It’s easy to become enamored of social networking sites and Web 2.0 toys to the point where they seem like a panacea for everything that’s wrong with your library or your job. Slap a wiki on it and call me in the morning. The most successful uses of the newest tech tools have recognized that they’re just that: tools.

I’ve been feeling, for awhile now, that the term Library 2.0 has been co-opted by a growing group of libraries, librarians, and particularly vendors to push an agenda of “change” that deflects attention from some very real issues and concerns without really changing anything. It’s very evident in the profusity of L2-centric workshops and conferences that there is a significant snake-oil market in the bibliosphere. We’re blindly casting about for a panacea and it’s making us look like fools.

Ignoring the information ecology

Perhaps the most significant area of neglect is our failure to recognize that Library 2.0 is a delicate ecology. Like Web 2.0, it represents technology that is inherently disruptive on many levels. Not only does Web 2.0 undermine notions of authority and control, but its economic and human costs are very real. There is, indeed, something very exciting about the fact that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 Billion–especially since it was only a company of sixty-odd employees. But at the same time, I’m a little alarmed that sixty-odd people could dominate such a large piece of that market-share. Not for the same reason that we have (soon to have had) the FCC’s media ownership rule, but because the force of that type of change has to be felt somewhere. Think of it in terms of a bag of nitrate dumped in a stream–the algae does really well, but the fish suffocate.

Luckily, Web 2.0 as a whole exists in a large, rather well-insulated economy that will adjust over time. Libraries, on the other hand, are significantly more delicate ecosystems that require more care and discretion. Specifically, we need to understand how our internal information ecology works and how to tend to it. How and where we interface with our users is where the rubber meets the road and should merit a little more thought then simply thrusting a MySpace page in their face or building a new library in Second Life–a service our users overwhelmingly do not use and, which seems to me, like a creepy post-apocalyptic wasteland. I’ll even turn the tables on myself and admit that I was wrong about local tagging in the OPAC. SOPAC was by-and-large a success, but its use of user-contributed tags is a failure. For the past nine months, the top ten tags have included “fantasy”, “manga”, “anime”, “time travel”, “shonen”, “shonen jump”, and “shape-changing”. As a one-time resident of Ann Arbor, I can assure you that these are not topics that dominated the collective hive mind. Well, maybe time travel, if hash-bash was going on.

So we need to understand that, while it’s alright to tip the balance and fail occasionally, we’re more likely to do so if we’re arbitrarily introducing technology that isn’t properly integrated into our overarching information framework. Of course, that means we have to have a working framework to begin with that compliments and adheres to our tradition of solid, proven librarianship. In other words, when we use technology, it should be transparent, intuitive, and a natural extension of the patron experience. If it can’t be transparent, then it should be so overwhelmingly beneficial to the user that it is canonized not by the techies, but the users themselves.

You can’t buy Library 2.0

…And vendors, you can’t sell it. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be attempted. I think perhaps there is an expectation that real-life should somehow mimic the success of the software plug-in model. There may be something to be said for the “object-oriented” library, but that is a far cry from stuffing a new product into an already-awkward, malformed, and ill-suited portfolio. For example, third-party OPACs, as they are currently being sold to us, are likely to fail. Not because they are inherently bad products–some are, some aren’t, but because the companies producing them are only mimicking the Web 2.0 widget–the deliverable. What they are not doing is reevaluating their business and development processes with the goal of realigning them with the interests of libraries. I discussed the pressing need for significant development partnerships back in the July 2007 issue of LJ’s NetConnect and I still believe that that particular model for collaboration is the only way to significantly improve our ability to embed technology in the library. It’s not a long-term viable solution to sell the concept of development partnership when all it really is is just the opportunity to report bugs on software that is not quite ready for prime time.

As libraries, we need to realize that the answers to our larger questions cannot be found out on the exhibitor’s floor. That’s where we find solutions to specific needs that have been identified by a thorough self-examination.

Meeting technology half-way

Don’t hold your breath waiting for technology to adapt to the library environment. Web 2.0 did not evolve with libraries in mind, and there’s no reason to think that it ever will. I realize that, at first glance, that statement seems to run counter to what I’ve been saying with regards to not forcing a square peg into a round hole. What I mean is that we cannot expect to retrofit our libraries with tomorrow’s technology. The true pursuit of Library 2.0 involves a thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology so that any hand-offs in the patron’s library experience are truly seamless. We can learn a lot about collaboration and individual empowerment from Web 2.0, but we cannot be subsumed by it because we have a mission that eclipses “don’t be evil” which is the closest thing to a conscience the Web will ever have.

* Restrictions Apply

To let everyone else in on what I’m talking about, Alan Gray and I had a discussion the other day over lunch about the nature of L2. I was trying to make the point that L2 is not all about technology, that a library can be Library 2.0 and unplugged, if it so chose. Alan feels that it is all about technology. The snark portion of the disagreement went something like this:

Me: “If the power goes out, we can still be 2.0.”

Alan: “That’s because everyone’s laptops and cell phones have batteries.”

Smartass.

He’s correct, of course, but so am I. We’re both approaching the same center from different vectors. As it turns out, this is a relatively unexplored finer point on the mercurial nature of Library 2.0. The topic was briefly broached by several people at one point, but never fully expounded. But it’s an important one in that it gives us a frame of reference in which to consider the types of services we are (or are not) offering in our libraries. It’s vital to understand why Library 2.0 is meaningful to us and if it is only because we’re in the midst of an intense preoccupation with its foundational technologies then that’s not terribly healthy. If, on the other hand, the 2.0 hive has cemented anything of true value into our collective ideology, then we have an obligation to apply it in our work. I believe it has.

Back in March, 2006, I put this image together and I have to confess that after posting it I thought I should have added “People” as one if its principle elements. But now I’m glad I didn’t isolate the human component in its own category. People are infused through all of these realms in too many ways to count–and not necessarily those that might immediately spring to mind. You may remember that during that time, the term “Library 2.0″ itself was under scrutiny, as well as the uncertain complexion of the very thing it sought to describe. In hind-sight, it appears that the people I’m talking about here were, by debating the existence of Library 2.0, becoming some of its initial architects. One of the paradoxes of the 2.0 world is that it is essentially a socialist system based on wholesale, acute individualism. The many unique voices talking about Library 2.0 have served to expand its meaning and sharpen its borders.

Interestingly, a mere one year later, most of us who talk about this stuff are talking about it as though it’s been around forever. Of course, it hasn’t and the debate really never resolved gracefully. Those that accepted it to begin with simply continue to, and many who were skeptical have come on-board with the anticipation that precedes a long, slow gulp of barium. Last week, Walt Crawford mentioned that he might revisit his well-known Library 2.0 Cites & Insights issue. I hope he does because this discussion is far from over and I’m very interested to hear his take on things these days. When he last took me to task, he pointed out that I was suggesting that ‘anything different is”Library 2.0″‘. Admittedly, that stung a little at the time because it was, in essence, what I had said and it was a flimsy assertion. But that’s blogging for ya.

So now I’m asserting that there would be no Library 2.0 without the internet. More specifically, that the internet was a prerequisite for what we now agree to call Library 2.0. Like an awkward adolescent, however, L2 will inevitably experiment with independence from its high-tech bloodline. Ultimately, if the power goes out and the laptop batteries die, we will be left with a profoundly different library. Certainly the one we hope to build here in Darien will reflect a set of attitudes that are less constrained by convention and more motivated by collaboration, empowerment, and hospitality. The first two of those virtues clearly come from Web 2.0, while the third reflects commitment to what many call Business 2.0.

We can transform our libraries in a number of ways, as evidenced by Leslie Burger’s transformation track at ALA this past June. But what I’m interested in here is how the internet has changed our profession, and what its legacy will be. There will come a day when libraries and networked technology are so closely associated that the very term “library” will be synonymous with “online” just as it is with “books”. As Jessamyn is quoted in the recent NYT article, librarianship is becoming “a techie profession.” For newcomers to the industry, that train has left the station–it is a techie profession. In the near future, new librarians will need to be technologists. At the very least, they’ll need to be able to participate in an information-centric community that requires all the disparate parts of the library to come together in a seamless fashion. The very best librarians will be able to cultivate those systems. We’re germinating an information ecosystem that is just now begining to sprout and it’s the next generation of information professionals who are going to bear witness to the full bloom. They’re also going to inherit what we do right now and play steward to it well into their professional lives.

And at the heart of it all resides the Network–an albatross to some, a blessing to others. The Network is four little octets, a new domain, a new human experience. And we’re dumping shit into it at a phenomenal rate without any thought as to where it will end up, how useful it is, how accurate it is. Typical human behavior. Yet its value cannot be overstated. The internet has a penchant for compartmentalizing its minutia in ways that make it seem sentient. There are gems to be found.

There is a lot of sludge too and that is overwhelming to the uninitiated. I’m reminded of Wordsworth’s Prelude where he describes the serendipity of finding a rowboat that he climbs in to and paddles toward the looming cliffs. As he approaches, a dark peak rises up before him and blocks out the stars causing a darkness that fills him with dread. For many, accepting this new world is akin to his journey back from that darkness because it is so different: it’s simultaneously huge, incorporeal, and iconoclastic. Libraries are the first stars to reappear in that night sky. We’ll help guide them through that wilderness. That is what Library 2.0 does–with our technology, our spaces, and with everything we offer. Without Library 2.0 there is only dead reckoning for too many people.

[Twitter] can trick the brain into thinking its having a meaningful social interaction, while another (ancient) part of the brain “knows” something crucial to human survival is missing.

I say Twitter is the Paris Hilton of the social web. Slutty and unfortunate. The basest manifestation of the culture and systems it represents.

I’ve received no less than 14 Twitter invitations from people whom I respect deeply and I have to wonder, why the **** are they using this? Who cares if you’re sitting in traffic, doing your homework, going to a concert, performing a bodily function, or reading a book?

I, like Kathy, am probably in the minority here, but I just hope we don’t get too distracted by this piece of candy 2.0 because, in the end, we really have better things to do. At least, I hope we do.

I don’t know. In so many ways, libraries are still very traditional organizations, entrenched in a very one-dimensional business model–that is, we lend material, answer reference questions, and provide a repository–ok, shelf space–for books that may, or may not, ever be touched (run a report on items that have not been checked-out in over ten years).

I think the library, as an institution, has slid, somewhat, into the periphery of our society’s sight. For example, despite Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci Code (“I need a library, quick!”), references to libraries in popular culture continue to be steeped in iconic images of the shushing librarian and annoyed patrons who glare at an offender who dares raise her voice above a whisper. When a library is portrayed in a movie, we see little old ladies fetching dusty tomes off some hard-to-reach shelf in an effort to help the protagonist track down esoteric knowledge of a demon lost to the annals of time. Contrast that with the number of times we see scenes of hot actors basking in the glow of their LCD panels.

I know these Hollywood generalizations are inaccurate and unfair, but I’m sure I’m not the only one of us that has noticed the characterizations we’ve been given. It’s important to take these into consideration because Hollywood is actually a fairly impartial depiction of America’s psyche (and when it’s not, it’s telling Americans what should be in their psyche). After all, most of our population shapes its world view around what it sees in the movies and on TV, sad as that may be. While we may hold this type of self-actualization in disdain, the American public are the very same people our public libraries serve, and also from whom we receive our funds.

Now, with the rise of Web 2.0, our users have thrust the social media into the mainstream. This has happened because the “networked environment” Hinchcliffe talks about is itself very much mainstream now. In fact, it’s so mainstream that it has begun to help define what aspects of our civilization become mainstream and thus, by default, which do not. and so, we now live in a society where the content that is in high-demand is readily available, pretty much anywhere. I’m talking about content like this:

(Link)

The Candy Mountain video has been circulating for almost a year now and it’s a prime example of how network effects are allowing society to disseminate, in this case, popular culture, and ultimately the bulk of information deemed “important” by our fellow citizens. And so, I’m left scratching my head (just like I was after I watched Charlieee’s adventure) wondering what the heck we’re supposed to be doing with our libraries.

So in the meantime, I’m thrilled to be with one of the libraries that is experimenting. There are a number of radical libraries that are casting about for a new direction. It’s dead reckoning for now. But we’re coming to some new realizations now that are intriguing. We’re thinking about physical space in a whole new way, we’re reaching out to our youth in ways that were never before considered, we’re fiddling around with the chemistry of the net, looking for some new alchemy that may ultimately lead to a new dawn for us. Is your library part of this?

At any rate, my little holiday treat this year is a catalog search cloud for the AADL catalog. For about four months now, I’ve been collecting search statistics on queries done against our catalog with the sole intention of creating this little proof-of-concept app.

Basically, it looks at the {x} most popular searches in the past {x} days and generates, what we all recognize, as a tag cloud of those searches with links into the catalog for each.

I say this is a “proof-of-concept” feature because in the coming months, we’ll be launching into our AADL.ORG 3.3 development push which will, hopefully, include a whole lot more of this type of stuff.

Have a safe, happy holiday. I won’t take 2 months to do another post, I promise!

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.

I almost let this one slip under the radar, but I'm glad I didn't. Late last night, I finished reading the transcript of a very candid and open discussion between Bill Gates and Tim O'Reilly at MIX06 on the topic of Web 2.0. Warning: It's rather long, but it covers a tremendous amount of territory and is so worth the read. I thought I'd gather some snippets here (I love this picture, by the way--it looks like Bill is about to bite Tim's kneecaps off).

While reading this, it dawned on me that if Gates would just stop marketing his company for a minute and have a conversation, he'd have some very interesting, very good things to say. That is almost what happened during his chat with O'Reilly.

O'Reilly on the subject of rolling out new technologies and features:

Low barriers to entry and then things take off, and then you figure out how to make it easier for the rest of the people later.

I believe that is a viable model for libraries as well. Take RSS, for instance. There is certainly a technical hurdle to be overcome if an individual wants to take advantage of it, but if that person is unable to do so, there is no access penalty that prevents them from taking advantage of the library in the same way they always have. On the other hand, being able to take advantage of RSS feeds, say, from the new items list, or directly from the catalog, introduces an unprecedented level of convenience that has, until now, not been realized. So rapid development, rapid deployment in the library enterprise will only ameliorate our service level. That's why it's so important to structure our organizations in such a way that these rapid "to-market" features are implemented. This, of course, plays into the "perpetual beta/extreme programming" philosophy which can be unsettling when presented to an uninitiated. At AADL, I think we've shown time and again that it works. I think the positive response to frequent updates and enhancements far outweighs any negative feedback we might get from it.

O'Reilly brought up the topic of social networks:

So moving on to another aspect of Web 2.0, one point that I have made repeatedly is that one of the key concepts that's different about network applications is that they get better the more people use them. Every time somebody makes the link on a Web site, and I think it was Scoble who made this point originally, at least in my awareness, they are contributing to a site like Google or any search engine, because it's the users making links that is the raw material of the whole search Web. And in a similar way, every time somebody tags a photo in Flickr or a Web site in del.icio.us, they're basically making the application better for everyone else.

To which, Gates added:

Well, the idea that the more users you get, the more valuable something is, I think that concept is even stronger today when it's so easy for people to connect up and build communities.

Right!, that community thing... We serve communities, right? You'll notice, however, that Gates and O'Reilly treat APIs as a foregone conclusion and consider the API as something to be accessed by anyone at any time. Naturally, integrating social networks into our systems require them. Unfortunately for us, APIs are not a priority to our vendors, nor are they often a priority to the individuals in our organizations who draft RFPs and, ultimately, make the purchasing decisions. I'm not going off on that jag today.

At any rate, it's still possible for many of us, with a little ingenuity, to slip in some web 2.0 functionality. Like I've said before, libraries are the perfect incubators for social networking. The sooner we start growing that content, the sooner we start fostering an online community with its own unique personality. These will be networks that, twenty years from now, we'll be garnering prestige from.

I thought that O'Reilly's thoughts on application boundaries was noteworthy:

I also think one of the things that's really interesting about iTunes is it's an example of a paradigm I refer to, using actually language from a guy who used to work for you, Dave Stutz, called software above the level of a single device. I mean, here is an application that's designed from the get-go to span a handheld, a PC, and a Web site as a single integrated application. It's not just things glommed together after the fact. I mean, it was a first generation of full handheld to cloud consumer application it seems to me, other than communication app.

(Once again, visit my API angst) His comments here play into some of the thoughts I've been having on the virtual boundary of our libraries. For example, if we were to develop a little application that sits in the toolbar and notifies the user when his/her holds are available or when material is due, then we've created a tendril of influence that makes the library almost omnipresent in the daily life of that user. Perhaps that little application could notify the user of events happening at the library too, encouraging him/her to actually come in and participate. It's an area effectively untouched by the library world and it shouldn't be.

Oh yes, books were on the docket as well (O'Reilly):

I'm a publisher, and so I care a lot about how people are going to read in the future. You've promoted a lot the idea of Tablet PCs and reading devices. I've thought much more, because I have the Safari service, that the future was much more in building databases of content, and we've talked about this recently at summit called Reading 2.0, and there was a great post afterwards where somebody said, what will the books say to each other in the library of the future, the idea of books that are effectively growing, you know, all these things that we're talking about for Web 2.0 it seems to me also relate to content.

Gates adds:

Clearly for [teachers] to have [flexibility] they've got to have the right tools, the rights issues can't stand in the way. But I think, say, ten years from now we'll look back and say, wow, textbooks, why did we put the money into that, now we've got this universal tool that every kid just uses instead.

O'Reilly was referring to an adjunct of his Safari service that allows users to combine material from different books to create their own custom volumes--all online, of course. My opinion is that, no matter how techie I may be, I like my O'Reilly books printed on paper, sitting on my shelf, where I can dog-ear them, photocopy them, write in them, and leave them laying open on my desk. I don't think my feelings are very far off from many others and I don't see school textbooks being replaced by tablets, especially not in ten years. This is one of those cases where I wish Gates would take a gander at the real world. Tim O'Reilly, on the other hand, has a vested interest in continuing to print in addition to his online offerings. I like his idea of book mash-ups. I think they'll work in some cases, but our stack are going nowhere--it's our relationship to our stacks and how we find the stuff on them that will dramatically change over the next ten years.

Gates on RSS:

When you think about RSS as the start of a programmable Web, as you expose APIs to your Web sites, amazing things can happen. eBay, of course, is an extreme example where over half the product listings now are done in a programmatic way. And the tools that are turning the Internet essentially into a programming environment where any Web site is almost like a component in a software application, where you make a request to it like you would a subroutine call, it comes back asynchronously with the information, that's allowing people to think through architectures in a very different way.

RSS, to be sure, is a transformative technology. I'm glad that libraries are slowly adopting it (too slowly, but something is better than nothing). [update] See comments for clarification. [/update] It's important to remember, however, that RSS is only the most rudimentary API available. Web-based standards exists that will give us the tools to create the type of immersive experiences Gates talks about:

Beyond browsing speaks to having rich client code that creates a great interaction. We're seeing an explosion of this. Almost every popular Web site is now saying, OK, what can they do, whether it's a little notification thing on the sidebar, or a full screen immersive type experience, this is a very state of the art thing that really is complementary to having that pure browser experience.

And that's the end-game when it comes to the online experience for our users. It doesn't matter who says it, we've got to acknowledge that our systems are in their infancy. We've got a lot of work to do--lobbying our vendors, communicating and convincing our colleagues, creating environments that foster creativity and development, not to mention producing the product itself.

Good luck!

One of the questions posed to the panel was, where can Library 2.0 make a difference now? Where is the action?

I had mentioned four particular areas where I thought L2 could be a change agent: technology, policy, programming, physical spaces. It's important to note that these four areas of change are in no way inherently "library 2.0"--just a part of the conversation. I think it's also important for me to admit that beyond technology, I really cannot write with any authority about policy, programming, or physical spaces, but I can identify good elements in each and voice an my opinion as to what I believe is good practice in each realm.

It's difficult to have a conversation about what's new in librarianship these days without bumping into terms like RFID, blog, wiki, and IM. There's little doubt that technology is poised to play a defining role in the future of librarianship. The question is how, to what degree, and what will it look like? I certainly see perils--some of which have already manifested themselves, *cough* .. RFI .. *cough* D ... I think we run the risk of chasing our tails in a frenzied loop, driven by tech for tech's sake. Always remember that when considering new technology, be mindful of "the process"--your existing methods and how new technology will impact it. After all, we share a relationship with technology, we don't own it. If we're unrealistic about that relationship and where it's going to go, we run the risk of burning ourselves in a flash of limerent passion.

So, what is the good stuff? As always, my response is, "that depends". Lately I've been beating the OPAC drum because I believe it's a fundamental library tool that's being neglected and passed over for more interesting or hip technologies. I believe in the socialPAC--we'll see where that goes, though. Michael Stephens does an inordinate amount of work trying to get libraries to adopt blogging. We've realized some very positive returns from our blogging initiative at AADL. In less that a year, we've managed to accumulate a sizable archive of quality content that belongs to us and invites community involvement. The model works and it adds tremendous value to our organization.

APIs have become vogue and we're seeing both the term and the technology itself sink into the library vernacular--at least in the blogosphere among library techies. I think the fact that we've witnessed some real successes with technologies like mashups, metadata and microformat-based tools has given rise to a general acceptance that the API is a critical business tool. I'm keen to see what arises from projects like unAPI and OpenURL. The idea here is to get away from technology that no longer works well, or doesn't live up to today's computing standards.

I don't want to speak much on hardware, because that is a bit of a sticky wicket. The problem with hardware is that it's always there and I really don't believe that hardware provides as much ROI as the judicious use of software can. As long as you have the right hardware for the job and enough power to drive your applications, you're set. That's not to say that we shouldn't be experimenting and researching ways to use new hardware--we just need to be careful because hardware vendors often promise one thing while practicality demonstrates another--tablet PC, anyone?

I'm grateful to the administrators who toil over policy development. Well, I'm grateful to them when they produce policy that makes sense! I've always been of the opinion that if the majority of people ignore a particular policy, it's bad--I think there is a little bit of acknowledgement of that going on these days as we look around and see a number of institutions relaxing rules and taking the opportunity to foster environments that are more inviting and less punitive. AADL, for example, now allows patrons to enjoy a beverage anywhere in the library so long as it has a lid. The old stereotype of the cranky librarian shushing anyone who dares to converse above a whisper is slowly eroding. I'd like to see fines disappear--some libraries are adopting very lax fine policies. Fines do nothing but scare off potential users and disenfranchise those who have accrued a balance. Friendly phone calls ought to accompany invoices. Your facilities could have all the right components for an immersive library experience, but if the policies are suffocating, expect users to go elsewhere.

While we're at it, reconsidering organizational structure is not a bad idea. My guess is that a more Google-like approach to staffing in key areas may help foster innovation. In other words, libraries might benefit from flattening out the organization structure of its employees in areas where new ideas are being developed and tested. Staff members need to have a realistic sense that they can approach anyone else in the organization with ideas and proposals instead of scheming up ways of floating them through layers of bureaucracy with the fear that they may be trampling on someones toes. Bureaucracy is an innovation killer.

Good policy can also pave the way for radical transformation in programming. In addition to the regularly-scheduled programs like story times and computer classes, I'm continuously impressed with the quality of guest speakers and other events our community relations department puts together. Programming is such an important tool for reminding your community that the library is alive, full of hope and opportunity. Lately, with the addition of gaming juggernauts like AADL-GT, we're seeing an upsurge in the amount and quality of teen programming in libraries everywhere. Teen programming is tremendously vogue right now and is vital to the fiscal health of our libraries in the future. We ought to be hiring and encouraging the very best teen librarians we possibly can right now--they need to be courageous, energetic visionaries, much like our own Erin Hemlrich (who ought to be blogging!). Courageous, because aside from the perceived taboos that need to be broken in order to get teens excited about the library, getting teens excited is not easy--it takes guts to engage those hypercritical hormone-factories. Gaming programs have a huge potential for return, if done right. Eli Neiburger and Erin have put together a gaming initiative that would knock your head off if you saw it--it's so good that it actually impresses the kids who come to it. And come they do--well over a hundred participants often show up for events.

Programming is also receptive to the adaptation of new technologies. Creative and judicious use of streaming audio/video, VoIP, wifi, electronic signage, even our own existing databases can yield results that look highly produced and professional. Attention to detail and a mindset that demands quality will create a product that our users will respect, and in turn, they will feel respected by us. True, money plays into a lot of these programs, but not always, and not as much as one might expect by looking at the finished product--be wily and get it done right!

We've just successfully opened the new Pittsfield Branch Library--the latest addition to the AADL system. It's a beautiful library--my favorite so far. In addition to bright, airy, open stacks and a quiet reading room with a fire place that overlooks protected wetlands, it features a generous kids area replete with toys and game computers. Also, directly in the center of the building is an interactive Bernoulli machine exhibit--a joint venture between AADL and the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum. The exhibit allows visitors (mostly the children) to press a pneumatic button that launches balls up a 20 foot tube where they are shot out into a spiral funnel that winds the balls back down another tube into a collection chamber with a spinning disc that sends the balls careening over buttons that light up various panels. The balls then fall back into a pinball-like queue where they can be launched, once again. It's really quite impressive. I also think it was a courageous move to put it in there due to both it's size and the amount of activity that it garners. It's definitely a draw for the 2-8 year-old crowd!

The point here is that physical space plays a major role in defining both the mission and purpose of libraries. I'm glad to see that larger and larger areas are being devoted to youth and teens. Having those resources brings in the stay-at-home parents with their children and starts a process of acclimation that primes the pipeline with future (tax-paying) patrons. Clean, accessible and uncongested computer rooms are essential to providing connectivity to those who may not have it at home, or who may not even have a home (we ought to be thinking about programming for the homeless, as well). Book stores have coffee shops, libraries should too, with free wifi so that the Borders down the street doesn't steal our business.

Okay, so I've taken a few scribblings and turned them into a long-winded brain-dumpish post. What can I say, I love what I do, and I believe that libraries are an oasis. Like most everyone else, I think we can do better. If nothing else, "Library 2.0" reminds us that it's an exciting and challenging time to be a library.

[tags]library, libraries, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, SirsiDynix, OPAC, innovation, technology, policy[/tags]

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]

The first ever mashup camp drew to a close yesterday. It was the brain-child of David Berlind and Doug Gold. Essentially, It was a collection of mashup authors from around the country and, ostensibly, the world who gathered to share their creativity and brainpower. Notably, among them was Ann Arbor's Ed Vielmetti. He's reported back on the "camp's" progress--be sure to check out his blog.

But what does this have to do with libraries, and why should we be paying attention to this? Well, beside the fact that mashups are the new, hot technology and we should be keeping up with all new, hot technology, mashups have enormous potential to redefine he library boundary both in terms of the technology itself and the people creating it.

Immediately, we can see the potential on our own sites by bringing in highly-polished, powerful tools in ways that enhance the information we already have to offer. A good example that Stephen Abram cited, was the ability to use the Google Maps API to provide very specific, very user-friendly directions to library branch locations. What makes mashups so exciting is that creativity and innovation are the key elements at play in the construction of these things.

The fact that new, high-level scripting languages and development engines like Ruby or Ruby on Rails, even, are being developed make the assemblage of Web 2.0 APIs a fairly easy endeavor. As a result, we're starting to see our patrons get into the groove as they begin to spin their own creations. Ed Vielmetti's Amazon mashup is a great example of this. He's written a Greasemonkey plugin that sneaks item availability into an Amazon record. The subversive nature of these things really tickles my fancy--it allows us, as end users, to do things that would mortify any sales team. We need to laud the use of our data wherever our patrons decide it should be.

Mashups are about individual empowerment. As libraries, we need to be able to step right in and lend tools to our users that will allow them to start creating these unintended uses. Again, this requires us to have... that's right, suitable APIs! The PatREST project I'm working on strives to do just that and I'm so grateful that Dave Pattern at Huddersfield has joined me. We've been able to create a bilateral push for this by producing near-identical results using two very different systems.

The mashup also poses some fundamental questions about the library's reach--where it begins (from the patron view) and where it ends (from our insider's view). By enabling users to spin our library tendrils into any place they like, we're creating a very ambiguous border on our OPACs, which, in turn, causes the entire ILS to recede into the background and play a significantly different role. Increasingly, it's just the business logic we want.

And so, as a whole new generation of Frankensteins are born, can you say that your ILS ready? Can you deal your data out under the table? With sleight-of-hand, we're going to make the library insidious.

[tags]Mashups, API, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Programming, Coders, Superpatron[/tags]

technology, at least right now, is in an evolutionary phase, whereas only two or three years ago we were still in a revolutionary time period where new ideas were rocking the library boat on a regular basis.

I think he's correct here. If you look back at blog entries, seminar topics, and conference talks over the last few years, you'll definitely see their content trending from what technologies are available toward how do we use these technologies and now we're starting to see, look how we're using this technology. A natural progression, to be sure, but does it say anything about the nature of library innovation in 2006? I think the other side of the technology equation is, and always will be, the people.

Clearly we need to remove the expectation that technology will always offer sensational new tools that can be inserted into library operations and result in exceptional returns.

We cannot ignore the "people factor" -- that is, the librarian 2.0 element to all this. Without the dedicated front-line staff to whom we present these rapidly changing technologies, none of this would matter. We may provide the blogs, but it's our staff who are the bloggers. We may provide internet terminals and free wifi, but the desk staff always field the first questions about all of it. Communication, patience and gratitude are key elements in the synergy between IT and the librarians as they, more often than not, embrace these revolutionary technologies that are relentlessly foisted upon them.

And while the pace of change may sometimes seem insanely fast, the speed of progress may be infuriatingly slow--but bear in mind that it is progress. The construction of some of the worlds most magnificent cathedrals took lifetimes to complete.

[tags]Library 2.0, Librarian 2.0, Web 2.0, Libraries, Librarians, Technology[/tags]

But before I go any further, I need to disclose several tidbits about this whole endeavor.

First, this was a "black-ops" project. That is to say, I consulted no one before launching into this. I did not go to the public and ask their opinion. I did not go to my colleagues and solicit their input. I did not float this in committee. I didn't get any official authorization to do it. In fact, the whole thing flew under the radar from its conception through to fruition, which took exactly four days. In many ways, it was a spur-of-the-moment project that I did to keep busy during a few relatively quiet days. Sometimes, you need to throw caution to the wind and just do it.

Bear in mind that the only place this service was advertised was on this blog (where, admittedly, it was subsequently picked up by several others). I did not announce it to AADL staff--I let them discover it on their own. Many probably still don't know it's there. When you look at the numbers, know that they reflect those who either read about the cards on a blog or stumbled across it during their course of regular business.

It was a very fun little project, but the real value was that I could slip it into production very quietly and let it act as a proof-of-concept for some very real, very large changes I want to do to our OPAC (which I definitely need authorization for). Essentially, I wanted to answer a very simple question:

Is the public ready for a social OPAC?

What I found indicates something very special, indeed. In fact, as time progressed, I began double-checking my methods which consisted of a simple laundry list of basic queries, which I'll describe. As you can see, I only have 7 collection dates and they are not at regular intervals so the growth rates represented are a little deceiving, but as I've said before, this is very unscientific--I'm definitely no statistician! The results, however, are real.

The first graph here (above) is the simplest of all. It's the total number of marginalia comments in the system over time. The query was simply:

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM cc_marginalia

The count for each date, respectively is: 35, 107, 160, 413, 593, 634, 790. You can clearly see that the number or cards being marked up is experiencing a steady climb. I actually am not terribly surprised by this, but for an unadvertised service, it's still much higher than I had expected or hoped for.

Now, marking the cards up is one thing--it's a fire-and-forget process, it doesn't even require a user to be logged in. Adding a card to a collection is another. Adding a card requires that a user be logged in to a valid account and represents, what I consider, a higher participation factor. This means that users are not only adding marginalia, but they are taking advantage of the ability to build card catalog collections. To me, this is really exciting stuff because it tells me that a) the service is useful and b) there is a market for this kind of stuff in a library setting. FYI, the query for this data is:

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM cc_savedcards

The data for the preceding graph dates is 8, 43, 66, 82, 216, 320, 388.

If you're interested, you can take a look at my saved cards. In addition to knowing how many cards were being added to collections, I needed to know how many people were collecting cards. This is where I really started to feel my pulse quicken. These numbers told me that, despite a lack of advertisement, a substantial number of people were building card catalog collections. I have to be honest and say that I was expecting only 20 to 30 users participating after three weeks. As of 2/11, however, there were 75 users building collections! Check out the growth over time: 2, 6, 22, 42, 58, 62, 75 for each date respectively. Of course, to put that in perspective, we have 20,955 registered users on our Drupal site as of 2/14--our regular users are an extremely small fraction of that, however. To get this data, I ran the following query:

SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT(uid)) FROM cc_savedcards

So... How many of those users not only started to build card catalog collections, but opted to share their collections with the world? I was blown away by these results. Simply amazing: virtually every person to create a card catalog collection also opted-in to sharing it. To me, this speaks volumes about the types of services our users want and it tells me that a good number of our library users want to interact with each other--a vital ingredient if you want a social OPAC. It also sheds a little light on the sophistication of our users--a lot of them are already Web 2.0-aware and will be sensitive to new services like this. Our commercial counterparts are doing a great job of softening the market for us--now all we have to do is provide the tools on our systems.

There is a very good chance I'm overlooking something here--if there is a metric you'd like to see me add, please ask for it and if it's feasible, I'll do my best to provide it.

Our users are smart, clever, interesting, positive, intuitive, and social. They may not know it yet, but they're waiting for their public libraries to be a catalyst for the community. There is something wonderfully special and intimate about shared experience--that is why Web 2.0 is so successful. When those experiences are centered around books, movies, and music and they're aggregated at the local level, the product becomes highly personal--how inspiring would it be to have patrons who are proud of the job they've done for their library?

NOTE: The above graphs were created using the open source graph library, jpgraph.

[Update 4/16/2006 2:42PM]
Somehow, this post got flagged as "private" .. Odd. Very odd, but fixed now.
[/Update]

[tags]Web 2.0, Virtual Card Catalog, Library 2.0, Programming, Library, AADL[/tags]