web 2.0, library systems and the library system
DESCRIPTION
The Web 2.0 environment is characterized by concentration and diffusion. Library services are not well matched to this environment: they are fragmented and difficult to mobilize in user workflows. This presentation analyzes this situation and suggests some directions.TRANSCRIPT
Credits• Slide 1. Picture of Sterling Memorial Library. Günter Waibel.• Slide 9. From avlxyz on Flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/2077892948/. License: Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
• Slide 10. eBoy foobar poster. http://hello.eboy.com/eboy/wp-content/uploads/shop/EBY_FooBar_35t.png. Available from http://shop.eboy.com/.
• Slide 12. Hugh MacLeod, Gaping Void. http://www.gapingvoid.com/widget.jpg
• Slide 15. Bondi Bay. Sydney. Powerhouse Museum. On Flickr commons. http://www.flickr.com/photos/powerhouse_museum/2363539264/ Also at: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=30669. No known copyright restrictions.
• Slides 21-27, 37. Courtesy of Jim Michalko.• Slides 30-32. OCLC• Slide 43. Courtesy of Janifer Gatenby.
RANKIN IN WORLDCAT IDENTITIES
Interlude
End User Access
Management
Digitised/Digital
Bought/Physical
Elctronic/Licensed
Specialcolls/
Archives
Management
Overview
WEB 2.0Part one
Then: Users built workflow around libraries Now: Library must build
services around user workflow
Discovery happens elsewhere Disclosure
LibraryThing
So …
Concentration
• Aggregation of data at the network level– Descriptive– Mining the
clickstream: “Database of intentions”
– Social
• Network effects
Diffusion• Syndication to
many destinations– A feed based
universe– Data– APIs– Widgets
• Mobilization in user workflows
• Encourage social participation
LIBRARY SYSTEMSPart two
Userenvironment
Library &NetworkResource
Managementenvironment
End User Access
Management
Digitised/Digital
Bought/Physical
Electronic/Licensed
Specialcolls/
Archives
Management
Userenvironment
Library &NetworkResource
Managementenvironment
End User Access
Management
Digitised/Digital
Bought/Physical
Electronic/Licensed
Specialcolls/
Archives
Management
Find It
Get It
Manage It
Metadata
Content
Userenvironment
Library &NetworkResource
Managementenvironment
End User Access
Management
Digitised/Digital
Bought/Physical
Electronic/Licensed
Specialcolls/
Archives
Management
Find It
Get It
Manage It
Metadata
Content
ILL/CIRC LINK RESOLVER SPECIAL
SPECIALILS ERM REPOSITORY
OPAC MetaSearch WebsiteA-Z NextGen
MARC DC EADA&I XXX
Network level – website - workflow
Difficult to ‘mobilize’ library resource into
workflows
A thin layer around complex legacy systems
Stuck in the middle
Concentration
Diffusion
Low gravitational pull?
Little social dynamic
Limited usage data
‘Monolithic fragmentation’
• Move to ‘concentrate’ at local level – Single search environments
• Move to ‘diffuse’ at local level– RSS, APIs, ….
• But …– Have to manage presence at the local,
group and global level
SYSTEMWIDE ATTENTIONPart three
Remember ….
I WAS ASKED TO BE PROVOCATIVE ….
Put another way...
“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.”
—W. Edwards Deming
A historic note: the good old days
Move to group and global
1. Cataloging and resource sharing
2. A&I databases and electronic journals
3. Logic of network environment suggests moving more ….
Historic central actors• British Library
Document Supply Centre
• JISC• ‘group’ structures less
well developed in UK than elsewhere.
Network level services are heavily used, and in many cases are the first port of call for library users
Increasing opportunities to build shared capacity, remove unhelpful redundancy, and aggregate data(cf government shared services agenda).
Release time and resource to support specific learning and teaching needs of institution. Disclose resources into group and network level services.
… WITH VARYING DEGREES OF PLAUSIBILITY …
So:
Group
Data?• Knowledge base• Aggregate usage data
– Resolver data– Download data– Database usage data– Circulation– …
• Shared catalog (cf OhioLink)
• Syndicate to global (e.g. Google Scholar and union catalogues)
• Switch to local for fulfilment
Applications?• Repository• Search
– Institutional search (Primo, WC Local, etc)
– Metasearch– Catalogue
• ILS????– Network effects: e.g.
circulation and recommendation
– Shared selection– CIRC <> resource
sharing
Group
The collective collection?
• Competition for space and ongoing cost a concern
• Legacy print collections (cf UK RR) – Storage– Preservation– Access
• Physical delivery architecture
The collective collection?
• Managing a licensed collection– Ebooks– Journals– Preservation– Access models
Where data aggregation is beneficial
• More effective exposure in a web scale site (metadata)
• To attract users and social engagement
• Avoid redundant data management (suppliers details, supplier suggestions)
• Collective knowledge - tasks less complicated or more accurate (serial prediction)
• New knowledge via deduction or mining (holdings count indicating rareness and popularity, supplier performance, enriched name metadata)
• Most effective management of links and imported enriched data
• Comparison of collections; facilitating the management of the collective collection
Global
• Discovery• Registry (of institutions, services, collections)• Electronic delivery architecture
Local
• Interpretation of specific research and learning needs of institution
• Intersection of research/learning and information management
• Reputation management• Disclosure to group and global levels• Funding
Management models
• Collaboratively sourced • Centrally provided • Third parties
HTTP://ORWEBLOG.OCLC.ORGThank you
Think local:Act local, group(al) and global.