Month: July 2007

continue live blogging

Net Neutrality: What Is It, and Why Should Libraries Care?
Bob Bocher, Wisconsin State Library Division
Technology Consultant
WI Dept of Public Instruction

visual – Hawaiian shirt

how long has Bob been doing it? “he used to keypunch”

http://dpi.wi.gov/pld/ppt/netneutral.ppt

issue didn’t exist before 2-3 years ago
we are in present state because of regularions FCC chose not to enforce or disbanded

Net neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. with net neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data – not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. (Benton Foundation)

issue predates Internet
based on common carrieage
telecom: no one is refused service; all calls are connected regardkess of location or content

Major legal difference between:
Telecommunication service (Title II)- strong common carrier language
Information service (Title I) – weak language
transport of data goes back to late 60s and early 70s when IBM wanted to send data. AT&T initially didn’t want to allow them to do it. FCC said that ATT could not prevent or prohibit data any more than voice.

1990s: most consumers had dial-up
More than 7,500 dial-up ISPs
Most telecom/cable companies were ISPs
2000s: more consumers moving to broadband
More telecom/cable companies providing BB
Eroding line between telecom providers and ISPs

See home broadband adoption chart from Pew
FCC defines broadband as 200K (low threshold)

U.S. is 15th or 20th in residential broadband
In other countries, government took an initiative to supply broadband
U.S. is at 47% range
Republicans want to base more BB access on competition
2002 FCC said local cable not subject to common carrier language
2005 FCC deregulates broadband
FCC issues “bradband access to the Internet” principles (feel good principles
2007: FCC issues “Broadband Notice of Inquiry”

need to keep watchful eye to make sure ISPs don’t become Internet gatekeepers

Netrality supported by:
Consumer organizations
1st Amendment supporters
Content providers
Education & library community

Netrality opposed by:
Telecom/cable companies
ISPs
Orgs that oppose government regulation

Net Neutrality Supporters
End users lose control
Stifle innovation and new services/applications
Concerns with evolving vertical market where telecom/cable providers control: the underlying circuit, actual Internet access itself, increasing share of content
Little competition for voice/video/data services

Net Neutrality Opponents
Must be able to manage network
Telecom/cable need return infrastructure investments
Cannot control legislative outcome
No cases of abuse or distrimination
Market is better mechanism to address issue

Impact on Libraries
Libraries are acess providers
Libraries are content providers
Libraries don’t have deep pockets
Could make ISP selection difficult
Libraries concerned with digital divide and equity of access, First amendment issues, diversity opinions

.

live blogging at WiLSWorld

a few notes before the morning session starts: Back at the Pyle Center in Madison Wisconsin. I (as well as the other Minnesota librarians here) didn’t go to the membership meeting. Went to the bookstore – stocked up on Bucky Badger T-shirts (Wisconsin native that I am).
Lots of energy here. Still lots of Hawaiian shirts (wonder if they washed them? – or have 2?)
Restaurant recommendation – Porto Bella last night was one of the best Italian restaurants I’ve ever been to.

Brave New Online Worlds: Social Networks, Online Communities, and Multi-User Virtual Environments
Tom Peters, TAP Information Services

a visual – Tom: no Hawaiian shirt, pretty green lei. An LJ Mover and Shaker

Second Life avatar – Maxido Ricardo (sp????)

Newsflash — it’s raining in Madison!!!!!!

Last night was leading a book discussion in Second Life.
No snappy title, title like a dissertation
Going to be predicting the future

Living in volatile times for libraries. What about relevance of librarianship.

www.tapinformation.com/WiLSWorld200707.htm (slides will be posted)

Rule #1 – don’t try to predict the future because you usually will be proven wrong

Behooves us to notice what changes are happening in world of our users

fairy tales to get at basic human tendancies
“hare” is human imagination. when confronted with a new technology we often race ahead in our minds to what seems to be plausible conclusions and outcomes.

“tortoise” is human lived experience.
it often takes years for reality to catch up to human imagination

unrealized vision of paperless society
nearly all information is now created in digital format
Standford study – 95% of information being created is being created digitally

Henny Penny Syndrome
sky is falling
some new technology is going to kill libraries and librarianship
HPS is caused by the Hare and Tortoise phenomenon
example – E-mail lists did not kill conference attendance

needed: a henny penny meter
henpenomemter or HPM for short
measures the henny penniness of our collective response to technological development
web initially had a low HPM score, but it has risen since
Google Mass Digitation had a high HPM score, but falling

thesis: many don’t see an important relationship between libraries & social networks, online communities, and virtual worlds (example Marshall Breeding)
nevertheless, TP thinks they could have a significant effect

(asked if anyone is twittering him – makes him nervous if people are twittering or blogging him)

Individuals, communities, libraries

Communities
lots of things get called communities
shared environment, interests, needs
communities often support “public goods” – libraries, schools, parks
Our social response to public goods has been changing (not the same as it was in the ’50s)
eg – charging an entry fee to a national park
Libraries serve communities
any library has potential user population, as well as user populations
some innovative libraries create communities
are we capable of creating communities in online environments?

talking about twittering – examples about how people might be having a twittering conversation about what speaker is saying
TP not sure what friendship means online. It’s a different kind.
not an either-or situation (online versus earthly communities)
see Castronova’s 2005 book, Synthetic Worlds
we ignore, at our peril, the economies of virtual worlds (Castronova)
impact on funding for libraries could really affect us

communities summarized:
earthly: general, localized population
Virtual: specialized, global population

Social Networks
basic concepts: nodes and ties
he says Illinois takes the cake for overlapping consortia

Online Social Networks
Facebook
MySpace
LibraryThing
Flickr
Flirtomatic
Twitter
Second Life

LibraryThing community sprang out of nothing
Online communities spring up because of something else someone is trying to do
TP is a reference librarian in Second Life (Monday nights)
Flickr has evolved into a community
not used Flirtomatic

had dinner with someone who got 20 Twitters during dinner. she demonstrated that there’s a lot of value in it for her.

What’s happening to the individual
***coming struggle between the individual and the group
smart mobs
wisdom of crowds – disturbing to TP. infers that even an expert is not as smart as the average of the crowd
online communities

Attemts to tap into group power
Communism (political, economic, social)
Trade Unions (economic, polical, social)
Wisdom of Crowd (informational, economic, social)

An aside: blogs vs. wikis
Blogs about individual mind. accumulate and present knowledge sequentially.
Wikis are about collective intelligence. present knowledge communially.
wikis leave out the distillation of process of looking up 5 sources (eg)

Future of the indivual
Individuals already operate in several communities (work, home, professiona., avocational, etc.)
Individual self will span severalenvironments (earth, web, virtual worlds). People will draw information from varying sources in several environments.
Indivudal may become subserviant in new ways to groups.

what does all have to do with libraries
libraries serve communities by supporting individuals
support geographically constrained communities
libraries funded locally

end of romantic library?
relationship between indivual and group
romantics put individual on a pedestal
all creativity comes from individual
western culture had a romantic movement.
can’t get our minds around balance of power between society and indivual
frontier spirit has a lot to do with romantic (indivualistic) spirit

romantic library
focuses on indivuals
quiet place for silent & reflection
do not directly foster community
diffuses knowledge
foster indivual exptertise

Rustication of Expertise
rusticated – sent away from university to think about it
in future experts associated with universities may decline

importance of indivual expertise to the advancement of humanity may actually decline in the near future
cites Michael Gorman – may believe romantic view of library right for past and future

want to be unsettled? David Weinberger, Everything is Miscellaneous

knowing and knowledge may become group process
knowledge through conversation
library as conversation

usage/funding disconnect
library patrons don’t care about geographic boundaries. in usage patterns, they’re already there
USAGE GLOBAL, FUNDING LOCAL
have to deal with

Virtual Worlds
3-D worlds
populated by avatars
like & unlike the Real World
second life
teen second life
Whyville
ActiveWorlds

Max his dog is inspiration for his avatar

real world libraries: detente between people and paper (% of humidity)
most info interaction has been 2-dimensional
Virtual libraries are 3D. makes senses for people. Will eventually be for information.

emphasis on digital objects persisted through the transition from print to digital
in virtual worlds, events and exhibits seem more than than collections.
all about the experience
what kind of library will it be if it’s more about events and exhibits than collections??????????

What is King?
content?
Community?
Conversation?
Experience? (Steven Abram)

what should li
braries do?
address the usage/funding disconnect
embrace library 2.0 tools and concepts as if no tomorrow
build and test prototype information experiences (about experience and not objects)

Brave new world?
from multi-tasking to multi-worlding
from romantic libraries to communal knowledge repositories

task
apply trends and affordances of online communal networks to the enduring mission of libraries
avoid henny pennyishness

social mores very different in vertual worlds

Reference in 2nd Life, replicating the reference service in physical
very expensive, labor intensive

average age of people with 2nd life avatars are 33
this is the way of people getting out (don’t need babysitter for small children)

We don’t understand browsing as a behavior. In an area of rich browsing environment, you slow down. Browsing in an ambient information environment, interacting with it.

Continuing live blogging

Opening Evergreen: Inside the Source Tree
or, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Slide Show
Jason Etheridge, Equinox Software, Inc.

Why?
“because the other software sucked”
Heard other people talking about library sofware running into walls. They only have ceilings.Software was dictating policy
Overloading fields with information that should have been used orthogonally
Finger pointing was futile
People seem to want commercial support so that they have someone to blame

How?
Focus groups
Too many people came with their frame of reference, their klugy work-arounds, couldn’t get passed it
Clean slate with “Pretend it’s magic”
Question every assumption, and fear the grandfathered workarounds
By being “agile” with many iterations and prototypes

Yes, buthow??
Automation vendors don’t have a monopoly on software developers. GPLS hired some.
Building blocks are larger these days (with code libraries), and often a commodity
Leveraged existing open source softare and expertise: Postgre SQL, Apache, Jabber, Mozilla, Code4Lib
We built the rest

Staff client built on Mozilla framework
Mac version has some issues
Transactions are tied to the workstation identifier
Offline permits uploading later (shoddy networks)

Demo Circ
Search by any part of record
Fields sorted, re-sized, control over which displayed
info displays in sidebar frame
Can check out a pre-cataloged item. Doesn’t pollute database. Resides in another table.
Can define how long data is retained. Up to system administrator.
By default, Evergreen keeps data.

Org hierarchy
Permissions given at hierarchy
By default, patron can’t place a copy level hold.
Only available at staff client
Pull list updates itself every 15 minutes
Haven’t implemented hold-freezing or stalling
Requests are truly random
Plans in future to define weights to different routes
thoughts about true geo-spatial based holds

Daily fines listed separately, one line item for each day
Software allows for different policies
Can link patrons into groups.
Present limitation, can only be in one group.
Can have any number of permission groups.

Can use barcode checking
Will alert for duplicate data in patron record, good for checking if already in system
PC reservations uses SIP2

Georgia requires asking patron about voter registration, and take it if they wish
Not in software right now to display the address

Can place firnat specific request

Notices done through 3rd party, XML

Search interface is the same for staff and patrons, there are just more options from within the staff interface (when logged in)

PINES only imports records from OCLC. Others can import through Z Search of LC, etc.

In OPAC in staff client, you get extra meta data in the top panel.

live blogging at WilsWorld in Madison
afternoon Plenary Session

Georgia PINES: Adventures in Statewide ILS Development
Dr. Lemar Veatch, Georgia State Library

A little friendly banter – how ’bout those Dogs/Badgers

A little color – Lemar has a great Hawaiian shirt. Says he ordered it for this occasion from a shop in Honolulu

There are 50 state libraries, and 50 ways of doing things

PINES – Public Information Network for Electronic Services
46 public library systems
254 facilities and BKMs
8.8 million items
1.7 million actives cardholders from all 159 Georgia counties
Single almost state-wide library card

Started out as a Y2K project. Shook a lot of money loose in the public sector. Georgia appropriated a whole bunch of $$$ to fix Y2K problems. Lots of small libraries had no or very inadequate Winnebago systems that were not Y2K compliant.
David Singleton wrote a white paper, which is what became PINES

Georgia environment:
159 counties
59 systems
375 facilities
25% state money. 75% e-rate money. High speed lines into every library (many multiple)
45th concerning local funding. 5th concerning state funding.
state pays for librarians
tremendous dependency on state funding
in rural areas even higher ratio
where there is more state money, comes more power (executed “benignly”)
have power to make people come together to do the right things for the right reasons

How is PINES unique?
free to any resident of Georgia
Card good at any PINES facility, materials returned to any PINES library
Completely transparent
***new books protected from intra-PINES loans for 6 months
FY07 480,000 intra-PINES loans, in FY00 6000 loans
Statewide courier service began in October 2004. service to all headquarters libraries in PINES
PINES libraries agree to a common set of policies and procedures – a consistent patron experience
Common fine structures
Fines and fees paid at any PINES library
Overdue notices processed centrally for all member libraries

Reality of buying a vendor ILS dictated agreement on policies. Locked librarians in a room until they came up with an acceptable agreement.

many small libraries hang on to older items, they become the long tail of older items that get requested

Governance
9 representatives from member library systems compose Executive Committee
Elected by member systems annually – staggered terms
Meet quarterly or as needed
Module-specific subcommittees make policy recommendations
Executive Committee sets policies (not GPLS)

Benefits for libraries
One easy interface
Local identity
Increased access
Centrally administered
Significant ILS costs paid by state
Regional training, convenient to member libraries and staffs
Centralized helpdesk and support for software and common policies
Centralized overdue notices – mail and email

Cost-Benefit
Estimate to install stand-alone ILS in all PINES libraries: $15M
Estimate annual maintenance: $5M

PINES annual operations: $1.6M
$/per registered customer
1/10 of cost of purchasing individual automation systems
These figures resonate with legislators

Library patrons don’t care about legislative jurisdictions or geographic boundaries

Conduct annual satisfaction survey. 3900 responses. very good responses

Crossroads for PINES
Initial 5-year software contract for PINES ended in June 2005
2003-2004: comprehensive survey of the library automation marketplace
Is the software drive the policy/procedure, or vice versa?
Drumbeat for “open-source” …foolish, crazy, suicidal?

New librarian said he’d like to develop an ILS (Brad)
Told Brad +2 to take a year to see where he was
Conducted focus groups

What do PINES libraries need?
Enterpres-class relational database
Scalable and standards compliant
Ease of use
Flexible & reliable
Data security
Stats and reports to correspond to annual reporting requirements

Evergreen ILS developed in a fully Open Source environment
Software development began in June 2004
All PINES libraries migrated to Evergreen software on 9-5-06
Evergreen debuted with Online Catalog, Circulation, Cataloging, and Reports
Transactions, customer records, and online catalog records were migrated from the former system (on Labor Day weekend)

First iteration of Evergreen intended to get out from under vendor software.
Get basic functionality with room to grow

Evergreen features:
Search capabilities similar to popular commercial websites
Live circulation data in the OPAC
Google-like spell-checking and search suggestions
Added content, book covers
Scalability for growth
Enhanced security features
Customer empowerment
Works with JAWS
Virtual books bags
RSS
Local flexibility for authorizations down to desktop
Surveys
Virtual containers for batch changes
Simplified merging of bibliographic records
OPAC view in staff client
Use of tabs
Search any field in patron record
Randomized olds which work in a tiered structure

Core technologies
Database: PostgreSQL
C++ and Perl
Abache mod-perl
Linux
Jabber
XUL

Evergreen Design
Cost-effective
Reliable
Flexible

Where do we go from here:
Develop children’s catalog
Complete Spanish translation for OPAC
French/Canadian version completed
More self-service options, including online bill pay for customers
Enhanced links with GALILEO – Georgia’s state-wide database portal
5 systems waiting
Work with partners on protocols to share information with other automation systems (Open NCIP).
Partnership with U Rochester – extensible catalob project
Develop the A/S – Partner with U Windsor, BC Libraries, and Equinox
Enhance social networking
Partnerships with libraries worldwide
Cooperative systems with universities

development team says they stand on the shoulders of lots and lots of other developers
developed in open environment

http://www.open-ils.org/ software development

http://www.gapines.org/ online catalog

demoed catalog
Shelf browser – neat!

Only circulating/reserving books, not AV, Board policy

Bookbags, have multiple bags. Share the bag, with RSS

You’d never buy a car with the hood welded shut. Georgia wants to get in there and tinker.

Staff of 8-9 for PINES

live blogging, session 2 –

R & D for Libraries
Boguszewski & Meyer, Library Technology Group
UW-Madison Libraries

Management is getting from here to there
Challenge is figuring out where here is and where there is

Google admits they haven’t got it all figured out. Their specialized projects are all “Beta”

Library paradigm change – Embrace the beta
Beta implies unfinished. A great time to get feedback to users

Why releasean unfinished product? — we don’t know yet what we don’t know.
(but neither do users)

Netflix (exaample) site update schedule: 2 weeks
all services through website
they know the benefits of failing fast
teams that fail fast improve as fast, if not faster. Reason: teams trying to get it right the first time fail as often as everyone else.
90% of the ideas they try fail

R&D can be dangerous, must have clear goals. solve only known problems and problems that are important.

What is the problem?
Do the tools exist?
Does the staff exist?

Infrastructure
Vertualization
Security
=Ability to move fast

Vertualization – they use VM ware
Leverages the hardware they’re buying
Virtual servers can be cloned quickly. Take the time up front to set up server, patch, base software, test results for consistency. Ability to have exact replicas of an environment.

Can test things like patches before deploying in live environment
Take a snapshot of the environment before development. can quickly revert to a moment in time if development goes bad.

Help desk system -selection of tool
found many others were using open source
pick your flavor (operating system)
pick your database
Installed 4 products of help desk systems

Advantages of open source
Constantly changing, fixing bugs
Ability to modify source code
Community enhancements and plug ins
Simple, easily changeable interface

Disadvantages of open source
Constantly changing, fixing bus
No direct customer support (get answers from others on their timeframe)
Development is not free

Richard Stallman: “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price . . . .

Chose open source system for help desk. Had plug in to integrate inventory into ticketing system.
Out of the box worked well
Chose Request Tracker
*Email generated tickets
*Web forms
*Inventory information

Make the catalog data work harder
Persistent notion, that libraries build collections (not just collect things)
Why does OPAC suck? We’re data rich, but functionality poor.
trying to fix existing system like putting lipstick on a pig (ouch)

Greatest strengths
Patrons come to library because we have good
We collect smartly
Bibliographers and collection managers build collections

“There is no online equivalent to browsing the stacks” (history professor)
Can browse by call number
Wrong assumption – that people know call numbers

Tennant said we’ve spent a lot of time making people expert searchers
We should be spending more time making computers do what searchers want

Focus – how does one bib record connect to others in the collection?

At the time find one good hit, then provide a way to go to a call number search in order to simulate call number browse of shelf.

Mock up shows it can be done. Given to vendors as a model.

2 PointOh My Library Software and Services in a New Era
Andrew Pace, North Carolina State University

Live blogging at WilSWorld Conference at the Pyle Center in Madison
Keynote speaker Andrew Pace
oops – he missed the memo – no Hawaiian shirt (me either)

Library 2.[Gr]0[an]

Doesn’t believe in generational divisions
Do good better
Give the people what they want
Be where the user is
Make it more efficient
Rinse and repeat

The worst level of Internet service that users will accept is the best of service that they’ve ever seen

Watch for the geezer alert (we’ve been doing it since . . . . )

2.0 affects the whole library
Not just technology
Collections 2.0
Technical Services
Access Services
Library Education

Pace very crow-oriented: distracted by shiny and shinier objects

Maurice Line: Librarianship as it is practiced: a failure of intellect, imagination and initiative.

It’s time to get on the bus or get off at the next stop

Collections & Technical Services 2.0
Would take over 1300 LC to create surrogate records at the same rate that Google is digitizing books.

LC still rocks – cited World Digital Library

Rumors of MARC’s death exaggerated
Cult of MARC will keep us from moving ahead

Standards are like toothbrushes – everybody says they’re necessary, but no one wants to use anyone else’s

Pursuit of the perfect record is what’s hurting us

Catalog should recognize clusters, show lineage, . . . .

Access Services 2.0

Self check out
Self check in
Compact storage and automatic retrieval (has real financial benefits)

Public Service/Spaces 2.0

NC State just opened learning commons
Wireless, white boards all over, scanners, carrels leave room for collaboration, group study with projection
Service desk
Plasma screen w informative information
Wii and XBox for a break
Loan devices – cameras, MP3s, laptops, GIS
Webpage has a forum
Webcam

Keep in context – penmanship was once required in library school

Administration 2.0
The staff will change, or the staff will change (anonymous)

Library Interfaces 2.0
The bar is so low you cannot fail (about making a better online catalog)
Catalog been around 20+ years (Google and Amazon about 10+)
Catalog was the first database that the public encountered
Emphasis was how to move people comfortably from the card catalog
Catalog was a back office operation – an advanced inventory management system
Shameful that we’ve let it go on for so long

Skills for librarians and technology pros are different

Vendor 2.0 vs Web 2.0
Down to about 20 vendors (squandered our money doing exactly what we asked them to)
Era of ILS is dead
Vendors are pretty uninterested
2.0 in business world means equity buyouts, mergers and acquisitions, vertical integration, cost-cutting, and (too often) unhappy customers)
No one woke up and said “libraries, that’s where the money is”
More accurately recognized ILS industry as ripe for consolidation

You can please some of the peole some of the time, and others never at all (AP’s mother)

Challenge for us is not teaching the patron to use our systems, but rather making our systems do what the patrons are familiar with

WorldCat Local – not sure what level of customization they will allow
Long queue for reclamation

Reference many companies under same “umbrella”

Facets are the icing, not the cake

Tag clouds – anybody annoyed?

Should be ashamed LibraryThing invented by a nonlibrarian

Endeca – not comfortable calling it Catalog 2.0
Went live – perfect is the enemy of the good
Wanted commercial engine strength for search
Wanted to be able to do a true browse
Spell checking
“Did you mean”
Automatic word stemming
Have a real relevance search
Option for “librarian” search / if you must do boolean

Outcomes 2.0
2/3 of users come in and do a pure search
25% choose one or more navigation
8% by pure navigation (mostly new books)

2 largest searches are subject: topic and LC Classification
Many using subject based browsing

subject qualified search – problem with listings, authorized subheadings not included in main division (scroll down 10 pages)

Integrated catalog – does it “free the data”

Old model (Breeding) expanded from local and got broader

New model starts with world

Mobile device searching

New books search, shows covers of new books, shows on 60 inch plasma screen

Nothing new under the sun