open Library Environment (there will be a post on this project in the near future) recently met at Lehigh University’s Linderman Library in Bethlehem, PA.  Pictures were taken and posted on Flickr.

I especially love the stained glass skylight…

Many people have a memory of the moment they realized that Barack Obama was likely to become president.  For some, the moment came during the primaries, perhaps when they heard the speech he gave after the New Hampshire primary.

Others, and I know several who were present, will point to his announcement in Springfield, Illinois that he was running for the presidency.

There are others who will go back even further and point to his Keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

My moment was a bit more obscure, but it had to do with libraries.  I recall becoming convinced that he would run for president, and would likely win.  I expected it in 2012 or 2016 (he was early in his first-term as a U.S. senator, remember), but the past two years has been eerily like what I anticipated that day.

In June 2005, Barack Obama spoke at the American Library Association conference in Chicago, Illinois.  I can’t find a video of the speech, but the transcript is here.  I did find a discussion of his favorite book, however.

Scott McNealy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has been asked to write a paper for the Obama administration on the benefits of the United States government using open source software for improved security and lower cost.

Yes.  With the right software, the right expectations, and the right training, open source software can benefit nearly any organization.

found via OSDir

Papers of the War Department : 1784 to 1800 is a searchable archive of documents from the early history of the United States that, until recently, were thought to have been irretrievably lost in a fire.  Over the past decade, researchers have searched for copies of these documents in collections throughout the country, and have reconstructed the collection online.

This could also be viewed as a lesson of the benefits of distributed copies of valuable documents/information.

found in MetaFilter

I wrote a recommendation, on request, about the impact to my workplace of the OCLC license policy changes that are scheduled to start in February.  I am posting an exerpt here, not because I feel it brings anything new to the debate or that I feel it is a solution for libraries in general, but because it is an example of how I am applying what I think and feel about an issue to our real-life situation.

Note that I do not set policy for my library, and do not feel that my suggestions are the end-all be-all of what we should do, and I certainly am not stating any of this as anything but my own opinion.  I view my role as putting ideas into the discussion with the hope of achieving what is right for us as a library and for everyone involved through collaboration and debate.  In that spirit, I decided to post part of what I wrote:

I have been following this debate with a fair amount of interest, and there are actually a couple of answers to your query:

1) In the near-term, the OCLC licensing policy changes do not have a direct impact on what we do or how we do it.  One of the first changes they made in response to library bloggers (and perhaps others who responded via other channels) was to make the retention and/or addition of the license link into the 996 field, as well as retaining the OCLC number, a request rather than a requirement.

This makes the cataloging and other MARC-related activities relatively unchanged, although I have a recommendation in regards to this, which is located below.

2) In the longer view, the OCLC licensing policy changes has the potential, if OCLC is able to successfully defend them legally, to create problems for us and many other libraries.  One result of this is that services such as OpenLibrary (22 million records – http://www.openlibrary.org/ ), LibraryThing ( http://www.librarything.com/ ), and the brand-new biblios.net ( http://www.biblios.net/ ) would all have to obtain OCLC’s permission for any records that have passed through WorldCat, regardless of actual ownership (likely the creating institution) or copyright status (data in the records, like Major League Baseball statistics, are considered public domain – though this has never been tested for MARC records).

More chilling is the possibility that any service that duplicates an OCLC service, and that uses records that have passed through WorldCat, must obtain permission.  I see this as an issue for any union catalog such as OhioLink ( http://www.ohiolink.edu/ ), Georgia Pines ( http://gapines.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml ), etc.  This specific clause seems to have been removed from the latest version of the license, but seems to be implied throughout the document.

However, one aspect of the license is that the records do not fall under the license that exists at the time they were uploaded to WorldCat, but fall under whatever the current form of the license happens to be.  OCLC is the sole arbiter for the contents of the license and can change it whenever and however it sees fit, with the changes affecting all records and all users of those records instantaneously.  This is not a nice situation for a co-operative membership organization.

My recommendations:

1) When the 996 field begins to be used in February, we should delete the license link from every record we import; we should resist adding the field to any of our existing records as well.  [Our cataloger] assures me that this process will fit into our current cataloging process very well and will not add any appreciable time or effort to our cataloging.  This will allow us to continue with the same status of our records and allow us to see where this will lead (i.e. changes to the policy, legal challenges, effects of other players in the library world, etc.).  OCLC may very well change the “request” back to “requirement” at some point in the future; we can re-evaluate it then.

2) We should examine ways to make it known to OCLC that they are the best at what they do, and that any organization that would replicate them at their scale would still face many of the same issues they are facing.  OCLC is defending its territory, a reasonable thing for any organization to do.  However, they are acting very “defensively” in regards to the license policy, and we would be much better served by their focusing on making their services so comprehensive and quality-driven that we have no desire to look elsewhere.  OCLCs acting defensively has inspired many people to examine their options, and this may signal the beginning of a new effort to create record depositories outside of WorldCat.  Encouraging OCLC to be more “open” will actually strengthen them as an organization, while at the same time improve everyone’s interactions with them.  Defensive legal positions will only serve to alienate their users.  OCLC needs to understand all of this in order to continue their dominant role; it is in our best interest to help them to understand this.

3) We should investigate and determine the ways in which the newer, open services can benefit us, and how we may benefit them (including our providing records).  At the very least, the competition will encourage OCLC to be more open, and may help to reduce our payments (or at least reduce the increase in payments) to OCLC in the future.

I will stress that much of what appears above contains my opinions and attitudes; I have mixed feelings about OCLC (as I do for any tiger defending its territory, or any 800-pound gorilla) and earnestly hope that they open up their services and records in a way that will be beneficial to everyone involved.

Google has reached a settlement with the group of publishers who filed suit in 2005 over the book digitization project.  It is a legal document with many elements, and I cannot hope to make an overall evaluation of the agreement with just the amount that I have browsed (much less with my limited ability to discern the true meaning of legalese).  However, there are a couple of sections that raise questions:

7.2 Fully Participating Library Uses… (b) Use of Library Digital Copies… (vii) Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use. The Fully Participating Library, if part of a Higher Education Institution, may allow faculty members and research staff of that Higher Education Institution to read, print, download or otherwise use up to five (5) pages of any Book from its LDC [Library Digital Copy] that is not Commercially Available for the following purposes: (1) personal scholarly use (for each Book, no more than once per person per term) and (2) classroom use in such Higher Education Institution that is limited to the instructors and students in the class and for the term in which the class is offered; provided that (a) the Fully Participating Library does not know at the time of such use that it is in material non-compliance with Section 8.2 (Security Standard, Security Implementation Plan and Security Audits) with respect to uses of the LDC authorized pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use), and (b) the Fully Participating Library keeps track of and reports all such uses of Books to the Registry in the course of the audit conducted pursuant to Section 8.2(c) (Audits) or, otherwise, upon reasonable request of the Registry, provided that such requests may be made no more than semi-annually. The Registry may make information from such reports regarding the usage of an individual Book available to the Rightsholder of such Book upon request of the Rightsholder. A Fully Participating Library may not read, print, download or otherwise use a Book or Insert through its LDC pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use) if such use is available through the Institutional Subscription and the Institutional Subscription service is offered or is available to the Fully Participating Library (whether for a fee or as a beta product) at the time such Fully Participating Library seeks to make such use.” (page 76)

The agreement defines Commercially Available as “…that the Rightsholder of such Book, or such Rightsholder’s designated agent, is, at the time in question, offering the Book (other than as derived from a Library Scan) for sale new through one or more then-customary channels of trade in the United States.” (Section 1.28 on page 4)  Does this mean that if a researcher or faculty is able to read (or print) only up to 5 pages of the scanned book each semester for personal scholarly use – and then only if the book is not able to be purchased through “customary channels of trade”?

Am I interpreting this correctly?  Is this not a severe restriction of the “Fair Use” clause of copyright?  Why would a researcher want to agree to such limitations when the physical item allows for a broader use?  I may be misreading this section, however, and hope to have it clarified in the near future.

Another section that gives me pause:

Section 3.8 (b) Effect of Changes in Law. Google will be able to take advantage of any future legislative change(s), such as legislation allowing the use of orphan works (if enacted), that put Google at a competitive disadvantage in its use of Books in any Google Products and Services that are subject to this Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Google may choose to receive the benefit of such change(s) only if a third party is actually taking advantage of such law(s) in connection with services that competitively disadvantage Google in its provision of any such Google Products and Services; provided, further, that no changes in the “fair use” doctrine as codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act shall trigger this Section 3.8(b) (Effect of Changes in Law).” (page 37)

So if a legislative body, such as the United States Congress, passes a law that allows for broader use of this type of material (i.e. a change in copyright law), Google can only put the broader use into Google Books if it can demonstrate that another company is already taking business away from them by implementing it; otherwise, Google must keep the higher restrictions in place.

In addition, what happens if “fair use” is broadened?  It won’t trigger this section.  Does that mean that Google can follow fair use, or that Google cannot?  The fair use provision seems to be placed on an equal footing as the “competitively disadvantage” clause.  Does Google pass along the broader use understanding, or does it just pass?

For better or worse, this settlement is going to dramatically change how libraries use electronic books.  Hopefully the overall agreeement implements a positive experience for all parties involved, and that my concerns (and the concerns of others) are either misread clauses or taking a section out of context.

The element of this agreement that holds great promise is the potential for institutional access to the entire collection of scanned books.  Imagine having millions of books available to our patrons via a usable and cost-effective agreement.  We are moving towards the future; are we ready for it (and the future for us)?

Further information and links:

• Contents of the Google Book Search Copyright Settlement
• Librarian.net
• Official Google Blog
• Panlibus Blog
• Open Access News

The Great Pandemic : The United States in 1918-1919 is a single resource on a specific topic, but it presents it very well.  Created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it focuses on personal stories from influenza survivors, telling the story of the outbreak from its origins in Haskell County, Kansas through its worldwide spread.

If you are not familiar with this event, this is a great place to start.  If you are familiar, this is a great review and a way to introduce this important historical event to others.

found via ResourceShelf

One of my lesser known interests is road signs.  I enjoy looking through various Rules of the Road sign pages, odd signs found on various roads, and pictures of road signs in foreign countries.  Making sense of some of the Mexican road signs during my visit last year was a challenge (a funny moment came with the understanding that “Returno” wasn’t a place, but a permitted area for a U-turn).

With that in mind, Manual of Traffic Signs is a fascinating site which focuses on United States signage.

found via ResourceShelf

To celebrate the 100th birthday of Louis L’Amour, Bantam Books is providing a free copy of “Education of a Wandering Man : The Centennial Hardcover Edition” to any free lending library in the United States.

found via the Unshelved blog

A couple of years ago I encountered some type of advertisement for a particular book. I don’t recall what the exact title was, but it was something along the lines of “The 2004 Outlook for Thingamajiggers in the United States.” I also don’t recall the price, but it was some incredible amount of money, like $500 or so. I remember being intrigued, as well as a little put off, by the ad, and was never quite able to wrap my brain around it.

I think I just found out a great deal about where that book came from. Speed Writing is an article in the Guardian newspaper that details the writing and publishing of one particular author: Philip M. Parker. Take a look at the following numbers:

• Philip M. Parker is shown as being the author of 85,747 books on Amazon.com (at this moment).
• 9,536 of those fall into the Business and Investing category, which seems to contain a great many books like the one I encountered years ago.
• These are not pamphlets or smallish books; one of the publications I checked weighs in at 710 pages.
• Parker claims that his total number of published books is in the area of 200,000 (per the Guardian article), an
• It takes him approximately 20 minutes to write each book, using a machine he invented.

The article doesn’t go into any detail about the machine; it is saving that for a follow-up article next week. As the article was published last Tuesday, I expect it will be five more days before we learn more.

found on if:book

Census Atlas of the United States is the first publication of a “comprehensive atlas of population and housing produced by the Census Bureau since the 1920s.” The maps are beautiful and easy to use, although I doubt that an atlas of 314 pages can be properly called “comprehensive” when it comes to mapping census data. Oh… you noticed the price tag of $165.

Well, why not try out the free online edition? You get all the maps, and you only need a decent download speed (the chapters range from 3 to 21 MB).

Actually, what I would love to see is a full-blown Web 2.0 version of this resource. Imagine picking out your criteria from drop menus, choosing the scale of maps (full country, state, county, or city), and generating a map on the fly within your browser. I could think of quite a few maps that I would love to generate with that type of web site.

For good examples of what style of mapping web sites I am talking about check out ChicagoCrime.org or Trulia.

found via ResourceShelf

Perceptions 2007: An International Survey of Library Automation contains the results of a survey conducted by Marshall Breeding.  He explored the relationship between libraries and their Integrated Library Systems (ILS).

The results are interesting.  Without going into my own views of the two systems I have worked with, I feel that some libraries just don’t know how they have it – both good and bad.  I would like to see statistics from those who have worked with more than one ILS within the past five years, because I suspect that some of the rankings might change dramatically.

That said, it is very good to see a snapshot of people’s satisfaction levels of their software and the companies that support it.  This may well reflect how well companies (and ILSs) will do in the next 5 years or so.

One surprise, sort of, is the low level of interest in Open Source ILS.  Part of this is due to fact that Open Source ILS is just really beginning to be used in the United States – as more libraries use the systems over time, we will have a better understanding of the satisfaction they have (or won’t have) with them.

The other part goes back to not knowing what we are missing.  For instance, I have worked with database reporting with both Voyager and Millennium, and Voyager is by far the most powerful and useful, as you are able to extract data from the Oracle DB directly into Microsoft Access and manipulate it with any SQL you can create.  Millennium has a built in extracter, and I have discovered that it saves a great deal of time and headaches to simply export large chunks of data into a text file, then import it into Access and work on it there.

(note: Millennium has a pricey add-on that adds an Oracle database to their system to enable this; I don’t have it at my current place of work, and cannot judge how well it handles the type of queries and reporting I am discussing)

found via GuidePosts

USA.gov Mobile is a great little search tool for government web pages and toll-free numbers (and it is well designed for your PC, even though it is made for mobile browsers).

found via ResourceShelf

Nope, the list hasn’t been announced yet.  In fact, Library Journal is asking for nominations:

The editors of Library Journal need your help in identifying the emerging leaders in the library world. Our seventh annual Movers & Shakers supplement will profile 50-plus up-and-coming individuals from across the United States and Canada who are innovative, creative, and making a difference. From librarians to vendors to others who work in the library field, Movers & Shakers 2008 will celebrate the new professionals who are moving our libraries ahead.

I have been impressed with the Movers & Shakers lists over the past few years, and look forward to that supplement (which will arrive with the March 15, 2008 issue).  The people profiled are all putting themselves forward in the library world in interesting ways that benefit us all. 

The deadline has been extended to November 15th, so if you know of anyone deserving, be sure to fill out the online nomination form by then!

found on Catalogablog

OpenStreetMap is a U.K.-based project that fulfills a great need:  an open, collaborative mapping project.  Ever find an error in MapQuest, Google Maps, or Yahoo Maps?  Can’t do much about it, can you?  OpenStreetMap will be able to be updated and corrected by their user base, and will be available for free, as in both beer and speech.  Think of it in terms of Wikipedia, which also illustrates the possibilities for errors and abuse, as well.

They have just jump-started their U.S. mapping effort with mapping information from the U.S. Census Bureau.  They have a long way to go, but with some local effort from people across the country, they could be a serious contender for our mapping needs.

Check out your local area to see what they have, and what they still need for their maps.

found on Linux.com

There is a bill being voted upon by the U.S. Senate on October 15th which will potentially open up a great deal of research being done with National Institute of Health (NIH) funding.  The bill will mandate that the public (as well as other researchers) have access to research funded through grants by the NIH.  Similar language has already passed a House vote in a budget bill, and so if this is approved in the Senate it is likely to become law.

The ALA has an easy to use site to allow people to send e-mails to their senators (just enter your zip code), and Digital Scholarship has some well-phrased suggestions for the text.  I did my own summary, after reading through the above pages.  Use if you like, but think about how you could state it in your own words, as well:

Dear Senator xxxxx:

As a library staff member, a blogger, and a U.S. citizen, I feel strongly that government sponsored research should be as open and available for everyone’s benefit as possible. This will lead to greater understanding of health issues, and will assist in focusing research more effectively in the future, which will save time, money, and lives. Open Access is the most effective way to do this with the NIH research.

For further information, the resources and talking points at http://www.digital-scholarship.org/other/nihtext.htm contain a great deal of merit. Also, Peter Suber’s website has excellent information: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

Thank you for your consideration on this important topic.
 
Sincerely,
Rick Mason
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Library Support Staff blog
http://blog.librarysupportstaff.org/

Forever Minus a Day?  Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright (Pdf), a presentation by Rufus Pollock, examines the history of copyright terms and determines that the optimal term length is about 14 years (half of what the original copyright term was in both England and the U.S.).

His full paper can be found here (Pdf).

found on The Patry Copyright Blog