Tim Spalding of LibraryThing just posted about the latest Talis Library 2.0 Gang podcast. The L2 Gang podcasts are produced by Paul Miller and generally involve a number of L2 peeps. This last one focused on mashups, in lieu of the Talis mashup competition. Tim does a great job of summing up the talk and, as usual, I find his energy and enthusiasm inspiring.

I wanted to follow up on some thoughts I voiced during the discussion about distribution. A lot of discussion focuses on the potential for mashups to connect patrons to our collections and other data. Indeed, they can be some ingeniously clever pieces of software that tie together bits of information to make something new and, hopefully, useful. At the very least, they’ll catch our eye for a moment and make us think. In that regard, they can be both functional and artful, they can be applied practically or be used solely to make a statement. Take Tim’s example of the blast radius mashup as an example: while it’s novel and thought-provoking, I’m not terribly concerned about my proximity to a nuclear detonation. Contrast that with the many Greasemonkey scripts that display library availability in Amazon which do have a practical application. I can’t argue over the efficacy and potential of these little bits of code. Like most things, however, they exist on one side of the fulcrum of practicality. What I mean is that in order for a library mashup to be successful, another major component is required: distribution.

More and more, I’ve become convinced that distribution is the quicksand in which libraries have the potential to be mired. This became very apparent to me while I was listening to Chris Anderson speak at ALA. He used the term “bottleneck” to describe traditional distribution avenues. These would be things like broadcast time and shelf space, which have finite capacities. The idea behind long tail is that by giving users the tools to find more “niche” content, retailers can circumvent the distribution bottleneck because more efficient means of delivering content, such as direct shipping or digital download, are used. If you have a digital storefront, inventory can be stored in massive distribution centers dotted across the country–shelf space is not a problem. Of course, the Amazon interface enables customers to discover the long tail content. I agree with Chris that, ultimately, the product pool at our fingertips is enriched because the economy of scale is shrunk significantly, making smaller sales more profitable. I’m oversimplifying, of course, but my point is that long tail economics will benefit both the seller and consumer.

So how does the long tail relate to mashups and libraries? Well, the primary and practical use of of mashups in a library environment would be to provide a way to access niche, or long-tail content. I’ve seen this done in three ways.

First is what I tend to think of as the “suckerfish” method of slipping content in to larger sites. There are a variety of tools available that allow mashup authors to slip related content into another web site. They can often take advantage of an API to merge or cross-reference information. Availability information in Amazon is an example of this.

The second is the aggregation method whereby a mashup gathers information from the library website itself and presents it in a new way. There are a variety of different ways people get online. The web browser may be the most common, but virtually any application can take advantage of online APIs. Cell phones, system-tray notifications, iPods, dashboard widgets can all aggregate library information. Ed Vielmetti’s wall of books is a very simple web script that does this quite well.

Finally, Mashups can be used to add a social dynamic to the library search experience. Library information can be merged with existing or home-grown social networking software. Social interaction is one of the best ways to come in contact with new materials, yet libraries are particularly slow to adopt this for a variety of reasons. AADL’s virtual card catalog is an example of a social mashup.

Each of these mashup strategies can be used to distribute information through a variety of conduits: cell phones, iPods, email, IM, palm pilots–wherever a device is connected or synced-up to the net. What makes the mashup such a promising technology is that the creation of even the most ingenious mashup does not necessarily require a great deal of programming skill.

But, like commercial online sellers, there is a Y component to this equation. What happens once we do provide a wonderfully integrated experience to our users where they can find material in new and exciting ways? Do they place a request on it like they always have and hope it’ll be available to them within the next six weeks? Without the means to deliver material in a timely fashion, we might as well be telling our users to hurry up and wait. Having the tools to find the material we want is nice, but we actually have to make the material available in a timely fashion. This is one of our most challenging hurdles because there are several fundamental differences between us and sellers. The first, and most obvious, distinction is the simple fact that we are not selling content. Where a seller can draw upon what is essentially an infinite supply of books, CDs, and DVDs, we cannot. The other limitation we face has to do with delivery of the physical material themselves. What makes companies like Amazon so successful is the mere fact that they do no have to manage shelf space. Instead, they have a complex inventory management system that allows them to keep much of their inventory in transit at all times. We don’t have that. Moreover, Amazon’s customers pay for delivery, ours don’t.

What emerges is somewhat of a catch 22. On one hand, libraries are, first and foremost, places people go to borrow material. On the other, it is those same physical materials that are becoming a logistical liability. We simply cannot store and distribute them with the same efficiency as the Amazons of the world, nor do we want to. We also cannot guarantee availability of items, especially the more popular titles, where sellers can. In addition, for better or for worse, we exist in a society that has grown accustomed to instant gratification. I’ve heard plenty of criticism directed at this facet of contemporary life, but the fact remains that we’re only going to see expectations rise as the next generation of patrons begin to fill our ranks.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this issue is a crisis. We are approaching one, however. We need to aggressively pursue ways in which we can distribute content electronically. Unfortunately for us, however, publishers, movie studios, and record companies are extremely skittish about copyright issues right now. It’s important, then, that we work closely with distributors to develop a practical way to loan digital content. The technology exists to do so now, fair use of electronic materials is solely a policy issue at this point.

So what can the rest of us do until such a day comes? We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. In the meantime, we can find creative ways of balancing our collections and distribution capabilities. For example, a lot of talk has been centered around doing Netflix for libraries. This is a great idea, but it requires some fundamental changes to traditional holds process. We would need to have the ability to finely control a holds queue to ensure that patrons are not flooded with material. Specifically, we would need the ability, within our ILSs, to bump users around in a queue. In addition, it would require a bit of software to manage the material assignments.

Other possibilities are within the range of possibility. Print-on-demand technology makes possible a number of options. Events programming can also play a very large part in changing the way patrons regard libraries. And that gets to the rub. Mashups are only a small part of a larger picture of a library industry in flux. Libraries cannot compete with likes of Borders, Barnes and Noble, and Amazon–nor do we want to. But we can change what we are and the role we play in our communities. Lending material is only a small part of what we can offer to our people, and that is ultimately our strength.

The ideal library mashup is one that is created by a patron, but if we do write some ourselves, we need to keep in mind that an exceptionally convenient mashup may imply a level of service on the back end that we just cannot provide. I don’t think we want to be that guy… you know, the one who pimps out a cheap Honda Civic with a spoiler.

An interesting, but low-key thread unfolded over at Panlibus earlier last week. I found it to be a good starting-point for a larger discussion about how Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 technology and software could come together in a cohesive manner, instead of the traditional ad hoc, piecemeal, vendor-driven method.

In response to Hennepin’s new commenting capability, Talis’s Paul Miller asks the question, “Participation is an important part of moving forward. How much better might shared participation be?” What he’s talking about is allowing other libraries to access Hennepin’s comments in an effort to provide a more enriching search experience beyond Hennepin’s OPAC, say, at Ann Arbor, or wherever.

What Paul goes on to propose in a follow-up post is a shared collectionof user participation much like the UK’s archival project. This would provide a central database and, presumably a set of web tools to access and interact with the data. Libraries anywhere in the world would have access to add and read content. It would be a shared, collaborative clearinghouse of participation.

I’m all for it–but with some caution. Isn’t that what Amazon is now? If you take away the e-commerce, Amazon is a collection of reviews, tags, and ratings on an insanely large amount of material. Interesting? Indeed. Useful? Of course. But I feel the need to point out that libraries are community-based institutions. They are supported by local taxpayers and are run, mostly, by members of the communities they serve. As such, wouldn’t we want any social element that is incorporated into our OPAC to reflect the tastes and opinions and personality of our community? I think so, and so does Ed Vielmetti:

…here in Ann Arbor there are a lot of book readers, and it’d really be rather nice to read comments from people who shared the same town with you. If I want to read random untrusted comments from people all over the world there’s already Amazon.

I mentioned some of this a while ago, though never specifically addressed the local vs. global social data repository idea. All this is not to say that in addition to community-driven social software we can’t access and make use of a shared data store. In response to a comment I made to Paul’s second post on this, Fiona Leslie made two very good points that she has seen come up repeatedly.

1. Libraries have reading groups and staff who create reviews, and there is no mechanism for getting those reviews “available” beyond posting them on notice boards, or perhaps on the library’s web pages. A few of them have an OPAC implementation that allows the reviews to be viewed in their OPAC.

2. Libraries have few or no reviews, but they see the value in having them, and would really appreciate a kickstart by having access to a shared repository of reviews created by other readers and staff in other areas.

Ok, so I’ll address each one separately. First, she is absolutely right, there is no de facto method of integrating participation in to our OPACs. This is compounded by the fact that our OPACs themselves tend to be unalterable beasts and we must rely on vendors themselves to make changes and enhancements to them. Many of you who follow what I write here know that’s a contentious issue for me, but I’ll keep my hackles down for now and simply remind everyone that this is another reason to demand a few basic rights from our vendors.

But even if we did all have unfettered access to our OPACs, or were resourceful and persistent enough to subvert the plain vanilla foisted upon us, what would a socialPAC look like? Fiona specifically mentions reviews, so lets stick with that for the purposes of this post. Actually, let’s not, because it doesn’t matter what the implementation looks like–that’s the fun part you and your development team get to mess about with when you do your redesign. What’s important is what we do with that review data after we get it and the value it adds to the process of searching for material. I’d suggest that the data be made available via two conduits. First would be the end-user interface. That is, the website or application patrons use to both consume and produce the content. How you weave this in to your OPAC is ultimately up to you (or… up to your vendor).

Richard Wallis weighed in ad responded to my comment. He writes:

So what are my assumptions then? Well firstly, the contributions of the citizens of Ann Arbor would be of great use, interest, and value to a far wider audience than just their district. Secondly, contributions to any global pool should be tagged as to their source and type. Thirdly, because of that tagging, selection of results should be able to be via many filters such as library, library authority or institution, library type, country, language etc.

So following through those assumptions in John’s situation, I would hope that contributions for my community would add value to the global pot; be displayable locally in isolation as a coherent set; and optionally could be supplemented by those from other appropriate communities around the country and the rest of the world.

I suppose I was a little unclear in my comment on Panlibus. I’d agree with Paul that, once the data is in, it would be nice to have a way to share it with other libraries. And I also agree with Richard that there is a place for supplementing existing data with a larger pool. In fact, I believe we have an obligation, as libraries, to do some manner of both. I envision Ann Arbor’s system providing a very lean web service on top of this entire system. Using this model, we will be able to share our community-driven social data beyond our borders. Libraries who do not enjoy the same community support that Ann Arbor, has will still benefit from the data. I believe this distributed approach to generating and maintaining socialPAC data will ultimately offer both redundancy and diversity. The thought of hundreds of libraries making their data available is certainly a more appealing alternative than that of the monolithic database. Metadata itself is an archive–it tells a story.

Fiona’s other point was that kick-starting a service may be difficult, especially in communities that are not likely to respond to and prime a service like this. Personally, I think we all might be surprised at the response that socialPACs will have with our constituents. Almost everyone has an opinion, and most people want to share it. That aside, however, Fiona is right. There will be cases where social software is not successful, popular, whatever.

So how do you evaluate your own situation with respect to social social software? Can your community sustain a socialPAC in perpetuity in a manner that will continually reflect a unique attitude and personality? If it can, how do you get it started?

First, you’re going to have to be honest with yourselves about the project itself. Do you want to pursue social software because it’s cool and hip, or do you really want to change the way your users interface with your collection in profound and personal ways while building a legacy at the same time? You can get a good feel for the level of Web 2.0 participation your community engages in by using existing Web 2.0 services which often let you dial in on specific locales. This may give you a good indication of whether a program like this might be a success.

If you’re convinced that your community will support a socialPAC, the next step is to come up with a a design and interface concept that will truly let your existing catalog shine while providing all the Web 2.0 immersion people expect. (easier said than done). This is where the innovators need to step in and start coming up with tangible examples of how this might work. I suspect that most libraries that do this will pursue a variation on a theme, but bear in mind that there are a lot of directions to take this stuff and in the end, it’s the one-of-a-kind feature that will give your OPAC its fingerprint. I suppose that vendors will dial in on the more popular and successful models and run with those. I have no problem with that as long as they adhere to the Web 2.0 spirit.

What about the initial “jump-start”? While I was writing this, my thoughts kept drifting to sourdough and I remembered a good friend of mine who, on occasion, liked to bake sourdough bread. It was this person who introduced me to my first sourdough starter. A shapeless blob that lives in your refrigerator and which, on occasion, you feed. At any rate, he was telling me how some sourdough starters have very rich and colorful histories because they have been passed down, literally, through generations. Some are closely guarded, while others have been disseminated and passed around liberally. It’s pretty fascinating.

But before I digress completely, Fiona’s concern about kick-starting can be addressed if we make our metadata available to systems starting up. Instead of one or two large repositories, however, wouldn’t it be great if we could choose from hundreds and all we had to do was send a request against a web service to get started? The tools are in place to allow this kind of interaction. All it takes is a willingness to communicate and share.

I suppose I may be searching for blue sky here, but Web 2.0 gives us a chance to do things properly from the beginning. Ultimately, the successful system will be rich with good data and useful to your patrons. The deeper significance of a unique repository will not emerge right away, but in time, you’ll see how data, like buildings themselves, can add to the legacy of a place. Make it available to the larger library community and we’ll see some very interesting things, indeed.

We couldn’t have asked for a better group of people at the 2006 Library Camp, last Friday. Many of the attendees were from in-state, but several logged a good number of travel hours to get here. It was for those, especially, that I was nervous, hoping that the format would yield some discussion worthy of their troubles. It did, and I had a great time.

I apologize in advance that I’m leaving out a lot of (probably important) detail in this post. During the talks, I chose to put my laptop away and not take notes–I wanted to be as engaged as possible. My mind is not exactly clear at this moment, either. The time between then and now has consisted of Easter preparations, Easter itself and the wholesale carnage that ensues when a two, five, and seven year old are all in various stages of a candy binge.

Getting Started

Friday morning began with coffee and bagels (thank-you Talis!) and a short meeting to put together the agenda for the day. As an open space event, this meant that the attendees themselves were responsible for the day. As we went through introductions, I jotted down some of the topics people were throwing out which generally came in the form of specific ideas or reasons for attending:

• How to get buy-in for new ideas.
• Gaming in libraries.
• Integrating searches. (Don’t remember the specifics on this one)
• Personal digital asset management.
• How do we make it easier to find info/material?
• How can L2 make patrons happier?
• Disconnect between techies and non-techies (this is a big one)
• Web 2.0: where to go to now?
• If you build it, how do you get them to come?
• How to combine new technologies with the OPAC
• How do we make the OPAC better?
• How do we get the library out of the library?
• Which tools are other people using?
• Just attending to spy on us!
• How should libraries handle emerging technologies?
• Strategic planning? What should we be planning for?
• Alternative methods of circing material.
• Getting user feedback.
• How do we measure success?
• When explaining web 2.0, how do you answer “So what?”
• Just plain curious.

From the final schedule, you can get a general sense of which topics were hot. Feeling a little like a kid in a candy store after this exercise, I took part in the two “Bridging the Gap” sessions.

Bridging the Gap

The title “Bridging the Gap” hearkens back to a blog post of mine about some of the deep divisions between tech and non-tech staff in libraries. Priming this discussion took very little effort, because it seemed to be something that resonates strongly on both sides of the aisle. The group’s numbers favored the techies (and, as I sometimes find, the techie non-techies or non-techie techies) but the discussion did not turn into a gripe session, as I had feared it might, rather a very candid discussion about where problems exist in our organizations and how to address them. A number of people had some very good things to say here and the time quickly slipped by.

There is a level of miscommunication and mistrust that seems to have saturated the relationship between library and IT staff. Many veteran librarians feel threatened by technology because they are not as adept at incorporating it into their profession as their greener counterparts. This feeling is entirely understandable. In fact, one library’s approach was to ask existing managers if they were comfortable, willing, and able to facilitate the appropriation of emerging technologies. If they were not, then their position would be redefined. In other words, someone else would take their leadership position. While my initial reaction was to think this policy was harsh, I have to wonder whether protecting people’s egos is worth sacrificing innovation.

Another participant has put a great deal of thought and effort into making the IT staff/rest-of-the-library relationship work. (I think it was Sean Robinson, Information Technology Manager for Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, IN) His approach was to radically transform the IT department in such a way that customer service became the modus operandi. By instilling simple policies like, “answer the phone with a smile on your face” to broader, more radical attitudes, such as “always say yes“, he has been able to earn back a good measure of trust from his users. How did he find out what was bothering them? He sent out an anonymous survey via HR asking staff what they hated most about IT. Among answers like, “you never return my calls”, or “it takes you forever to fix my problem”, was a very interesting comment, “You guys have all the control”. Even though it makes perfect sense, I had never really thought about the fact that we could be perceived that way–it’s a completely valid observation. In many ways, IT departments do have “all the control”. It stands to reason, then, that finding ways to put control back in the hands of staff can help to alleviate the problem. The “always say yes” policy is part of that initiative. My feeling is that, instead of blindly saying “yes”, however, we can work together to achieve a shared vision. By improving communication, we can improve service through the combining of ideas, alternatives, and possibilities.

The second part of the discussion focused on technology and the patron. We talked a little about the OPAC here, knowing that another session was forthcoming on the very topic. The general feeling was that many of our OPACs simply do not return friendly results. One comment was made along the lines of, “patrons shouldn’t need to be a librarian to search the catalog”. I feel very strongly about this as well. A great example is the fact that most author searches require last-name first. Someone mentioned that they wanted Amazon or Google-type searches that would do spell-checking and suggest alternatives.

On the matter of getting technical expertise into libraries, Sean Robinson posed another good idea–that libraries “pay it forward”. In other words, if one library has the expertise to accomplish something, then they could help another library complete the same with with the expectation that the second library would, in turn, help out another. I thought this was an incredibly inspired notion, and completely doable! I’ll be the first to volunteer…

Low-hanging OPAC fruit

A discussion about OPACs doesn’t take long to turn into a vendor-roast. Admittedly, there was a little of that going on here–mostly for the usual reasons, all completely valid. From an academic standpoint, access to research databases is also in need of attention. My thought was that, technically, the two things hampering innovation the most at this point are 1) the lack of a meaningful API into our ILS and 2) no standards-based, dynamic index for our research databases. Given those two tools, we could completely transform our interfaces into something truly new and unique.

The problems with our OPACs can be split into form and function. The OPAC interface needs a major face-lift while search functionality and results leave a lot to be desired (relevancy ranking, anyone?)

Alan Gray (Darien Public Library) offered a number of great thoughts on approaching vendors, suggesting that many of the open-source tools now being developed could somehow be leveraged in such a way that vendors would have to take notice and react. The problem with open-source solutions, however, is that even though the software is free, implementation can be impossible for a library without much of a tech staff and support is almost non-existent.

On the subject of open-sourcing code: While I write much of my code modularly so that it can be reused by other people, most of the code behind AADL’s website is highly customized and cannot simply be dropped into place at another site. One of my goals is to get closer to the object model, so that the code can be reused. Much of the code written in libraries is highly site-specific and cannot be transplanted without a lot of work. Can we write code with portability in mind?

So what can we focus on now? Ryan Eby talked about the judicious use of iframes and javascript to embed dynamic content. Those have a number of drawbacks, however, and amount to “lipstick on the pig”. He used III’s screen file tokens as an example.

Many libraries would like to do a complete overhaul of their websites, like AADL, but are not able to due to technical or staffing constraints. Therefore, they fall back to shoe-horning new features in here and there at the expense of cohesiveness.

Web 2.0/Library 2.0 — What’s next?

I wasn’t sure what this discussion was going to do, or where it would go. I think someone started the discussion by simply throwing out, “so, what now?”

We talked a little about physical spaces and the way they shape the library experience. Alan Gray filled us in on some of the amazing things Darien Library is doing in their new building to foster a closer relationship with the patron. Apparently, they are installing reference “pods” where reference librarians can have one-on-one sessions with people. They’re also experimenting with some IP telephony products.

We heard from the folks at South Lyon who have been featured in both the New York Times and Library Journal for their use of the tablet PC. Hearing them talk, I couldn’t help being reminded that it’s not just the technology that transforms, but how it’s implemented and how committed we are to making it work.

I spoke a little bit about how we handle tech support here at AADL. I mentioned that we have an internal IRC server with a support channel and a web client for our help-desk folks. This allows them to field problems directly to a large number of technical staff.

We talked, quite frankly, about the term Library 2.0, and it seemed to me that most people present had very little problem with the name itself and simply wanted to talk about the ideas behind it. As one person said, “we need to call it something…” We also addressed the “change-or-die!” ideology. Basically, I don’t think libraries will wither away to nothing if we don’t take advantage of emerging technologies and opportunities (the key being opportunity). I do think, however, that we run the risk of missing the boat and relegating ourselves to a myopic role in our communities that will be difficult to break out of if we don’t take advantage of emerging trends–that includes popular culture. Someone else felt that perhaps we are making too much of this and that this kind of talk was part of a larger “culture of fear” that exists in America. It was mentioned that we need to continually reinvent ourselves, just like the business world does. Separating value from fad is difficult, but we shouldn’t ignore the trends.

We spoke a little bit about rising circulation, harnessing the long tail, setting up a Netflix model for patron holds, and a few other material-related topics, such as circulating laptops.

Many thanks to Les Orchard who bailed me out and did a quick intro to del.icio.us.

Wrap-up

Honestly, I wish the entire day had been filmed, or recorded, or both. I was struck by how fast time went by. Because virtually everyone in every discussion played an active role, a heck of a lot was accomplished. Unfortunately, it doesn’t lend itself to easy blogging because there were no slides, no prepared remarks and very little time to write. As we discussed at the end, the open spaces idea could translate very well to other locales, if you’re so inclined, I’d suggest one in your area.

links:
Library 2.0 Wiki -> Library Camp 2006
The unLibrarian
Les Orchard’s OPML notes (neat-o!)
Ryan Eby

I was reading a trackback the other day to my post, Library 2.0 websites: where to begin from Michael Dunne. He makes several very good points, but one, in particular, caught my attention as something I really haven't articulated yet to myself or others. On the subject of the social OPAC, he writes:

I have to confess I think he may be right, our library web sites are not places where you want to spend any time, and our OPACs are not fun places to be either. But then again, why should they be? Why should our library web site be a place where our students want to spend time? Is there something missing from their university experience that only our web site can provide? Why this fear, this sense that, unless we soon get up to speed we are all doomed?

First, I want to be clear that I don't think we are doomed if we choose not to implement social software in our OPACs. Libraries will not cease to function if we don't address the shortcomings of our online catalogs. It is very clear to me, however, that the OPAC is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled. Since their inception, OPACs have done the job intended by usurping the card catalog with stoic efficiency. Let's be honest, though and admit that something special slipped out into the ether when those large, cumbersome drawers were toted out and replaced by luminescent portal we now know as the catalog station. That's just the way it goes.

Much of what we lost was not due to function, but to form. Nothing will replace the look, feel, and smell of a dusty, old, age-cured card catalog, but it's been a decade, or two since we made the switch and I think it's okay to consider making our OPACs special. We've got a unique opportunity now as the planets of technology, internal discussion, and market penetration align. Perhaps now is the time to overcome institutional inertia and do something unexpected, if not radical. A social element belongs in the OPAC, our users are waiting for it and they'll soak it up like sponges if we give it to them. Web 2.0 provides both technology and a cauldron of ideas as to how to apply it. At the same time, a conversation that was once a distant murmur is gathering strength and it promises to disrupt policies and attitudes libraries have, for so long, conditioned themselves to be reflexive about. The public, meanwhile, has become inured with technology and complexity.

Let's not forget the role libraries play in a community. Perhaps the view from inside sometimes is only a view of ourselves reflected back at us, when in fact, the truth is that the public comes to us in need. Sometimes that need is small, casual. Sometimes it's the type of need that transcends record authority and can only be redressed by another in similar need. Are we really the final say on what the best resources are if someone wants help with teen pregnancy, domestic abuse, or cystic fibrosis? Can all of our collective training tell that needful person exactly what material best suits their situation?

Of course not. Our OPACs cannot be the golden kiosks we all want, but by inviting participation in the stewardship of a community resource, we can begin to build unique meta-collections that slide value, pertinence, and humanity into the search process. It may be that in that moment when a patron is about to turn away from the library, something catches their eye--a tag, a comment, some marginalia, perhaps, that puts the patron in front of the material they truly need.

The key component in growing social OPACs is community. Once you put the community you service into the process of delivering content back out into the very same community, you initiate a loop that will become exponentially richer over time as those neural connections glom on to each other. Findability is not the goal, but the activity and the experience which is why I say that OPACs have the potential to be fascinating places to visit and browse. They will not embody the comforting, muffled presence of the old card catalog. No, they'll be their own individual entities--borderless, shapeless creatures that somehow fit the people they represent.

That's a goal truly worth striving for.

[tags] library, librarians, library 2.0, web 2.0, OPAC, tagging, social software, search engines [/tags]

Michael Stephens and Michael Casey publicly hash-out some Library 2.0 thoughts over at ALA Techsource.

A good part of their talk was about how libraries, in many cases, are shooting themselves in the foot. I'd speculate that they're probably correct in their assessments. We're lucky at AADL to have forward-thinking people in our administration, but often times, it's department heads that push the agenda. Talk to them, make them see the light too.

Some highlights:

Casey:
...If you can’t send people to the conference, then at least assign some members of your Emerging Technology Committee to review the info that comes out of that conference and find ways to implement some of the more attractive ideas...

Stephens:
...I cannot imagine a director or administrator that would not want to devote some staff time to an Emerging Technology Committee. It’s a perfect way to start looking at things, aggregating all of the info coming out, and making recommendations. How forward thinking is that? Wouldn’t the board or other governing body be happy that the library was looking toward the future instead of the way things have always been done? ...

Casey:
... Dealing with directors and boards reminds me that most of our battles are not with the user but with our own people. Users are often far more likely to embrace new ideas and new offerings than our own administrators! ...

...We get stuck in ruts, providing the same services to the same groups of people, without looking beyond our world to the masses that do yet not use our services. I often speak of reaching for that "Long Tail," the concept of trying to drive toward the large numbers that don't even think of the library as a resource to be used. If we cannot break out of that mold, that way of thinking, then we will never progress...

(I'd hate to be this library right now.)

Stephens:
So much is coming together in my mind right now: OCLC’s Perceptions, the Gaming Symposium, working with CPL, and following the discourse here. They all feed into the idea of L2. The idea of the library as a spot for kids to race and dance and for young people to record podcasts and develop digital videos just like the great directors and seek their own forms of entertainment to their hearts' content...it makes me very happy ...

Great post, guys.. and what a good format for this discussion.