Ex Libris’ URM – What do you know?!

I’m trying to dig up any information I can about what was revealed at ELUNA 2008 about Ex Libris’ new project, the

Unified Resource Management (URM) System.

Our consortium uses SFX/MARCit! and Verde, and I’m exicted by the prospect of a system that would bridge the divide (read: redundant data entry) between ERM systems like these and the traditional ILS we utilize.

This is why I’m excited, courtesy of JRochkind:

“This is indeed a vision for an ILS that makes sense…. supporting staff workflow in an integrated way that actually makes sense, modular and componentized, full of APIs and opportunities for customer-written plugins, talking to various third-party software (from vendors (of various classes) to ERP software etc.), etc etc.”

Also, the vision of network-level metadata control, as JRochkind points out, comes as a timely challenge to OCLC’s new Policy on the Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records.  Has the gauntlet been thrown?

Also, what does this mean for the OLE (Open Library Environment) Project?

Please, add comments with links to new information!

You think you know, but you have no idea: Local Holdings

I just completed Palinet’s ‘Local Holdings Basic Maintenance’ online workshop.

Since I was given a basic orientation to creating local holdings in WorldCat, I wasn’t sure how useful this workshop would be.  My pragmatic brain was expecting to form a better foundation of the basic skills in composing local holdings records, such that my ILL Coordinator colleague would not receive so many ‘unfillable’ requests.

I was impressed beyond my expectations by the quality and depth of the workshop.  Two of my favorite outcomes were learning about the Strategic Union List file and the Local Holdings Offline Product.

The Strategic Union List file is a file one can query from WorldCat that contains all ILL requests received and requests filled by title for a calendar month.  Basic analysis will tell you whether you are filling a reasonable number of ILL requests.  If your unfilled requests are reaching the ‘unreasonable’ point, this probably has something to do with the information contained – or not contained – in your Local Holdings.  Making your local holdings complete will allow patrons to better request materials based on their actual availability and related lending policy.

The Local Holdings Offline Product is a list of all of your institution’s local holdings and is available for free upon request once a year from OCLC.  I’m a masterlist kind of gal, so this peaked my interest.  Going through this list to clean up erroneous or incomplete LHRs is a rainy-day project I’ll keep tucked away.

I highly recommend the Palinet online workshops to anyone looking to brush up on their skills or to develop more confidence in using OCLC Connexion.  Now that I know what all those toggle buttons are for, my LHRs will never be the same!

Scholarly Blogs as Serials?

Ithaka Strategic Services and the Association of Research Libraries recently released their latest joint venture, Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication.  This project was led by a field team of librarians who worked with faculty at research institutions to identify “new digital scholarly resources;” resources which are both born-digital and are produced by and for the scholarly community.

The report

“identifies eight principal types of digital scholarly resources:

• E-only journals
• Reviews
• Preprints and working papers
• Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and annotated content
• Data
• Blogs
• Discussion forums
• Professional and scholarly hubs“.

In talking about e-only journals, faculty members named

“speedy access to new work, the open access model, and the benefits of being part of a network or online community of scholars“

as the primary reasons for using e-only journals on a regular basis.  Many e-journals allow features such as reader comments and peer commentary on digitally published content.  While the definition of an e-journal created by Ithaka/ARL required “editorial guidelines, peer review, and a well-defined scholarly mission”, I would argue that the features of e-only journals that faculty in the digital environment appreciate are functionalities born of the blogosphere.

Blogs are used by faculty across the three major disciplines (humanties, social sciences, sciences) on a frequent (daily or weekly basis) to keep abreast of changes and discoveries in their disciplines and fields of study.  Faculty members cited resources like blogs as digital loci where “‘exchanges among scholars’ is a primary function.”  Blogs also exist as supplemental content alongside e-only journals, digital “professional and academic hubs” and other electronic forms of reference material.

In many cases, the scholarly blogs discussed are open access resources for reading and commenting but require account privileges for posting new content.  In this sense,

“blogs tend to be a more ‘controlled’ form of informal scholarly communication, allowing a limited number of authors to post work to a much wider audience“.

Because “digital publishing is shaped powerfully by the traditions of scholarly culture”, and because scholarly blogs gain legitimary through traditional processes like “credentialing, peer review, and citation metrics,” I think serials librarians should begin to view scholarly blogs as serial resources worthy of cataloging and inclusion in the library OPAC.

Librarians have a role in distributing cutting-edge, born-digital content to patrons, and in helping content creators work towards digital preservation best-practices.

The Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) is currently conducting an e-forum ‘on Collecting Free Web Resources: Selection, Archiving, Metadata, Access‘.  I encourage you to register and participate in this discussion forum, and to take part in the wider conversation about how libraries incorporate new media and forms of knowledge creation into their collections and services.

“Challenges to Libraries… in the Management of Works of Indigenous Communities”

Reactions to the fourth panel of the Traditional Cultural Expression Conference, “Challenges to Libraries and Archives in the Management of Works of Indigenous Communities”, are available at ALA Inside Scoop.

Of particular interest is discussion of ‘knowledge management system[s]‘ that conserve and organize the creations of indigenous peoples within a framework that honors the communities’ practices for access to knowledge.

Groups of people deemed ‘indigenous’, ‘ethnic’, or ‘traditional’ are not the only societies that have rules for who is allowed to know, and what information can be known.  In his essay ‘The Google Dilemma,’ James Grimmelmann outlines five cases in which Google’s homegrown page ranking system determines how users come to know things, and what things they come to know.  In many cases, Google is working in partnership with State agencies to organize information and to determine what kinds of information people can access.

I think that librarians and archivists participating in discussions of how to responsibly collect, conserve, and manage the creations of indigenous communities is a very positive development; I also recognize that there are challenges and concerns relating to these materials that are unique from the other materials with which librarians, archivists, and their patrons work.

However, let’s not, by any means, assume that indigenous communities are the only groups who ‘limit’ access to their materials based on traditionally held values.

Access to information is the cumbersome, loaded phrase that it has become because it means something different in every instance it is used -

from searching Google,

to accessing the tapes of the Zunni storytelling collection.

Furthering the information ownership debate: ALA and the World Intellectual Property Organization

I found this post about the invitational Traditional Cultural Expression Conference to be a provocative twist in the information ownership debate that has arisen around OCLC’s new Policy (see “Final ‘Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records’ Posted by OCLC”).

I look forward to following the discussion of the first keynote speech, presented by Wend Wendland, who is “head of the Traditional Creativity, Cultural Expressions, and Cultural Heritage Section of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).”  While the dialogue started at the issue of international copyright, it soon

‘leaped from folk art to questions about who owns the rights to ancient human remains and to a definition of “genetic resources”’ .

Even more interesting -

Carrie Russel of the ALA Washington Office sees a need for librarians to be involved with WIPO and to take part in global conversations about intellectual property.  Since the content of this conference seems to be focusing so far on indigenous communities’ expression and creation, Russel sees a role for librarians in helping indigenous communities identify, collect, conserve, and share their intellectual property.  (With a B.A. in anthropology and hopes of earning my MLIS in the near future, this topic is the fulcrum of many of my personal and professional interests.)

I’m a really looking forward to this upcoming discussion: “Challenges to Libraries and Archives in the Management of Works of Indigenous Communities.”

Final ‘Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records’ Posted by OCLC

The final iteration of the new ‘Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records’, which will succeed the existing ‘Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records’ in February of 2009, was posted by OCLC on November 5, 2008.

The original version of the new Policy generated spirited discussion among librarians and others in the information management world.

A healthy discussion of the final version of the Policy has developed in the Code4Lib wiki.   The wiki links to this line by line comparison of the two versions of the policy provided by the fine folks at LibraryThing.

In her post, ‘Who’s [sic] record is it, anyway?’ Karen Coombs provides a concise list of the kinds of rights librarians should seek for the use of bibliographic data:

1. “Perpetual use – once I’ve downloaded something from OCLC I’ve for the right to use it forever period end of story. This promotes a bunch of things including the LOCKSS principle in the event something happens to OCLC
2. Right to share – records I’ve downloaded I’ve got the right to share with others.  This means share in any fashion which the library sees fit, be it Z39.50 access, SRU/W, OAI, or transmission of records via other means
3. Right to migrate format – Eventually, libraries may stop using MARC or need to move records into a non-MARC system. So libraries need the right to transform their records”

We recently implemented LibraryThing for Libraries, and I believe Coombs’ final remark relates to the use and transfer of WorldCat records for content optimization by LTFL.  We transfer our bibliographic records to LTFL, they add the content we’ve paid for and transfer them back.  Perhaps this is not a true migration of format, but I think it constitutes a migration for format.

JRochkind offers ‘A logical OCLC argument’, in which he asserts that OCLC members would actually benefit more from freeing the bibliographic data held in WorldCat of which OCLC is trying to take ownership.

“If you free the data, then dozens, hundreds, thousands of people can find innovative things to do with it, each library can try to do what’s best for it’s users, making different decisions, seeing how it works out, learning from the best practices of others. If you do your best to monopolize the data within OCLC, then we are at OCLC’s mercy, hoping what they decide about the interests of OCLC Inc. really does match what our users need, waiting patiently for them to have the resources to supply that thing, and if it’s not perfect, waiting only for them to try a second version. If it’s open, lots of people can be trying different things in parallel.”

I concur with JRochkind’s overarching concern that the new Policy assumes, or asks libraries to assume, that ‘what is good for OCLC, Inc. is good for OCLC members’.

But how often do the priorities and interests of for-profit and not-for-profit institutions truly align?

LWSI reconvened as technology management discussion continues

Almost a week ago I wrote that the Tri-College Management Group had decided to dissolve a long-standing consortial committee, the Library Web Services Integration group, and to replace it with a top-heavy Technology Advisory Group.

Today, LWSI was reconvened to discussed the proposed model for technology management in the Trico.  It became increasingly evident that the management decision, presented as final, was in fact a ‘first draft’ attempt to distill a model for technology management that has been percolating in the six months since a pivotal member of the Trico IT team resigned.

What emerged from LWSI was a proposal to create a standing working group from the pool of individual systems SuperUsers that would succeed LWSI to exist alongside the new Technology Advisory Group.  The overarching philosophy is that TAG includes the kind of administrative staff who are able to make decisions about new technology projects, but there still needs to be a group composed largely of systems users who can make the day-to-day tweaks to our systems that are required for them to run smoothly and play together nicely.  There is also a concern for including representation from people who are intimately knowledgable about the user experience of our patrons, and a SuperUsers working group will serve this need quite effectively.

I think that convening a SuperUsers working group to exist alongside TAG and to manage the day-to-day maintenance of our existing systems is a feasible solution to the problem we identified in TAG; namely, that it consists of people who are ultimately too separated from the systems they are managing to effectively maintain day-to-day operations, and that these day-to-day operations should not have to move through a top-heavy bureaucratic structure to get taken care of.  While, at this time, I don’t qualify for inclusion in a SuperUsers working group, I hope to be considered as a candidate for any systems that aren’t currently served by a SuperUser.

When in doubt, Lyfguard

Publishers of serials like to keep things interesting -

two cases in point.

When ArtUS changed titles from ArtText in 2003, the first issue of the new title was called an ‘Inaugural Issue,’ and the subsequent issue was called ‘no. 1′.

This is further complicated by the fact that, in our holdings, we are missing issue no. 1 of ArtUS, but we retain the inaugural issue and issue no. 2.

To both effectively communicate to our patrons what we have in our holdings, as well as to bind these issues in a sensible way, we decided to

1) Lyfguard (laminate) the ‘inaugural issue’

2) Bind issues 2-10 together

3) Compose the holdings statement: Lib. has 2003 Inaugural issue, 2 (2004)- 14 (2007), 16 (2007)-

such that the inaugural issue will sit laminated on the shelf and all other issues will be bound.

Likewise, when Sinorama changed titles to Taiwan Panorama in 2006, the last issue of Sinorama was v. 31 no. 1 and the first issue of Taiwan Panorama was v. 31 no. 2.

One proposed solution was to bind the last issue of Sinorama (31:1) with volume 30, but volume 30 was already bound and we were hesitant to tear it apart again.

The solution we agreed to involved Lyfguarding 31:1 of Sinorama and binding Taiwan Panorama beginning with v. 31 no. 2.

Apparently, when in doubt, Lyfguard.

Are serials keeping your life interesting?  Comment and let us know!

Free, but not recession-proof: Philadelphia to close 11 branches of the Free Library

The Mayor’s office of Philadelphia announced today that it will be closing 11 branches of the Free Library of Philadelphia due to the city’s $100 million budget deficit.

The confirmed locations of branch closures include:

Durham, Eastwick, Fishtown, Fumo Family, Haddington, Holmesburg, Kingsessing, Logan, Ogontz, Queen Memorial, Wadsworth

Friends of the Free Library director Amy Dougherty expressed concerns that the budget cuts and closures

“appear to be permanent and not temporary.”

In a city where

“40% of the city’s schools don’t have libraries anymore”,

closing branches of the Free Library seems not only counter-intuitive, but dangerous for the education and social prospects of the city’s youth.

Furthermore, there is convincing historical and anecdotal evidence that public library use increases during difficult economic times.  Public libraries offer not only educational resources, internet ports, and free movie borrowing, but also services like GED prep., adult literacy courses and job skill development.

To learn more about the budget crisis in Philadelphia, and how it will affect libraries, visit the WHYY It’s Our City blog.

For more information about public library use during economic downturns, listen to this NPR story and read this American Library Association report.

Is your library being affected by the current economy, whether by an increase in visitors or a decrease in budget or staffing?  Post in the comments!

End of an Era: LWSI disbanded as consortium restructures library technology management

The Tri-College (Bryn Mawr College, Haverford College, Swarthmore College) Library Management Committee decided today to disband the long-standing consortial committee for technology research, development, implementation, and advising.  After more than a decade in service, the Library Web Services Integration (LWSI) committee, comprised of members from the public and technical services departments from all three campuses, was dissolved in favor of

“A Technology Advisory Group comprised of select members of the Management Group, likely including one head of Technical Services, one head of Public Services, [the convener of the Systems Group], and appropriate others.”

The most recent incarnation of LWSI did not include any department heads or members of the management group, and I think it is clear that the decision to move to a Technical Advisory Group whose composition draws heavily from administrative staff is something of a sea change in the way technology will be handled in the TriCo.

Speaking personally, I felt incredibly lucky to serve however briefly on a committee like LWSI, where my paraprofessional status seemed to have little bearing on how my input or interest was received by other committee members.  I viewed LWSI as an opportunity to develop skills and professional relationships as I move towards library school and a professional library career, and also as a venue through which someone who is new to the field could introduce new concepts and practices for technology use in the TriCo.

The proposed composition of TAG does not seem to present the same opportunities for paraprofessional staff to become involved, and, I think, could present an unfortunate step back for staff development and interaction in the TriCo.

Gone but not forgotten: the new OCLC “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records”

Posted for less than 48 hours, the still-much-anticipated OCLC “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records” (archived here) has created a stir in the library community.

The most controversial policy requirements concern the transfer of WorldCat records from OCLC members to other OCLC members and non-OCLC members.  The policy, which has been removed from the OCLC site and replaced with the statement

“We are reconsidering some aspects of the policy. More information will be available in the near future.”,

would require members who are transferring WorldCat records to include:

“Attribution. WorldCat and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. must be clearly identified as the source of WorldCat Records Transferred. Please see the FAQ for information about appropriate attribution of WorldCat and OCLC.

Modification Restriction. The OCLC number (if any), the link to this Policy and any additional means of attribution (besides the link to this Policy) may not be removed from any WorldCat Record.

Commercial Transfer Prohibited. Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party that will receive the WorldCat Records. The WorldCat Record Use Form should be used to initiate discussions with OCLC regarding an agreement authorizing Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records. OCLC may refuse to authorize Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records, without liability, in its sole discretion.

Copy of Policy. If an OCLC Member Transfers WorldCat Records of its own Holdings under Section D.1.a above, the OCLC Member will provide the party receiving the WorldCat Records with a copy of this Policy (or a link by which this Policy may be accessed) and indicate that Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is permitted only in accordance with the Policy.”

Further reactions and analysis can be found here.