Over on our Xiphos blog, I’ve just published a podcast conversation I had with Herbert van de Sompel earlier this week.
It’s a nice example of the synergies between issues discussed here on Panlibus and those we’re exploring within Project Xiphos. Have a listen, and see what you think.
The Library 2.0 Gang, July - ALA Conference show has been published and is available for a listen.
Outgoing ALA president Loriene Roy was the guest. Gang regulars for this show Char Booth (soon to move to a new position at The University of California, Berkeley - well done Char), Carl Grant from Care Affiliates, Marshall [Library Technology Guides] Breeding, and Ex Libris CSO, Oren Beit-Arie.
Different perspectives on the success and future of the conference came to the surface, leading to a lively debate. Predictably the split was along the traditional for-profit (vendor) - not-for-profit (library) fault-line. With vendors having to invest serious money to appear on the exhibition floor, for which the return is unclear, and librarians having to justify their expenditure in attending, there is a little tention in the financial balance on putting on an ALA.
The conference, which incidentally is planned ten years ahead and it’s program is shaped eighteen months ahead, attracted 22,000 to Anaheim California. Held in hotels up the road from Disneyland (apparently from where librarian Twittering was detected) it featured some 300 educational programs, 2000 meetings and events - how do you decide what to attend!
Other topics covered on the show included privacy - are we being over protective and holding back innovation - and would free doughnuts help sales.
Alejandro Garza over on the Stupendous Amazing Library blog, extrapolates the fact that there is very little partnership between library system vendors to conclude that they are not interested in interoperation between their systems. He is picking up on extracts from the JISC/SCONUL Library Management Systems Study as commented upon by the Disruptive Library Technology Jester.
Coming from a history of integration protocols, in the library world, where they were more a framework for agreement than a standard, it is easy to assume that the only way to get two systems to talk is for their suppliers to establish a partnership to get it to work. My least favourite standard NCIP is a classic in this regard.
As I commented on the Jester’s post, the questions for the study were:
… in the present tense. Answering with ‘our products will integrate, etc., etc.’, would have no doubt drawn equal scepticism, but for different reasons.
The answers you picked out are symptomatic of an industry in transition. Transition from products without exception based on architectures that never envisioned light-weight loosely-coupled integration. Transition to a REST based service oriented architecture where integration between library and non-library applications should be simple and based on simple and open standards.
The “Do you have partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?” question in the survey demonstrates an attachment to traditional thinking towards integration. So far, with the traditional heavy-weight protocols we are used to in the library world, the only reliable way to get integration that works has been through a partnership between suppliers. Web 2.0 has demonstrated that with simple light-weight protocols, integration is possible without the need for commercial partnerships. There are many benefits that arise from partnerships, but they shouldn’t be a prerequisite for successful integration.
It is not all doom and gloom though. Initiatives such as the DLF’s ILS API defining simple REST base protocols that all vendors should be able to support, have started to gather momentum in the last few months. A momentum that appears to be supported both by vendors and open source groups.
Since I made that comment I attended a JISC and SCONUL Library Management Systems Study Consultation Event in London. This event was a get together of stakeholders in the UK academic library community, which were joined by representatives from system vendors for the afternoon session. For those with a sadistic streak in must have made an entertaining spectacle, watching six vendor representatives (Ex Libris, Infor, Innovative, OCLC, SirsiDynix & Talis) trying to squeeze their views in to 5 minute slots. From most of those presentations and the discussion that followed, it is clear that the vendors are just as much stakeholders in this as the rest of the community.
I feel there is a refreshing openness in opinion and approach that is starting to spread through the conversations in the world of library systems. This openness has been in high evidence in the recent Library 2.0 Gang conversations on ILS APIs and Bolt-on OPACs.
It was a good meeting in London, I only hope that the organisers can keep the momentum going and build a community around the concerns of all the stakeholders, vendors included. If the initiative started by the study falls back in to the traditional model of projects and reports that we are used to, it will be a massive waste of an opportunity.
Back to my original question - do we need partnerships to enable interoperability? No we don’t. With loosely-coupled integration, facilitated by web native light-weight open APIs, interoperability should ‘just happen’. Vendors should, and are starting to be in the position to, say my systems are open for you to interoperate with - who ever you are, partnership in place or not. This won’t happen over night, but we are already on a new path, with a healthy does of credit for the DLF’s leadership in giving us some direction.
Photo from Flickr by Just.Luc.
When, on the April Library 2.0 Gang, Tim Spalding asked Google Product Manager Frances Haugen about the uses of Google data, specifically book jacket images received via their new API, we got the impression that there were no restrictions against using them for display in your OPAC.
As Tim posted last week, things seem to have changed:
A few months ago when the Google Book Search API came out, I was among the first notice that GBS covers could be used to deck-out library catalogs (OPACs) with covers, potentially bypassing other providers, like Amazon and Syndetics. I subsequently promoted the idea loudly on a Talis podcast, where a Google representative ducked licensing questions, giving what seemed like tacit approval.
It seemed so great–free covers for all. Unfortunately, it now seems that it was too good to be true. At a minimum, the whole thing is thrown into confusion.
Tim was contacted by ‘a major cover supplier’ saying that a large percentage of the Google covers were, in fact, licensed to Google by them. They never intended this to be a "back door" to their covers, undermining their core business. - oops!
This coupled with the recent alteration to the Amazon Web Services customer agreement:
5.1.3. You are not permitted to use Amazon Associates Web Service with any Application or for any use that does not have, as its principal purpose, driving traffic to the Amazon Website and driving sales of products and services on the Amazon Website.
… means that those looking for a free source of book jackets will have to look elsewhere?
…. or in the words of the Cluetrain Manifesto - Markets are conversations.
The May 2008 Library 2.0 Gang ticks a couple of boxes on the list of things that show that the best way to move forward is to talk and form a consensus.
Firstly the subject of the conversation - The Digital Library Federation (DLF) working group that are recommending a generic API for all Library Systems to support, and the ‘Berkeley Accord’ that most vendors have signed in support of this.
Secondly, the fact that senior people from at least three of the major vendors are comfortable joining the Library 2.0 Gang for an open recorded conversation, about how they might support the API recommendations in their product sets.
As facilitating host and chair for the conversation, it was very refreshing to hear how open Talin Bingham from SirsiDynix, Oren Beit-Arie from Ex Libris, and Talis’ Dan Mullineux were about their plans and support for the DLF initiative. One point of discussion in the show was the position of Innovative Interfaces, who were the only vendor who explicitly abstained from supporting the Berkeley Accord. All others that expressed a position supported it. Although unable to take part in the conversation, it is clear from the blog post by Betsy Graham, Vice President of Product Management, that their position is not as negative as some have painted it.
If from this you think that the show is a vendor love-in, you would be wrong. The Gang for this show also included Andrew Nagy, lead developer and passionate promoter of VuFind the Open Source Library OPAC, and the well known watcher of, and commentator on, the Library Systems world, Marshall Breeding. Appropriately the show guest was John Mark Ockerbloom who is chair for the DLF’s working group.
During the show it was obvious that all were enthusiastic about the initiative, whilst in agreement that these first baby-steps to opening up access to library systems should be implemented widely as soon as possible.
This third show consolidates the position of the Gang as being the monthly listen for those that are interested in libraries and the technologies that influence them. As Gang host it is my goal to foster open conversations between vendors, their customers, and opinion formers in the library market. I know, as an Evangelist employed by Talis, that some initially viewed this with some skepticism. All three show so far, I believe demonstrate that open conversations between open minded players in our world both move things forward and an interesting and informative listen.
According to the musings of Boris Zetterlund on Axiell’s recently introduced blog, you are reading a blog post written by "a prejudiced, narrow minded, message driven, company edged fan boy". Wow I really must get a tee-shirt made up with that emblazoned across the chest!
I’ve been asked many times what a Technology Evangelist, especially one working for Talis, is and/or does. Strangely enough I have never used the Boris definition as a reply.
Boris thinks the term guru would be more appropriate for somebody who has the relative knowledge to be an authority of foresight in their area. He quotes the venerable Wikipedia in support of his definition:
In a further Western metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived secular knowledge or skills.
As an example of a possible library technology guru he points to the excellent Marshall Breeding, of Library Technology Guides fame. I’ve got a lot of respect for Marshall he provides a great service to libraries, and I enjoy his presentations. His session at the Talis Insight Conference last year [Video selectable from conference program] was received really well, opening many eyes as to the influence of Open Source on our industry. So leaning towards a guru he is, but I wouldn’t class him as an evangelist.
Following through on the religious metaphor, which no doubt will be dangerous - using religious references to make points about secular issues. I see a guru as an expert in his/her particular bounded area of interest who you would metaphorically go to for expert insight in to that field. Whereas, an evangelist is someone who’s role in life is to spread the word about new ways of doing, looking at, or thinking about things.
I know that it is probably a generalisation, but I believe gurus act in an introverted way confining their interactions to those that already believe in what they are expert in, and want to know more. Whereas the evangelists are extrovert spreading the word about what they are passionate about, to those that have not heard it yet.
Having said all that, there are in my experience two types of evangelists in the technology world, and one of those could possibly attract the company edged fan boy label that Boris uses. We’ve all seen them promoting the religion of their company’s product portfolio, as against the sense of the generic architectural/philosophical/technical/standards based approach used to develop them.
Don’t get me wrong, if I believe Talis has a good, the best, or even the only, example of something I believe our industry should be taking notice of, I will not shy away from saying so. But blindly promoting only things that your company or project produces, in the end becomes self defeating.
We operate in a community and open conversation and debate is the only real way forward. The most valuable part of the evangelists role is not necessarily the presentation or blog post, it it the debate, discussion, and comments that they generate.
I could prattle on for ages on this, but the bottom line is that this evangelist is an evangelist not a guru, and definitely not a prejudiced, narrow minded, message driven, company edged fan boy!
Discuss…..
UK Library System Supplier DS, announced this week that "With immediate effect DS becomes part of the Axiell Library Group family of companies."
Axiell the Nordic Library Systems Group with, up until now, interests constrained to Sweden, Denmark and Finland, announced cooperation with DS back in February. This cooperation on Library 2.0 content management and portal platforms has so far resulted in their Arena product that got an outing at the LiS 2008 show last week.
I’m sure both sets of customers will welcome the assurance from Nigel Pegg, Managing Director of DS, that "Customers in both regions will see significant benefits". One can only hope on their behalf that the merger of two organisations with separate product sets is also a little less uncomfortable than it has been for some previous mergers in the sector.
In a mature, everyone has got one, market where vendors are competing on functional minutia, and new coats of paint for public interfaces, for applications built on a core architecture that has not changed for years, you can either try to innovate or consolidate your way out of a difficult situation. Time will tell which this current merger is leading towards.
It’s a little disconcerting when your own words from months ago are quoted back at you from a distance. That’s the trouble with the blogosphere, it is so easy for connections to what you have said to be linked in to the conversation in ways you never expected. Trouble? - No it is one of its major benefits - disconcerting or not!
Recently Mark Dahl quoted something I said a while back. I was discussing how we must stop developing destination applications and start delivering the information and functionality that users want, to where they are working - for instance inside the Learning Management System/eLearning System/VLE (or whatever you call them down your way) - apparently I boasted that the new Reading List (Course Reserves) application Talis are working on "doesn’t even have a user interface". The reason I gave, at the time, was that students don’t need yet another destination to go to to find the information they need - so why build one.
Providing the functionality to link resources to courses in a way that adds value well beyond the simple attempts to be found in ILS/LMS systems, and their course management system counterparts, is an obvious development. What is less obvious, at first, is that you don’t need to build a user interface for it - the student is already in a library system, or a learning management system, or a portal, or FaceBook, or whatever - why can we not deliver the functionality directly in to that environment? Well today the answer to that question is that those applications are not very good at embedding Web Services directly in to their interfaces.
This is why Talis development team member Julian Higman (featured in the February issue of the Library Platform News) was very quick to comment on Mark’s post "I’m working on the reading list application at Talis that you mention, and it certainly does have a user interface!" - Having calmed Julian down (I jest), we both agreed that the fact it was necessary to build a user interface for this product is symptomatic of the inability of most applications, in the University domain, to consume web services and usefully integrate their functionality in to a user’s work flow.
As I commented previously, the online university today is a collection of many silos that the user [student, professor, researcher] is expected to know how to navigate, let alone be able to identify the connections between data in those silos. I expect that this comes as a bit of a shock to the average new student. - I thought I had come to this university to learn about my chosen subject, not to spend a significant amount of time and effort becoming an expert in the use of a multiplicity of different applications and services that are supposedly here to help me.
Peter Brantley was on the money for Mark in his post, about building a Flickr-like system for academia, when he said "However, what will make the application ultimately successful is the availability of open services that permit re-use: mashups that encourage integration with other services and content."
I heartily agree, but only as an interim step. Most of today’s systems are not integrated in any way, so mashing their outputs, exposed via APIs, together in a Web 2.0 way will be a major step forward. Doing this still misses the underlying links that are usually only apparent as connections in the eye of the user, if they happen to appear on the screen together. When we can follow those links between data across silos we will remove the false barriers, imposed by technology thus far, and expose our users to the world of linked data.
Below is a diagram I am working on to hopefully help people visualise what I mean. Utilising Web 2.0 technologies we bring together [mashup] the output from various application silos in to one interface. A great improvement over Web 1.0 where each application would present its data on it’s own independent, and different, screen. Utilising Web 3.0 [Semantic Web] technologies, links between data in separate silos can be identified and presented as connections and relationships in a single Web of Data - much closer to a representation of the real world.
I would be interested in feedback on this diagram. Does it help, or does it make things more confusing?
Megaphone picture published by Paul Keleher in Flickr.
This report - JISC & SCONUL Library Management Systems Study - An Evaluation and horizon scan of the current library management systems and related systems landscape for UK higher education [pdf] - was presented at this week’s JISC 2008 Conference in Birmingham.
Not being able to clone myself I missed the presentation session, but this extensive report makes very interesting reading in it’s own right. It’s observations and recommendations, although targeted at the UK academic library sector, are applicable and of great relevance to the global academic and public library sectors.
I encourage a full read of the document, but check the page count before pressing print - you could save a few trees by making prints of the 157 page document double-sided or even in booklet form.
The compilers of the report - Sero Consulting Ltd with Glenaffric Ltd and Ken Chad Consulting Ltd - have invested a great deal of time taking input exactly 100 UK HE libraries, all the major LMS vendors and the Reference Group drawn from the UK and the international community. Because of this you will find many interesting quotes and comments in the report from librarians concerned with managing library systems, and senior people within the vendor community, including Ex Libris, SirsiDynix, Innovative, and Talis.
The perspective of the UK Academic Library Library Management Systems (LMS in the UK, ILS or even ILMS, dependant on your country) in the report:
LMS Market - The UK market is mature, dominated by four vendors with relatively little product differentiation. Movement in product replacement is slow and customer loyalty to their LMS vendor is high. Many Libraries remain unconvinced about Electronic Resource Management systems and the take-up of new developments such as vertical search is relatively low.
… could, with minor tweaks to the number of dominating vendors, be applicable to almost any country.
The Executive Summary recommendations:
The study recommends libraries invest in systems with caution but not complacency, emphasizing that, whilst the library function has continuing and potentially growing value, the role of ‘conventional’ library may appear increasingly unclear.
- Libraries reviewing LMS contracts should seek increased value, looking at ways to improve services by implementing features around the core LMS.
- The focus on breaking down barriers to resources is endorsed, involving single sign on, unifying workflows and liberating metadata for re-use.
- SOA-based interoperability across institutional systems is emphasised as the foundation for future services and possibly the de-coupling of LMS components
There is consensus that the time is right for intensified dialogue about the nature and function of the modern HE library, its systems and processes. It is especially timely to explore consortia and other partnership arrangements to increase critical mass and network effect, whilst potentially reducing system and service costs.
Responding to these business needs, JISC & SCONUL are encouraged to work jointly with the community to develop and enhance understanding of Library 2.0 and the potential role of the international e-Framework. There is also a vital role in developing strategic engagement with the LMS vendors, with a focus on business process and user workflow review.
… are more than relevant to anyone, and especially those considering change.
Having read much of the report, my personal opinions only differ significantly with the authors in the area of the influence of Open Source software and systems. Seeing the growth of OS influence in the United States, especially in the academic sector, I believe that the authors and those that they interviewed will be surprised by it’s effect over the next few years.
Less of my opinions though, I recommend a read of this significant report for the UK HE library sector that will be of significance and interest to a wider audience.
I spent yesterday in Birmingham’s excellent ICC convention centre at the JISC Conference 2008.
As with all multi-track conferences, apart from the keynote sessions, it is always difficult to get an overall view of the mood, and themes of concern, for the large group of people that congregate at such an event.
Looking back over the day, the word that came to the surface, appearing in most presentations and conversations accompanying refreshments, was silos.
Describing the way academic libraries have to deliver services to their users, the phrase "providing seamless access to the silos of data" showed up a few times. In the same way the silos of information held in the VLEs, VREs, Archives, Repositories, and the Library, need to be made easily available to the students/academic staff/researchers that use them.
Academia has a problem, well at least in it’s online presence. The many excellent efforts to draw together sets of data and resources utilising pre-Web 2.0 technologies have inevitably resulted in the creation of many silos of data that users have to interact with on a silo-by-silo basis.
Take for instance the average library web site with its many and varied sources of data on offer for you to search - and often that is without taking in to consideration repositories, archives, and the like held outside of the library’s direct influence. Why on earth should a consumer of university information and learning services have to know which virtual box data is hidden in, before they are able to search for it? OK perhaps I’m being a little disingenuous with that last remark, as I know the answers to my own question. Firstly, until very recently, systems were never designed on the assumption that they would would sit alongside other [peer] systems and users would want or need to search them in parallel with those peer systems. Secondly, the data, and metadata, standards used for holding information in these systems often differ greatly from each other.
There have been many projects over the years, producing a federated search across either disparate data sets inside an institution, or similar data sets across disparate institutions - these have had varying degrees of success , but none really solving the problem. Another approach has been to just solve the single-sign-on problem so that at least users can get to the individual resources without having to negotiate various login hurdles, so at least it feels like the university owns all the resources.
In a couple of yesterday’s sessions Web 2.0 was presented as the solution to these problems. [Subject to solving the identity and single-sign-on access problems which are generic in any integration project] Mashup access to our resources so that all the data-sets can appear as one on a single [portal] interface.&
