LITA BlogThanks to the Internet Resources and Services Interest Group (IRSIG), there was another Ultimate Debate panel at ALA Annual 2008. The title this year was “There’s No Catalog like No Catalog”, and we are remarkably lucky that we were able to get a full recording of the debate for podcast here on LITABlog.
Enjoy!
Ultimate Debate 2008 - There's no catalog like no catalog [105:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadPresident’s Program: Isn’t it great to be in the library… wherever that is?
Sunday June 29th, 2008, 4:00pm - 5:30pm
(I apologize in advance for the level of detail here. I wasn’t able to get online and post right away and so I’m working from my handwritten notes - which are difficult to read at times and a bit cryptic at others. So, while I think a few statements are worth providing, I can’t recall the exact context of them. Rather than trying to guess, I’m simply providing them as-is.)
Joseph Janes, from the University of Washington and columnist for American Libraries, kicked off this session with a presentation about the evolution of libraries and how we can define what they are, followed by a panel discussion by the It’s All Good blogging team.
Joseph Janes presentation:
The evolution of libraries isn’t necessarily tied to technology. Instead, it relates to societal and demographic changes, publishing changes, and political, legal, and cognitive issues - all of which create a dynamic environment that libraries react to. Before we can answer the question “What is a library?” we have to answer the question “What does it mean to be in the library?”
The idea of being in the library, or “crossing the threshold,” has always been bigger than the main library building itself to include library branches, bookmobiles, etc. When thinking of the library’s “digital threshold” we begin to include chatting with a librarian, accessing databases, downloading audiobooks, and more.
“Anywhere, anytime, anyway in which people interact with information organized, provided, supported by their own community via their library staff.”
A library is defined by five things:
The place
The stuff
The support
The interaction
The values
If you take away one of these things, it becomes something other than a library.
The library needs to be somewhere and everywhere - with both physical and virtual spaces. Library users have multiple presences and identities that are tied to environments with information needs. Because users tend to use the path of least resistance, we need to be where they are.
We have to be better online. Users need a lot of motivation to come to us online (we have lots of competitors) and the online environment makes it very easy for them to leave.
It’s All Good bloggers response:
Library collections are becoming ubiquitous.
People are creating their own content online. The recent issue of Wired magazine has an article on the volume of data that’s being created by people with video recorders, etc.
Rather than simply using the tools that people are using, ask them why they’re using them and then design services around those needs.
Librarians need to be enthusiastic and passionate to attract and keep users. (If I had to choose one single common theme to come out of all of the ALA sessions I attended, it would have to be that of building relationships.)
Branding should be added to Joe’s list of 5 things that define a library. According to the results of an IMLS project, students don’t always realize that the library is responsible for providing electronic materials (they often think it’s another department or the overall academic institution). Also, youth are taught to avoid strangers online and are hesitant to use anonymous online services. Libraries have to be transparent in their virtual reference services.
Think “Simple, but brilliant.”
This is going to have to be more of an experiential post than a factual one, I’m afraid… I attended the Top Tech Trends session and it held my attention throughout the whole thing - everything did. From the larger than life images of Karen Coombs and Sarah Houghton-Jan on one screen that flanked the live panel to the scrolling meebo chat room on the other screen, there was a lot to pay attention to!
Karen and Sarah have already written up their trends on this very blog, so I see no point in duplicating their efforts - they can say it much better than I can anyway!
Read the rest of this entry »
In the one of the last session slots of the ALA Conference was a gem of a program geared toward smallish public libraries who have either no IT Department or a very small one. Diane Neal, North Carolina Central University, Brenda Hough, MaintainIT Project and Jennifer Lee Peterson, WebJunction were the panelists for the presentation. The session went from specific things that librarians can do to keep their technology running to a broader look at what resources are out there for troubleshooting specific issues, finding “best practices” and using free tools to plan and maintain your technology at a higher (library-wide, as opposed to a single machine) level.
It started off with Diane giving a very nuts-and-bolts presentation about basic PC, printer and network troubleshooting. She went through the basic troubleshooting steps for your PC (reboot, check cables, discover “where it hurts” on the machine…) and then did the same for printers and network issues. She gave concrete steps to use when troubleshooting, but also gave pointers for talking to the next level of tech support and what they will need from the end users. It was all incredibly useful stuff!
Brenda started off with an introduction to the MaintainIT project. For those who are unaware of it, this project takes challenges and successes from librarians across the country and makes them into stories and recipes that other libraries can use. They issue free Cookbooks that provide solid technical advice, ideas and help so that other libraries don’t have to reinvent the wheel to get around their challenges. They have also begun creating webinars, in conjunction with Webjunction, that deal with specific challenges in a short, 30 minute, format, as well as a book club that gives librarians a chance to discuss the individual chapters of the cookbooks. After she introduced these, she gave us a chance to break into small groups and discuss our individual challenges and successes with each other. When we all got back from our individual discussions, several people in the audience shared their discussions; finding space - and outlets - for laptops in an older building, dealing with stolen computer parts - and printers, and dealing with the “goldfish effect” - no matter how many computers we make available, the demand keeps increasing at a much faster pace! She finished by saying that the next cookbook will start to become available in July and that there will be a book discussion on chapter 5 of the “Recipes for a 5-star library” cookbook later in July as well.
Jennifer concluded the session with an overview of the Webjunction resources. She discussed the collaboration efforts of Webjunction and some of it’s more notable features! She explained what was available in Webjunction’s Tech Atlas - a set of resources that assist in technology planning, surveying users, budgeting for tech and much more! She also introduced the Rural Library Sustainability Project and some of the results from recent library tech brainstorming sessions. There were some excellent ideas there - including the suggestion to partner with local tech suppliers (Best Buy/Circuit City/Radio Shack) and have them bring in techie gadgets to demo. This could be good advertisement for the company and free tech training for your staff & patrons!
The session was a really nice introduction to both solid skills needed by library techs and to the amazing amounts of resources out there for folks who might need some tech help!
Cindy Gibbon, Access Services Coordinator of Multnomah County Library (MCL), Oregon, opened the discussion about privacy and intellectual freedom in a web 2.0 world by sharing the results of a study of MCL’s users. Some things MCL users said they want:
Notification when requested items are added to the catalog
Public comments and recommendations of books read
Blogs, podcasts, reference via instant messaging
Text message alerts
Saved lists of titles checked out or of interest
RSS feeds
Ability to communicate online with other library patrons
She then shared some compelling data from the December 2007 Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey about the ubiquity of mobile communications technologies. The bottom line: MCL patrons want a 2.0 library experience.
Some library patrons indicated that it is important to them that their library records remain private, and some did not. Cindy pointed out that it is librarians’ responsibility to protect patrons’ privacy on their behalf, and then proceeded to illuminate some challenges presented by web 2.0. Libraries are now creating records–such as blog posts and comments, and chat transcripts–that never existed before. We are keeping records like never before (think reading lists and MyLibrary tools), we’re sending records into realms beyond our control (in the forms of text messages, rss feeds, and more), and we’re inviting our users to personalize and participate in the evolution of our products and services.
Cindy aptly drew a comparison between opening the doors of the physical library and to the virtual library. Libraries have policies to protect patrons in the physical library; the same should be true for the virtual environment. The Fair Information Practices section of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual can help libraries update their privacy policies. Privacy warnings can be provided, and patrons should be given the choice to opt into (not out of) of services that involve any risk.
Cindy also talked about what can happen when a library creates a public forum, and pointed out that there are two types–open forums (a.k.a. the “free-for-all”), and limited or designated public forums. Unlike the open forum, the limited or designated public forum has rules, boundaries, and guidelines. Important when using social software to create a limited forum:
Make explicit what you are trying to accomplish
Explain the type of forum and its purpose
Make clear the rules and the penalties for violation
Identify when, how, and by whom posts will be vetted
Create a notice and appeal process
Digital library consultant Karen Coyle then talked about technical and legal issues that librarians launching interactive web-based services need to consider. She pointed out that when we say “privacy,” we often mean “confidentiality,” and that there are three exceptions to the confidentiality of patron records:
Librarians have access to patron records
Records of money owed to the library are not protected
Records are not protected in the case of a court order
Karen pointed out that as social networking and libraries evolve together, the context of the networking is likely to be broader than the user’s “home” library. The larger the network, the greater its value. But the greater the risk as well. Facebook is routinely asked by law enforcement for the personal data of its users, and as a private company, is responsible only for complying with its own privacy policy. Libraries, on the other hand, must comply not only with their own privacy policies, but also with state laws that require libraries to protect certain data.
So how can we protect information over which we have limited control?
We can make clear to our users which virtual spaces are protected and which are not. We can have conversations with our IT departments about allowing users to remain anonymous in certain cases, and again, we can require users to opt into services where records may not be totally protected. We can undergo a security audit, make sure we have the knowledge and capability to secure our systems, and we can discuss with our vendors and help shape the policies and practices they employ when it comes to the security of our patrons’ library use data.
Time and Location: Sunday, 1:30 pm - 5:30 pm, Anaheim Convention Center, 210 A-C
One would expect for something that old (in Google time) such as Ferber (FRBR), which has been around since 1998, to have spawned some kin. Meet Fred, er, FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data). And they didn’t tell you that in this program, you also will meet Farsar (FRSAR - Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records).
Actually, the first hour and a half of this program dealt with updates on activities at the Library of Congress (by Dave Reser) and at OCLC (by Robert Bremer). The next hour and a half was devoted to the main program topic and the last hour was for a meeting of the LITA/ALCTS Authority Control Interest Group. The cataloging and metadata crowd must have been conferenced out by this time because attendance was low compared to the sessions Getting Ready with RDA and FRBR: What You Need to Know and Creating the Future of Catalogs and Cataloging. Too bad since three rooms at the Convention Center were reserved (210 A-C) for this low-attendance event compared to the use of only 204B for the two overflowing sessions.
The main program consisted of the following:
I would conclude, as Ed Jones did in his presentation, by noting that conceptual models are growing organisms. They model a certain way that we understand, at a certain point in time, a set of entities that we choose to include in an ontological reality that we agree to exist for certain uses and users. We need to connect our current practices and future goals to these functional requirements so that practice and theory can inform each other as we adapt to changes in how we describe and control bibliographic entities.
Thanks to the efforts of all involved, we were able to get a very clean soundboard recording of this year’s Top Tech Trends program. Hope that everyone enjoys the recording, and comment and let us know what you think! Without feedback, we can’t tell if you like it or hate it. 
Building and Support Koha, an open-source ILS
Saturday June 28th, 2008, 10:30-12:00
Hyatt Regency Orange County
John Houser, Senior Technology Consultant for PALINET, and Johsua Ferraro, CEO of Liblime, set out to answer common questions about open-source ILS systems with a focus on Liblime’s support for Koha. The format was an interview, and the resulting questions and answers were recorded. Watch for a link to the podcast version here.
Representative questions and answers follow, but these are only samples of an extremely rich discussion of general and very specific technical details.
Cost
Don’t necessarily plan to save lots of money on an open-source ILS, as planning to contribute to development efforts has many advantages–primarily that you get to set the priorities for new features in the ILS. A representative of a Koha library in the audience pointedly disagreed, stressing that in his case there were significant cost savings.
How does Liblime makes money if the software is free?
By supplying services related to installation, migration, and ongoing support of Koha and Evergreen systems.
How hard is migration?
Migration is hard from any ILS to any other ILS, and Koha is not an exception. But it’s not necessary to have your own staff to do the hard parts.
How does support for an open-source ILS differ from commercial ILS support?
There is no vendor lock-in. Libraries could contract with any vendor to support the system, which is based on widely used web technologies like MySQL and PHP.
How supportive of new users is the Koha community?
Open-source software communities can sometimes be hard for new users to approach, but Koha’s tends to be fairly friendly and helpful, and Liblime staff contribute to it.
The session was lively, and included a lot of audience participation. There were about twenty questions and comments from the audience.
How does custom work for a particularly library get accepted into the project as a whole?
Koha is a smaller project than something like Firefox, and is fairly open to outside input. New code is reviewed and tested.
Will there be support for Vufind?
PALINET will support Vufind from version 1.0
Why should I join the WALDO consortium in migrating to Koha?
Your library peers are setting the specifications and helping to build the system you’ll be using.
What support is there for reporting and statistics?
There are built-in reporting modules, but because the software is built on MySQL almost any report-writing software will work with Koha. And direct access to library data is never a problem.
There were also questions about the cataloging and acquisitions modules, system requirements, API’s for scripting, ERM, digital library software, and many other topics.
Monday, June 30th, 2008
Hyatt Regency Orange County
Walt Scacchi of UC-Irvine stepped in as a last-minute replacement speaker for Karen Sandler of the Software Freedom Law Center and gave a talk entitled “Research Results for Free/Open Source Software Development: Best Practices for Libraries? (and some legal issues too)” based on his empirical research on open-source project processes, practices, and community development
.
The talk was rich in details on who open-source developers are and what they do. Using the current stats at Sourceforge as a starting point, he estimated approximately 180,000 current open-source software projects, of which approximately 18,000 (10%) are currently being succesfully developed. The largest area of open-source development is in games, in large part driven by the fact that the very successful Sony game systems are built using open-source software.
Open-source developers tend to use the tools they build, which is not necessarily the case for commercial developers. About 1% of open-source software users are developers. Two-thirds of developers contribute to more than one project, 5% to more than ten.
80% of open-source developers say they contribute to projects to learn new tools, new skills, or new software. Most also build because it is fun.
Most open-source developers spend far more time reading online documentation and interacting with other developers than they do writing code. This means the community aspect of open-source software is actually more important than the code, which is contrary to the usual opinion of programmers as anti-social. The social aspect of open-source development, including developing one’s reputation and future job prospects, but also collaborating with other like-minded programmers, is critical to the success of a project.
Open-source developers tend to subsidize their own work by contributing (obviously) time, but also equipment, server space, money, and many other things to their projects. This makes commercial software company comparisons of “total cost of ownership” suspect.
Scacchi described software as literature, and referred to the many thousands of developers as readers of it. Then pointedly asked whether libraries are building collections of it. There was silence in the room, but iBiblio, hosted by the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, is actually doing this and hosts one of the largest open-source software libraries.
He also described the confusing array of open-source licensing arrangements and the problems conflicting licenses can cause. A good source of basic advice on these issues can be found in the Software Freedom Law Center’s Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects.
Small projects tend to fail unless they can forge alliances with other, similar projects. A large project, or a cooperating cluster of projects, can generate the critical mass necessary for success. The question to ask about a project is whether it could or would continue if its current main developer left. He pointed to the example of the Linux kernel, the heart of the operating system, to which the original creator, Linus Torvalds, contributes less than 1% of the code. A sustainable project generates code and a community.
Joe Ford convened the Emerging Technology Interest group managed discussion on “Open Source, Open Services”
Darrell Gunter began by discussing Collexis research projects and applications for libraries. Fascinating work is being undertaken on computationally derived ontology, what Collexis refers to as Fingerprinting. [Bibliographic ontology (like FRBR or FRAD not getting any play in the semantic portion of the presentation). ] Screenshots of tools (presentation slides to be posted to the LITA wiki) included the Knowledge Dashboard, which is being used for Hypothesis Generation by scientists. Biomedexperts.com discussed as a Collexis partner with tools for researchers including expert visualization, social network graphs of who is publishing with whom. Asklepios Group discussed as a user of collexis tools which utilizes mobile technology for patient-side consultation and comparison of relevant treatments.
I would characterize Collexis methodology as relying on computationally derived indexing for data visualization (btw-the intellectual foundations of LIS exist (partly) in the aforementioned FRBR ontology). To some extent one has to question the use of the term semantics here, in that behind their derived “meaning” are sets of algorithms, which don’t actually answer the question “what exists” but rather “what exists in the databases we compute from” - in my opinion. I think of Karl Jaspers and his idea on the limitations of certain kinds of empiricism.
Neeru Khosla of CK12 introduced the Flexbook, a collaboratively authored and produced textbook. Neeru modeled the assembler interface which allows the user to select chapters for their desired book. Flexbook is pitched as a low cost way to create textbooks. CK12 is looking for librarians to provide indices, meta information, keywords to this interface to help organize the chapter content. I would characterize this work as sort of a Textbook2.0 in that the user can easily piece together the book they want and suit it to their exact student needs and not pay an exceedingly high cost. Regarding quality: Neeru informs us that chapters can come from wikis such as Wikipedia and from donated textbook content. If you are interested in learning more contact neeru@ck12.org
If you are interested in semantic type stuff see the w3c.org page.