Thingology (LibraryThing's ideas blog)

LibraryThing for Libraries at ALA: new features and hungry rhinos

noreply@blogger.com (Sonya) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:58:00 +0000

Are you ready for this?

Tim and I will be at the American Library Association's annual conference this year. We have new, new LTFL features to show off. You can find us at booth 2857 in the exhibit hall.

1. New features! We'll be demoing our new catalog enhancers - never before seen by librarians. We'll post an announcement all about the new features in a day or two.

2. An art installation! Yeah, you'll just have to wait and see it. I can't even describe it, other than to say that it takes away ennui.

3. More rhinos! Tim and I are both flying to Chicago with an inflatable rhino in our luggage. We plan on playing "Toss the Rhino", and perhaps if we are feeling extra daring, "Pass the Rhinos".

(Thanks to Brixton for the masticating rhino photo. The rhino tossing one's mine. That's Tim and Casey putting some English on the rhino.)

Categories for your LTFL Reviews

noreply@blogger.com (Sonya) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:46:00 +0000

Teen reviews from Seattle Public Library

Library home page | Get this widget

We've a new feature to LibraryThing for Libraries, suggested by Lare over at the Seattle Public Library. He was looking for a way to show off just some of their reviews—reviews for their summer reading program.

Libraries can now add "categories" for their reviewers to check off—library book club books, Big Read books, reviews by library staff, etc. And the library can show off just one category of reviews in their LTFL blog widget.

Seattle has made blog-widget pages for their kids section, teen section, and even their adult section of the site. By categorizing the reviews into age-related groups, they can feature items in their catalog that would interest the patrons for each demographic.

We'll be releasing some more cool features at American Library Association meeting in Chicago next week.

Project Managers Sought for OSC

noreply@blogger.com (david) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:22:00 +0000

Due to an increase in work commitments for both Laena and David, new
project managers are sought for the Open Shelves Classification project. Below is a status report of the project. Interested leaders should contact Tim Spalding (tim@librarything.com).

OSC status report June 2009:

One year into the project, here is what we have accomplished so far:
-Many wide-ranging discussions were held in the LibraryThing Build
the Open Shelves Classification group and the OSC blog.

-Optional facets were agreed upon initially as the way to handle audience, format, and language.

-An initial list of top level categories was compiled by the end of 2008 and put out for review.

-In January 2009, LibraryThing members tested these categories by applying them to works in LibraryThing using the ClassifyThis feature.

-In January, a brainstorming meeting was held at the ALA midwinter meeting and was attended by librarians and non-librarians.

-In February, the feedback from the testing was used to further refine the top level categories.

-Starting in February and running through May, small groups began to construct the secondary levels for certain categories.

-Throughout the spring, Laena and David did outreach for the project, writing pieces for the PLA blog and the IFLA
newsletter, and reached out to libraries in an unsuccessful search for public library data.

-In May, the current list of categories of the OSC was added to sandbox of the National Science Digital Library Metadata Registry.

Categories with second levels in development:
-Art
-Biography & Autobiography
-Design
-Fiction
-History
-Performing Arts
-Religion
-Science

After working on the project for a year, we have the following recommendations:
-The project needs a steering committee structure for leadership. The
project is too large in scope for one or two librarians to manage
without other leadership.

-More involvement and leadership from public librarians! They know
the intended audience of the OSC best.

Intern at LibraryThing!

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:52:00 +0000

Not sure what to do with your summer? I just posted this to a few local lists—librarians, design people, etc. I thought I'd post it here too.

LibraryThing.com, the innovative social site for book lovers wants an intern.

We can think of four possible "types" for whom we could create a nifty internship. We're only looking to get one intern, though.

"Weird Library Science" (MLS students)
"Web 2.0 Programming" (computer students)
"Web 2.0 Marketing" (anyone)
"Web 2.0 Design" (design students)

We offer:

*Minimum wage, probably
*Full- or part-time
*Cool, anarchic work environment (4 people in Portland, 6 elsewhere)

We'd love to get someone in who could help us, but the focus will be on learning from us, and doing interesting, open-ended and intellectually stimulating projects.

We'd rather get someone local (Portland, Maine), but if you really want to do something remote, and have a strong idea what you could do with us, we'd love to hear from you.

About LibraryThing:

LibraryThing (http://www.librarything.com) is a social networking and social cataloging site for book lovers. Over 700,000 members have used the site to catalog over 40 million books--and created a whole new way of relating to books and to book people.

Contact: Tim Spalding, Founder (tim@librarything.com)

Ann Arbor's Shaman Drum closing

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:56:00 +0000

Ann Arbor's legendary Shaman Drum Bookshop (website, LibraryThing Local) just announced they are closing after 29 years—and I'm devastated. They were my refuge in graduate school, and one of my favorite indies.

Links: Ann Arbor Chronicle, LA Times, Galleycat, Shaman Drum Announcement

New developments on the FRBR front

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:41:00 +0000

The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records have changed direction.

Hat-tip: Karen Coyle.

Category Feature Added to LTFL Reviews

noreply@blogger.com (Sonya) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:12:00 +0000

We've added a new feature to the LibraryThing for Libraries Reviews Enhancement: the ability to categorize reviews for the blog widget.

Thus far, library patrons have been able to write reviews and rate books in their library's catalog, add their reviews to their Facebook page and even create a widget that lets them show off their reviews on blogs and websites.

Now, libraries can show off reviews written by their patrons for specific library programs. Patrons and librarians can add categories to a review. The library can then create blog widgets with said categories – keep track of reviews for the Summer Reading Program, One Book, One City and book discussion groups.

This should be helpful all year round, but the inspiration for the feature came from a librarian's request to manage the reviews children were going to be writing for the summer reading program at their library. They wanted some way to display the reviews separately from the rest of the reviews coming in.

Anyone who's bought the Reviews Enhancement can use this feature starting immediately. Read here for instructions how to add and use it.

If you'd like more information about LTFL, and the enhancements that can take your OPAC from Library 1.0 to Library 2.0 overnight, fill out the interest form on the LTFL page.

The Reviews Enhancement isn't available for all OPACs – currently, it supports Horizon, iBistro, iLink, eLibrary, Webvoyage, Voyager 7, WebPac, WebPac Pro and Koha. More are coming soon!

LTFL Reviews: you stand 300,000 deep

noreply@blogger.com (Sonya) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:38:00 +0000

At the end of May, we reached 300,000 reviews vetted and available for LibraryThing for Libraries!

We'd previously been bragging about having 250,000 reviews, so here's my core sample: at the beginning of April, we had 24 reviews for The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz. Now, we have 74. Of course, popular books will get more reviews, but trust me – we also cover the long, long tail of library collections.

The LTFL Reviews Enhancement is currently available for Horizon, iBistro, Webvoyage, Voyager 7, Koha, WebPac and WebPac Pro. The LTFL Catalog Enhancements are available for practically every OPAC. Contact us for more info.

How to start a dance party

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:00:00 +0000

A good illustration for social efforts of every kind.

Hat-tip: Ze Frank, David Weinberger

New Kindle model released

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:49:00 +0000

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

Non est potestas: OCLC Policy withdrawn

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:25:00 +0000

Non est potestas super terram quae comparetur ei / There is no power on earth that compares with it (frontispiece to Hobbes' Leviathan)

The OCLC Review Board finally put OCLC's Policy to bed. In a short speech to the OCLC Members Council, board chair Jennifer Younger, affirmed "that a policy is needed, but not this policy." After the drubbing they got from the ICOLC and ARL—neither of which took into consideration OCLC's recent push into the software market—you can be sure OCLC will take its board's advice.

While the result was the right one, and I'm sure the members are good, conscientious librarians, I'm not going to echo others' praise about their decision. The writing was on the wall. If they had pushed forward, OCLC would have met even more hostility than it already engendered. The speech itself, like their "push poll" survey, show where the OCLC Review Board's sympathies lie. I don't think you could read the ICOLC or ARL reports against it and conclude OCLC "gets" it. It was, as one of my email correspondents put it "all about protecting WorldCat, identifying 'threats,' and 'appropriate use by members.'"

I think one of Dr. Younger's phrases nicely encapsulates the flaw in OCLC's approach, namely "we must revisit the Social Contract between OCLC and its members." I'd like to go into the phrase a little deeper, not without some fun-poking.

The Social Contract. The phrase "social contract" is an interesting one. The idea also appeared in the the ARL report*—and may well go have been used before. As everyone knows, it's a key concept in political theory (hence the Hobbes' frontispiece above) as the thing that, some believe, makes government power legitimate.

Why, therefore, does a cooperative need to express itself in terms of state-formation, rather than a voluntary cooperative? Why does OCLC want to cast itself as a government?

Sitting in OCLC's Brobdingnagian Dublin, OH headquarters, with thousands of OCLC workers shuttling about like so many ministry secretaries, and an interior hall bedecked with flags like the United Nations, it must be easy to think of OCLC as a sort of "government of libraries."**

Architectural criticism aside, OCLC's answer might be that, unlike cooperatives, a government gets to enforce its will more broadly. If you run afoul of a cooperative, the mutual consent that bound you to the cooperative is withdrawn, and you leave or they kick you out. But if you break the rules of a state, they put you in prison, whether you consent or not. Indeed, while philosophers have sometimes proposed a formal ceremony of consent, states act on non-consenting members all the time. Anarchists go to prison too (indeed, they tend to go to prison for being anarchists). This model, therefore, fits in better with OCLC's plan to bind former members and non-members use of library data. As a cooperative, OCLC is a purely member institution. With a "social contract," OCLC get to dictate more like a state.***

If the idea of OCLC-as-state is accepted, however, there's a gap between the ARL report's idea of a "mutual social contract"—a social contract between citizen equals—and Younger's description of the "Social Contract between OCLC and its members." The latter is a nice description of the more antique view of a contract between citizens and their sovereign. Even if libraries accept a government over them, I suspect they would be more comfortable with the more modern view of a contract between equals.

Nullum timeret? As libraries consider the matter, one factor can be put to rest: Fear.

Writing for the Next Generation Catalog for Libraries list, Karen Coyle speculated that libraries were responding to OCLC through organizations like ARL and ICOLC, out of a "combination of 'strength in numbers' and 'safety in numbers.'"

"I've seen a remarkable tendency of libraries to not want to confront OCLC. Remember that the proposed policy had penalties for mis-use of records, and severe ones at that (loss of rights to use OCLC records altogether). There is an intimidation factor involved. Agreed, as a member organization the members should not be afraid, but I think they are."

That fear should be much diminished. Members spoke up, and OCLC backed down again and again (by my count they postponed, revised, revised, revised, delayed for revision and now shelved). Libraries—and, quite importantly, lots of people who merely love libraries—rose up and forced OCLC to back down.

The frontispiece to Hobbes' Leviathan, shown above, quotes the Vulgate of the first clause of Job 41:33, non est super terram potestas quae conparetur ei ("There is no power on earth that compares to him."). No doubt Hobbes or anyway his cover-designer felt this a good description of the legitimate sovereign.

But for our purposes, the second clause is particularly apt, qui factus est ut nullum timeret, "There is no power on earth that compares to him, who was made to fear nothing." Job thought that whales were fearless.

Well, OCLC, you've met the architeuthis. And he is all of us.

See also:

*"In the eyes of the community, the guidelines expressed a mutual social contract, and the new Policy represents an authoritarian, unilaterally imposed legal restriction."
**The trees growing inside are also a nice touch. The Assyrian throne room just had a carving of a tree, and the White Tree of Gondor was outside. ;)
***Similarly, nobody minds if you belong to two cooperatives. But states tend to be jealous about allegiance. AS ICOLC wrote, libraries are involved in a "complex set of relationships," of which, "OCLC is one vital component among many that libraries will use." That's not really a "social contract" idea.

Photo by Flickr user OZinOH.

OCLC Policy, Good night

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:18:00 +0000

The International Coalition of Library Consortia, a very loose but extremely large group of library consortia, just released a Statement on the Proposed OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records.

For a while there it looked like OCLC was going to succeed in locking down the world's library data, converting a wonderful sharing and coordination tool into an unbreakable data monopoly. But, together with OCLC's recent, revealing decision to enter the library systems market, the ICOLC statement effectively ends that possibility. OCLC isn't getting its new Policy, or anything like it.* Good night, OCLC Policy.

The details are worth a look. The ICOLC's statement was short, signing onto the "substantial and broad" concerns highlighted by the Association of Research Libraries. It goes on to add three concerns, two of which address the risk to innovation—a topic the ARL report barely touched on:

The proposed policy appears to freeze OCLC’s role in the library community based on historical and current relationships. We share the concern, voiced by many, that the policy hinders rather than encourages innovation, and we urge the Review Board to carefully examine this issue. It is unclear that the policy has been constructed with a focus on an evolving role of OCLC in enhancing the missions of an international library community with diverse and complex interests.
The scope of the proposed policy goes well beyond any concerns about inappropriate commercial exploitation of WorldCat records. It applies as well to non-commercial uses. ICOLC member consortia are member-created, member-driven innovation agents. Our initiatives are generally non-commercial and undertaken with member approval based on member needs. Any OCLC record use policy should account for the rich and diverse innovation that takes place through many consortia.
The proposed policy is legally murky. There is no mechanism for negotiation of terms and conditions nor is it clear what constitutes acceptance by member libraries. A new policy must address these problems.

As significant as the content was the list of signatories. Lyrasis, the former Palinet and Solinet, includes over 2,500 members. With "regional base and national scope" (their words), and about to merge with Nelinet, bringing their members to 4,500, Lyrasis is a major player. They're no longer just a "regional service provider" for OCLC, and can be expected to collaborate or compete with OCLC as its members' interests lead. They were joined by many of the big regional and state networks out there—MINITEX, NERL, the Florida Center for Library Automation, the Washington Research Library Consortium, the Michigan Library Consortium, WiLS, four Canadian consortia and both the Swedish and Finnish national libraries. Some of the signatories ought to have been sympathetic. Orbis Cascade, a source of much original cataloging, is also an important OCLC partner in developing consortial software. In Ohio, OCLC's home state, OhioLINK, OHIONET and INFOhio all signed. Other members will add their names to the list as they affirm it.

The Next Step. It's time now for the library world to step back and consider what, if anything, they want to do about restricting library data in a fast-moving, digital world. Some, including some who've deplored OCLC's process and the policy, want restrictions on how library data is distributed and used. Once monopoly and rapid, coerced adoption are off the table, that's a debate worth having, and one with arguments on both sides.

From my perspective, restrictions on the use and transfer of cataloging data—which is not usually copyrightable and is most frequently created by bodies responsible to the public good—is legally dubious and ethically stingy.

Instead, libraries should embrace "radical openness," a commitment to sharing what they know freely, something that looks less radical in light of the library's historic dedication to the free exchange of information. Selling other people's library records isn't a real threat, but, if it were, the answer would be more openness, not less. When you sell tickets, you get scalpers. But nobody makes money selling passes to Central Park. (A few people make money walking dogs around it. Most just enjoy the free grass and sunshine.) And in a world that's looking less and less friendly to the long-term success of libraries, an unwavering commitment to sharing and openness may well be libraries' saving grace.

So, three cheers to ICOLC for speaking up on this issue. Now, librarians and library programmers, let's get back to work. Let's earn our freedom.

Artwork: "Flickr is Freedom." Creative Commons, Attribution, by Timtak.

*I note with some interest that Edward Corrado, whose OCLC posts have been very perceptive, isn't quite as excited about this as I am. Where he wishes the statement was "worded a little stronger" I take great solace in phrases like "The proposed policy appears to freeze OCLC’s role in the library community based on historical and current relationships." I'm hoping some others weigh in. The library world is, I think, somewhat exhausted by the whole OCLC Policy affair, and now that the organizations are weighing in strongly and negatively, the bloggers and newslist-ers who raised the initial questions—and were excoriated for it—may no longer be as necessary.

Improved support for Koha

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Catalfo) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:10:00 +0000

Setting up LibraryThing for Libraries in Koha is now a only couple of clicks away!

The 3.2 version of Koha (which isn't out yet) will include the improved integration for LTFL. If you are using Koha without a host, and run on the bleeding edge, you can try it now via Git.

What this does is enable and disable LTFL through the Koha Enhanced Content system preference page. Simply enter your LTFL account number (found on your LibraryThing for Libraries Account page), decide where you'd like LTFL content to display (in tabs or under other bibliographic details) and enable it. No need to edit Koha templates.

The work to make this possible was initiated by me and extended and improved by Chris Hyde of East Brunswick Public Library. Thanks, Chris!

Podcast 3 is over there

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:25:00 +0000

Check out the main blog for Podcast Number 3 ("Murder! Politics! Books!"), a delightful romp through the Legacy Library project with its coordinator, Jeremy Dibbell.

The conversation touches on LibraryThing's contribution to 18th century American history scholarship—Jeremy's discovery, with Monticello's Endrina Tay, of the library of George Wythe, a prominent Virginian and signer of the Declaration of Independence, reconstructed from an untitled book list in the Thomas Jefferson papers.

Check it out here

OCLC news reactions

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:24:00 +0000

This post follows on The OCLC End Game, posted early this morning.

Library Journal's Josh Hadro did an excellent follow-up article. Besides citing this blog post, Hadro got responses from Carl Grant, president of Ex Libris on OCLC's tenuous non-profit status—I'll have another post about that soon—and a number of bloggers. Iris Jastram/Pegasus Librarian's thoughts deserve quotation:

"I'm pleased that this is yet another competitor against the current lumbering giants in the ILS market, and I like the idea that (if I understand correctly) this will add a hosted option to the ILS market. ... On the other hand, this means that that pesky new policy on the transfer and use of OCLC records really wasn't just about protecting a bunch of member-produced data after all. There were bigger plans afoot, and these plans involved leaning even farther toward the vendor model rather than the service model. And if OCLC is a vendor rather than a service, that new policy feels even more like a land-grab rather than an effort to protect member investments."

Ms. Jastram's misgivings are comforting to me, at least, as her previous thoughts on the OCLC Policy were more mixed. Ultimately, the fate of OCLC's Policy will be decided by the people in the middle—the fair-minded people, not the ones who equate OCLC with the Matrix, The Empire or the All Your Bases villain.*

The Smithsonian Libraries on the OCLC Policy. I missed this, but on April 2 the official blog of the Smithsonian Institution Libraries weighed in on the OCLC Policy and the ACRL/ARL response (PDF), "support[ing] the recommendations" emphasizing a number of points. Among these were:

"The policy should recognize and affirm traditional library values of cooperative cataloging and shared bibliographic information without any claim of ownership of the bibliographic records."
"OCLC’s new policy should recognize, and not be in conflict with, existing legal obligations or requirements that may apply to some OCLC member libraries (such as federal libraries)."

It's great to see a federal library making such a public statement. Having been passed by in the OCLC Policy discussion—Federal librarians have told me they were amazed OCLC thought it could unilaterally change licensing terms with government entities—and not included on the ARL/ACRL board either, at least one is lending its voice to the criticism. Hooray for them. James Smithson, who left his estate for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge"—and to a country he had never even visited!—would, I think, be proud.

*Chris Bourg left a comment to the effect that the AYBABTU reference was purely humorous, and she does not consider OCLC a villain, even if she thinks I've got a good argument. Now, can anyone think of a way to tape Jay Jordan saying "You have no chance to succeed make your time"? I'm thinking we could sky write it over OCLC headquarters in Dublin, OH and secretly film OCLC employees puzzling it out. Ideally, though, he'd need to wear the bionic monocle.

I will never run out of interesting Flickr chess images. This one's by Shyald, from a series.

The OCLC End Game

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:06:00 +0000

Two years ago I predicted what OCLC, the library-data organization, was after with it's WorldCat Local pilot program—"They're trying to convert a data licensing monopoly into a services monopoly." To illustrate, I changed the OCLC logo to the Death Star.

I was hardly alone in this speculation. But this concern was soon overtaken as OCLC brought forth it's Revised Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records. The Policy, which turned a de facto data monopoly into a legally enforceable one, became a focus of intense debate in the library world. On the one side just about every library blogger with a keyboard, and eventually a review board at the ACRL/ARL, raised questions about the idea of anyone "owning" records meant for sharing and most frequently produced by government entities. On the other side, OCLC's defenders (in truth, mostly employees), talked of OCLC's "curation" of community content, of "protecting members' investment," of the "best interest of libraries," "OCLC's public purposes" and of WorldCat.com's role as an essential "switching mechanism" to local catalog (references: 1, 2, 3).

Yesterday, OCLC unveiled the end game that brings everything together. As reported by Marshall Breeding in Library Journal:

"This new project, which OCLC calls "the first Web-scale, cooperative library management service," will ultimately bring into WorldCat Local the full complement of functions traditionally performed by a locally installed integrated library system (ILS)."

The new service will be "free" to (paying) WorldCat First Search customers.

The move to "web scale" (OCLC-speak for "web") catalogs was an inevitable one, and is a good one. It's silly to have every library in the country running their own racks of servers. The economics of server architecture, equipment and systems administration make a single, hosted solution economically superior. It makes particular sense for OCLC. With a large percentage of world libraries' data sitting in servers for copy-cataloging purposes, a locally branded and faceted web-app. catalog was the next logical step.

The move casts new light on its Policy defenses. OCLC isn't "curating" library records; it's leveraging them to enter a new market. It wasn't "protecting members' investment," it was investing members' money, intended to support OCLC's core mission, to build a new service. WorldCat isn't a "switching mechanism" to local catalogs. It will replace them.

I'd love to follow them. I'd love to make a large-scale hosted library catalog. I think LibraryThing could do a lot better. OCLC is full of smart people, but it develops slowly and has shown singular inability to produce social features that anyone would want to use. I think Talis, AquaBrowser, LibLime and Equinox could do better too. And I think, if library programmers got together, they could make truly open community-run service—something others, like LibraryThing, could provide plug-ins for.

We'd all love to try, but we aren't allowed. According to the Policy, you can't build the sort of truly "web scale" database that would make such a project economically viable. Anything that replicates the "function, purpose and/or size" of WorldCat is not "Reasonable Use." Any library participating in such a venture would lose its right to OCLC-derived records, something that would literally shutter most public and all academic libraries in the country. When it comes to large-scale online catalogs, there can be no competing with OCLC.

Let me be clear: I have no problem with OCLC developing software. They do good work. I for one think WorldCat/WorldCat Local is a better product than most server-based OPACs.

But, now more than ever, OCLC must end its attempts to restrict and monopolize library data. It was ugly and unfair for OCLC to claim ownership over what is largely public data. It is obscene to leverage that data monopoly into a software monopoly.

Chess images from Flick users malias and furryscaly. Chess outside makes me think of the Deus' song Slow. What is it with Europeans and outdoor chess sets anyway?

Flash-mob cataloging in Chicago

noreply@blogger.com (Sonya) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:58:00 +0000

Quick cross-post from the other LibraryThing blog:

There will be a flash-mob cataloging party in Chicago this Sunday, April 19th, at the the Puerto Rican Cultural Center. Read more here.

Dirigo!* (Maine takes the lead)

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:12:00 +0000

The University of Maine's New Media Department has approved new promotion and tenure guidelines that take into account social media, so professors get some credit for a widely read blog, contributions to popular or professional wikis, and so forth.

A "rationale," "New Criteria for New Media" was written for the peer-reviewed journal Leonardo (but you can be sure 99% of people will read the link just cited). As David Weinberger writes:

"This the right thing to do not only because it is a more realistic assessment of an academic’s worth. It’s also the right thing to do because it helps to build the value of the network. If knowledge and expertise are becoming properties of the network, it is the social responsibility of our institutions to encourage the enhancement of that network."

As a Mainer, I take special pride in this. I only wish the New Media Department, at Orono, outside of Bandor, were closer to Portland.

*Dirigo, I lead, is the state motto. Maine has a lot of pithy mottoes. Portland, ravaged by fire four times, has the doughty Resurgam, "I'm gonna get up again!"

LTFL webinar by WiLS

noreply@blogger.com (Sonya) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:45:00 +0000

There will be a webinar * on LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL) from Wisconsin Library Services (WiLS).

Details: Thursday April 9th, 2009, 2:00 - 3:00 pm, Central Time
Blog post here | Sign-up info here

Jenny Schmidt (SWITCH consortium) and Ingrid Lebolt (Arlington Heights Memorial Library) will be explaining "how LTFL works and detail the process of implementing LTFL features into your library's catalog (Web Opac)." WiLS hosts a series of webinars for libraries.

Note: this is one in a series of webinars, all which cost smallish amounts of money.

Both speakers work at libraries using LTFL (see the whole list here). I have a long-standing love for the Arlington Heights library. They were an early adopter of LTFL, and of good things in general. Here's their LibraryThing Local page, and a picture of me standing outside their building (to corroborate my story). The far-away half of my family lived there, and I grew up going to AHML when I'd visit.

*definition of 'web conference/webinar'

G001? Neil Gaiman and top-level categories

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:56:00 +0000

GinaGlenn tweeted this photo from Malaprop's Bookstore in Asheville, NC, where she is a bookseller. As she put it to Gaiman, "you defy categorization!"

Some members are arguing that the Open Shelves Classification shouldn't have Pets at the top level. Well, make way for a top-level Gaiman category!

LibraryThing at Computers In Libraries 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Casey Durfee) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:15:00 +0000

LibraryThing, your favorite makers of libraries in computers, will be at Computers in Libraries this week. We'll be passing out free stuff and showing off our new LibraryThing for Libraries feature so if you're at CIL, stop by booth 214 and say hi. Unfortunately, we're rhino-less this time, but we do have T-shirts and laptop stickers (and Tim.)

Our new feature allows our catalog enhancements to run even on items that don't have an ISBN. Check it out in action on this 1948 edition of Tom Jones, or this 1937 edition of David Copperfield

There's no ISBN on those items, but our code is still smart enough to load the right tags and recommendations info. It uses a combination of our new What Work API and the LibraryThing Connector (the JavaScript that powers LTFL) to pull title and author information out of the catalog's HTML and then match it against our system. This new feature should help our academic libraries in particular, since they tend to have a lot of older pre-ISBN books.

Polaris support for LibraryThing for Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (Casey Durfee) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:01:00 +0000

Following on yesterday's announcement of Koha support, we're happy to announce that LibraryThing for Libraries catalog enhancements are now available for Polaris OPACs.

First off, we probably owe the Polaris people a public apology for this being such a long time coming. They first contacted me about integrating LTFL in their systems a year and a half ago, when we only had 5 or 6 customers. One of their libraries had asked about it, and as a company, they've decided to be incredibly responsive to the cutting edge things their libraries want to do. They've kept pushing us (on behalf of their customers), even as technical and non-technical obstacles (mostly non-technical) have prevented us from seeing it through.

It's a great corporate philosophy, and far too rare in the library world. Now that everybody takes our phone calls and wants to work with us, they deserve a lot of credit from being down from day one. It's unsurprising to me that they scored among the highest customer satisfaction of any commercial ILS vendor in a recent poll; clearly service is a high priority for them.

Want to see the catalog enhancements in action? Here are a couple of examples from our first Polaris customer to go live, Glendora Public Library: (dogs), (fantasy). Several more Polaris libraries are testng it.

Because of the way Polaris' system works, you currently have to press the LibraryThing button to get the content for a particular item. In the next version of Polaris, not only with LTFL be installable without editing any template files, but there will be no LibraryThing button; our content will load when somebody clicks on the "full display" button. So far, we haven't added review support, but we're happy to do it if there are interested customers.

Currently we have two installation options: the first only requires a single line of code to be added to your templates, but it does the LibraryThing button instead of loading with the details. This is what Glendora is using. The other installation option (provided by an engineer at Polaris) requires more involved editing of their templates but makes the current version of Polaris work with LTFL like the forthcoming version will.

Interested in getting LibraryThing for Libraries for your Polaris catalog? Contact us through the Interested? form.

Koha Support / Introducing Chris Catalfo

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:32:00 +0000

LibraryThing for Libraries, our innovative project to put tags, recommendation, reviews and other great enhancements inside the library catalog, now supports Koha.

You can see a quick demo of LibraryThing for Libraries/Koha integration.

The "library" has only seven books and is not as "pretty" as it could be. And there's some question whether to integrate our tags into Koha's tags--sometimes worse, sometimes better. But anyway, the beauty is all underneath—our code brings LibraryThing content into Koha seamlessly and rapidly.

Koha (www.koha.org), is the first and most popular open-source ILS (Integrated Library System). Started in New Zealand, Koha development is a community affair, but it's spearheaded by LibLime in the US. LibLime also provides support services for Koha, and develops other open-source products.

Koha (and LibLime) are emblematic of the positive changes that have been dawning over libraryland. It's hard for technical people outside the library "industry" to imagine how backward library tech generally is—a layered mess of proprietary, stone-age solutions maintained by a dysfunctional relationship between vendors and libraries. Koha stands at the head of efforts to change that.

LibLime's most audacious and hopeful project is not Koha, but ‡Biblios* (‡Biblios.org) and ‡Biblios.net (‡Biblios.net), respectively an open-source cataloging application and an open-data repository of bibliographic records. ‡Biblios was started by Chris Catalfo for the 2007 Google Summer of Code.

In essense, ‡Biblios is an open-source answer to OCLC Connexion, and ‡Biblios.net is an open-data answer to OCLC's WorldCat. LibLime is too politic to state things so clearly, but together ‡Biblios and ‡Biblios.net are a serious challenge to that dysfunctional monopoly. (For background see my OCLC posts; for more on ‡Biblios see this blog post or this LJ article.)

Introducing Chris Catalfo! The Koha integration was done by LibraryThing's newest employee, the aforementioned Chris Catalfo (member: ccatalfo), of ‡Biblios fame.

Chris joins LibraryThing from LibLime. (The two companies are still friends, we promise.) Before LibLime, Chris worked at the Johns Hopkins and UNCW libraries, and got his MLS at North Carolina Central University.** He also has a masters in Italian Literature, and lived in Florence, Italy. (He fits right in at LibraryThing; his favorite book is Historical Linguistics and Language Change!) He now lives in western Connecticut.

Chris is going to be working on LibraryThing for Libraries and on library data issues generally. He's a library-technology nerd par excellence. As he put it to me, "I like library technology so much I put up a Z39.50 server to search my blog." (Try it at chriscatalfo.com:2100/blog.)

The goal in hiring Casey, our first library developer, was to ramp up the library data generally. We did add more sources, and our MARC parsing got better, but we never took full advantage of the data. Casey is working on a number of projects to do just that.

*‡Biblios presents me, a typography nerd, with a rare opportunity—even necessity—of using the double dagger, or diesis. It gives me real pleasure. Should LibraryThing change its name to ‡LibraryThing?
**Chris is our third full-time MLS-card-carrying librarian; Abby and Sonya also have their MLSs. Abby and Chris both have two masters degrees, the bastards. Giovanni and Chris both speak Italian.

Congrats to Library Journal Movers and Shakers

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:06:00 +0000

Congratulations to the 2009 Library Journal Movers and Shakers.

Andy Warhol said something about enjoying celebrity magazines, because so many celebrities were his friends, and who wouldn't enjoy reading a magazine about their friends?* Well, that was my feeling about the LJ article.

The honored include Jenica P. Rogers-Urbanek (blog), Jason Griffey and Karen Coombs (blog, blog), honored together for their BIGWIG work, Michael Porter (blog), and the "Dutch Boys", (Erik Boekesteijn, Jaap Van De Geer, Geert Van Den Boogaard) and Sarah Houghton (blog).

I was particularly happy to see Dave Pattern's name on the list. Pattern, who works at the University of Huddersfield and blogs at "Self Plagarism is in Style", is one of the library technologists I admire most. Offbeat, relentless, funny, open—he's a goddamned cyclone of library creativity. But I don't think his work gets noticed as much as it should. Maybe this will help.

If there's a trend in all of this, it's the rise of the funny, creative, disruptive ones. That's a good sign for libraries.

I also enjoyed reading about a number of M&S's I don't know well or at all.

It was interesting to see an OPAC-developer, Matt L. Moran of TLC picked. I look forward to TLC's "LS2 PAC," formerly (and better) named Indigo.
It sounds like Kenning Arlitsch has done good work in digital libraries.
Joe Murphy set up SMS at the Yale Science Library. His quote "libraries that don't offer texting are basically invisible to me" makes me want to smoother a teenager, but he's no doubt doing something important.
Koren Stembridge sounds like a big asset to the Boston Public Library, and as a chronic late-fee depressive, I heartily applaud fine amnesty!
Pam Sessoms's libraryh3lp is doing good things with IM and reference.
Lia Friedman and I probably disagree on marginal tax rates, but I'm with her on cataloging metadata.

*I can't tree this quote, despite an enjoyable, wasted hour of looking. And my Twitter-buddies aren't helping. The internet has failed!

More newspaper blood...

noreply@blogger.com (Tim) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:51:00 +0000

Goodbye Post-Intelligencer. Following the demise of Denver's Rocky Mountain News (see previous post), Seattle has now lost the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which is going online-only under much-reduced circumstances.

It could be worse. Denver and Seattle were two-newspaper towns. The Denver Post and the Seattle Times remain, and may be expected to benefit from their competitors' death.

The watch is therefore on for the first one-newspaper city to lose a newspaper. LibraryThing's home town, Portland, Maine, is likely to lose its newspaper, the Portland-Press Herald (good report). But Portland is a small city. Losing the San Francisco Chronicle would be a real disaster.

The economy is one factor, of course. But the underlying shift is technological—the web is killing newspapers.

Should we care? Ultimately, as Clay Shirky writes: "Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism." (Shirky's post should be required reading for publishers and libraries as well.) But, as Shirky realizes, there's no guarantee that new models and new media—which will surely do interesting things—can support what traditional print journalism did. Bloggers can do a lot of good, but traditional journalism tackled the tedious and expensive tasks bloggers won't. Ultimately, it's unimportant whether we get our news online or in print, but it's worth it to have someone who sits through all the city-council meetings and has longstanding sources where it counts.

There's no question that newspapers have failed to adapt, but mostly in the sense that your head fails to adapt when it's hit by a hammer. "New models" or no, newspapers, print and online, are in decline. Amateurs are great, but you need money in the system, and print newspapers were simply much better "money machines" than online is or will ever be. Printing costs bulk large in the imagination, but they don't begin to make up the difference. And the audience won't grow to make it up. The shrink is real. The internet is giving and will give us much, but it's taking this away.

Goodbye Book World. In related news, The Washington Post is ending its Book World section, which will be downsized and folded into the regular Sunday paper.

Newspaper book reviews were going extinct before the recession. They're practically ivory-billed woodpeckers now. Online reviews are largely to blame, and partially make up for the loss. But, again, if something is gained, we can't deny that something is certainly being lost.

Am I wrong? I hope so. Tell me so on Talk.