Thursday, December 10, 2009

Think Global, Act Local - Library, Archive and Museum Collaboration

Waibel, Günter and Ricky Erway. 2009. “Think Global, Act Local – Library, Archive and Museum Collaboration.” Museum Management and Curatorship, 24,4. Pre-print available online at: http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2009/waibel-erway-mmc.pdf.

"This article introduces the library, archive and museum workshops held by RLG Programs at the University of Edinburgh, Princeton University, the Smithsonian Institution, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and Yale University, and presents the lessons abstracted from these day-long events."

Waibel and Erway argue for creating deep collaboration among LAMs at the network level to reach users. They report on "five LAM workshops, conducted in late 2007 and early 2008 by RLG Programs staff Günter Waibel, Ricky Erway and consulting facilitator Diane Zorich, [that] aimed to surface information about existing collaborative activities and be a catalyst for deeper collaborations. ... The University of Edinburgh, Princeton University, the Smithsonian Institution, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and Yale University participated in the workshops."

Brief and nicely done, this gives a good overview of goals, challenges and strategies for LAM collaborations.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Smithsonian Institution Collections Search Center

Last month, the Smithsonian Institution launched a Collections Search Center at

http://collections.si.edu/search/

This search tool brings together over 2 million searchable records with 265,900 images, video and sound files, electronic journals and other resources from the Smithsonian's museums, archives & libraries.

The work was done by Quotient. Quotient is a systems integrator and IT services solution company for commercial, government organizations and federal agencies.

Quotient redesigned the existing Collections Search Center with a focus on improving the visual aesthetic, usability, and appeal for students, teachers, scholars, researchers, and the general public. Quotient's design and development team worked out several design directions and partnered with the Smithsonian to increase accessibility and compliance as well as to enhance the site with an interactive slideshow framework.

It is nicely done. In some respects Yale University is like SI--a broad-based research institution with fast-growing research collections and a mission to advance knowledge and educate.

Monday, November 30, 2009

two studies on scholarly communication

I saw these in a post on hangingtogether, the OCLC RLG Programs blog. Both are worth a look.

1. A comparison of repository types and the affect on scholarly communication

Comparing Repository Types: Challenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication by Chris Armbruster Research Network 1989 Laurent Romary INRIA November 23, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1506905

Four kinds of publication repository are described: subject-based, research, national system and institutional. Two shifts in the role of repositories may be noted. For content, a well-defined and high quality corpus is essential. For service, high value to specific scholarly communities is essential.

Challenges and barriers to repository development are laid out in three dimensions:
a) identification and deposit of content
b) access and use of services
c) preservation of content and sustainability of service

2. A case-study-based look at how researchers work and how they relate to policies and services from information service providers and employers.

Patterns of information use and exchange: case studies of researchers in the life sciences: A report of research patterns in life sciences revealing that researcher practices diverge from policies promoted by funders and information service providers by the RIN and the British Library.
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/disciplinary-case-studies-life-sciences

The report concludes that ‘one-size-fits-all’ information and data sharing policies do not achieve scientifically productive and cost-efficient information use in life sciences.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Conferencething: Library Thing's anti-conference @ ALA MW

Library Thing is hosting an anti-conference (unconference) the Friday of ALA's MW meeting in Boston, Jan. 15. 2009. This is a great idea and could be a really rich opportunity for librarians, Library Thing users, publishers, etc. to meet and talk and think about the future of books, readers, libraries, authors and publishers.

http://www.librarything.com/groups/conferencething#forums

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The Harvard Report

Harvard's Report of the Task Force on University Libaries is now available. http://www.provost.harvard.edu/reports/Library_Task_Force_Report.pdf

Very thoughtful and appropriate to Yale University Library, too. The library there and here needs to align its resources to support access to scholarly resources rather than to amass and store collections.

New funding and operating models are needed to focus the library on services in an age of digital tools.

Its 5 recommendations (for "Harvard" read "Yale"):

1. Establish and implement a shared administrative infrastructure

The fragmented organization of the Harvard libraries represents the fossilization of contingent historical decisions, based on past circumstances and actors. This structure now impedes nimble, effective, and fiscally responsible responses to twenty-first century challenges. We recommend reforms focused on administrative services that, when unified, will provide better and more cost-effective service to faculty and students.

2. Rationalize and enhance information and technology systems

This focus on systems improvement will not succeed, however, unless paired with changes in the model for decision making and funding. A widely distributed “veto” and excesses of local customization have impeded the effective development of technology infrastructure both within and outside Harvard’s libraries. The Task Force believes that Harvard must develop a robust, shared information architecture to guide future development and to orient investments in innovative projects. Core systems must be standardized across Harvard libraries to enable the University to collaborate internally and externally more effectively than we do today.

3. Revamp the financial model for the Harvard libraries

The current system of financing library materials and services impedes efforts to collaborate across the different parts of Harvard University, and often establishes incentives for actions that aid one part of the library at the expense of the whole. This phenomenon is most clearly reflected when content costs are shifted from one unit to another.

4. Rationalize the system for acquiring, accessing and developing a “single university” collection.

The Harvard University Library system needs to rationalize the manner in which all parts of the University collect and provide access to materials, and orient its focus more clearly toward ensuring access, as opposed to the current default model of building collections by acquisition. This shift is already in prominent view in many disciplines of the natural and social sciences, where ownership of materials has given way to providing access to materials that may be housed on a publisher’s server, at other institutions, or in other countries. Many fields, including the humanities, will continue to depend on physical materials, but the emphasis on ensuring access in perpetuity to materials should nonetheless increasingly supplant acquisition in the case of widely available resources. The University’s efforts to build a single, shared collection must also be coordinated more effectively. A centralized purchasing and licensing office that negotiates with vendors should be empowered to speak to vendors with a single voice whenever possible. Longer-term efforts to reform the scholarly communications and publishing system, such as the University’s leadership in the open access movement, should continue to be emphasized and supported from within the library system.

5. Collaborate more ambitiously with peer institutions

Harvard should enhance its efforts to work with other libraries and cultural institutions to build a sustainable information ecosystem for the 21st century. In some cases, this collaboration will mean building upon existing efforts to work directly with partner institutions.

As described above, Harvard’s information technology systems must be improved to become more interoperable, internally and externally, in order to facilitate external collaborations with the goal of maximizing access to scholarly materials for our faculty and students. Throughout the library system, Harvard must be more ambitious in its efforts to work with external partners to share costs and resources to improve library collections and services to current and future users.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

David Hockney, iPhone, and the idea of "original" in a digital world

I've been reading Lawrence Weschler's recent article in the NY Review of Books on David Hockney and his use of the iPhone to make digital paintings.

David Hockney's iPhone PassionBy Lawrence Weschler. New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 16.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23176

And listening and viewing the associated podcast and slideshow of Hockney's digital paintings.
http://www.nybooks.com/features/slideshows/hockney/

These are born digital works of art. Hockney makes the pictures on his iPhone and sends them to several friends; they send them on to their friends. Weschler notes that none of these images are "copies." Each is the "original." There is no difference between one or another of these images. Hockney has not made a series (an unlimited series?) No one has applied a process to make copies that introduces any difference between the "original" and the "copy." Although Hockney only made one "copy" of any of his digital paintings, there are simply multiple originals. One and many at once. Original and copy at once. The cognitive dissoance is stimulating and revealing.

I find this interesting in how thoroughly this shows the concepts of "original" and "copy" that we use all the time with art objects and books and such are overthrown by digital production and distribution tools and processes. What new ideas and new words will come to replace "original" and "copy"? What new mental models and thus operational models will we construct to live with multiple originals? What new social arrangements will we make to accomodate ourselves to this radical abundance of information, of art, and of originals?

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The 21st Century Academic Library

The Yale Archival Reading Group (YARG) has selected as its next text

Lewis, David W. "A Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century," College & Research Libraries 68 (5): 418 434.

http://ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crljournal/2007/sep/Lewis07.pdf

This is a must read for academic librarians.

Lewis develops a strategy for the next 20 years (more or less) of academic libraries.

Good assumptions and reasonable strategies. However, Lewis doesn't see consolidation of academic libraries as a primary factor in the next couple of decades and continues to think of libraries primarily as physical locations or spaces. Thus he misses the importance of consolidation to libraries as providers of networked information services for teaching, learning & research (and I'd add publication, too.)

As providers of networked information services, there is little reason to be tied to or sub-ordinate to a particular college or university. Individual researchers, students, teachers and writers could draw upon a global information service for their specific needs as a researcher, student, teacher or writer. Of course, campus learning environments would have to be open to such networked information services--but they will have to be to take advantage of the Internet or cloud or world wide computer.

In general, the consequence of consolidation for libraries as providers of networked information services is one big library (probably a for profit advertising supported operation with some non-profit players on the edges) for the Internet. Locally, the academic library would become a museum of the book (and the serial, the map, the manuscript, the archive, the sound recording, the film, etc.); in short, a special collections library with collections that are tied to the library's parent institution.

As I see it, libraries will split into highly consolidated providers of networked information services and local, institution-specific special collections libraries/archives/museums/.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Library as app

Saw today in the NY Times that Google now has a free GPS service for smart phones. That made me wonder about other services becoming free apps on smart phones. Why not libraries?

The app is just the service delivery point, the organization behind that service point can be (and in the case of Google's GPS service) is a huge complex enterprise.

One consequence of library as app, though, would be that we don't need tens of thousands of local (town, company, college, etc.) library apps. We just need a handful for the world and one of those may dominate the whole field the way Google dominates searching now.

Interesting consequences to such a move from many libraries each tied to a parent organization toward a few libraries providing individualized services. All those services needn't be online, but the contact would be. Delivery of tangible materials to home or office could be part of the app service, for example.

The whole library sector of the economy would be transformed.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Lorcan on library systems environment

Lorcan Dempsey has commented before on library systems environment. Here he updates his earlier comments, links to the recent NISO presentations, and provides incomplete but insightful notes on the presentations.
http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/002015.html#

Recently at Yale, we interviewed three candidates for an E-Collections job. Each of the three gave a talk with the title (more or less) trends in e-collections. Not one of them cited Dempsey. Is that the fault of each speaker or a sign of a larger disconnect within the library profession? The E-Coll. candidates were all thinking (sensibly so) only about licensed (purchased or rented, but licensed just the same) e-resources. Perhaps Lorcan is seen as a cataloging guy or an OCLC guy or a systems guy and not paid attention to by those in related but distinct activities like using an ERM to manage a collection of licensed resources.

Oh, here is the link to the NISO Forum: Library Resource Management Systems
http://www.niso.org/news/events/2009/lrms09/agenda

Library as metaphor

I've been noticing that many discussions of ebooks, cloud computing, omnipresent cell phones, etc. speak of totality of information available online as "a library" or, frequently, "the library." The idea seems to be that by calling whatever font of online information one is promoting a "library" makes it sound good. All apple pie and motherhood. Apparently, people think well of libraries, and this use of "the library" as a metaphor for accessibility and trustworthiness for online information is mostly a good thing for libraries and librarians.

But sometimes, and often, librarians and those working closing with librarians on digital information projects, berate libraries for not keeping up on the latest online technologies or not adapting to the online environment fast enough or thoroughly enough to satisfy these commentators. When I see this happening, it is never or amost never one particular library that gets the drubbing, but a sort of generalized, universal library as if all libraries were part of the same organization or worked in concert like a corporation. The formula sometimes goes something like this: "Google is digitizing books on a massive scale and creating a universal library, but libraries are still stuck circulating books and doing serials check in." Or, "Libraries need to compete with Google and Apple and Amazon for people's attention."

The problem that jumps out at me is the equivalence between Google, et al. and libraries. Libraries are about as like Google as the world's population of independent booksellers are. Even less so. The booksellers are independent. Almost every library is a dependent, sub-unit of another organization. Each is defined less by being a peer of any other library than it is by being the child of its parent organization--a city, state or national government, a for profit company, a non-profit organization, a school, a research university. Google, et al. are rich, single, independent organizations with global mission and reach. No library is like this, and libraries taken together are nothing like this either.

As a metaphor, libraries are one. In real life, there is no such thing as "the library." Analyses that confuse "the library" with real libraries miss the mark in their criticisms, their expectations, and their solutions. Bringing libraries actively and successfully into the networked information environment--the linked up, social cloud of all knowledge--will require commenters and doers to close their eyes to the illusion of "the library" and see the reality of many small libraries that serve specific, particular and local masters.

Friday, October 23, 2009

David Weinberger on Abundance at LITA (audio)

http://litablog.org/2009/10/forum-2009-keynote-audio-david-weinberger/

An audio file from David Weinberger's 2009 LITA forum talk on Abundance. I've blogged about Abundance before. I'd rather have a transcript. It's nice to listen, but slow.