Well this is it, my first post that lacks a review of a reading for my 555 class. I finished the class last week, and am pretty darn excited about it, so far 3 classes down and I still have a 4.0! So I don't have anything exciting or witty to say, but I really want to try and post about once a week, or at the very least after something exciting has happened. As luck would have it for this week, it is my first post in a week, and exciting things have happened recently!
This past week my mom and sister came to visit. I am not at the point yet where i am ready to upload pictures onto this blog, but suffice it to say that we had a lot of fun. We took a Segway tour of the city, which while very fun can be hard on the old legs. For anyone out there interested I would highly recommend the Memorial Highlights Tour through segsinthecity (www.segsinthecity.com). It is only 45 bucks, and an hour and a half long (trust me when I say that is the longest you want to stand on a segway). It was very hot, but the guy who gave the tour had a lot of information to share, and we traveled completely around the tidal basin here in the city. After that we went to the POV at the newly named W Hotel. Way too hot to do that, pretty views but I had sweat in places I would rather not think about anymore! I love having my family visit. They are incredibly important to me, and I have found that the older I get the better my relationship with my mom and sisters has become. That is such a joy to me, and it is beyond difficult to watch them when they leave. I am excited to see them again for a wedding though here in a few weeks.
Then Dan and I traveled up to New Jersey for Joan and Nathan (Shifflet)'s wedding. While there we stayed with Dan's Aunt Nancy, and saw Amy, Melissa, Brian, William, and all of Dan's immediate family. It was a nice weekend, though I was over emotional much of the time. Why is it that I cry like a baby about dogs in cages, and at other people's weddings, but was stone faced at my own wedding and so logical in my every day work?! We also visited Ellie (Dan's step-grandmother) this past weekend. She has been in the hospital now for a month. I must say, she has convinced me very much in the power of prayer. 2 weeks ago they were preparing for her death within a few hours, and suddenly she had a complete turn around, her blood pressure stabilized, she is breathing on her own, infections are healing themselves! It is incredible, note to self those Hail Mary's really do work! Overall it was a nice weekend, but I fear sometimes that Dan and I are getting too used to being on our own. We were ready for our normal schedule, and our own bed!
This is the last week I have before AC training starts, which of course bleeds right into RA training, and opening, and the first six weeks. Before I know it it will be December. But I don't want to get too ahead of myself, for now I want to stay positive and enjoy the moment. I have some exciting plans for NN2 this upcoming year, and lots of things to get ready!
So with that, I supposed I will end this post. I doubt many will read it, but hopefully this will be a good resource for me (as a future librarian) to refer back to moments in my life, so I can remember things I am sure I will soon forget. For now, toodles!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Closing your Curtains… and other ways to protect your privacy!
Coombs, Karen (2005) Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries. Computers in Libraries. V 25 No. 6.
I can’t believe this week is already here, the last week of LSC 555. I still couldn’t tell you all I have learned in this class, but my technology skills have definitely improved! The articles this week were focused on the Web, again. They focused specifically on Web privacy. The first article I read was written by an electronic services librarian at SUNY. The focus of this paper was to analyze what information libraries should protect. During the process of “going digital” at the SUNY libraries the author claims to have learned five things. These things are: that a privacy policy is more important than a written document, data can be stored in places most don’t think of, purging of user data can affect the library’s ability to function, the places user data is stored are not always controlled by the library, and finally privacy policies are constantly changing things. What a fascinating experience this must have been for this librarian! To be perfectly honest the thought of privacy being an expectation while being in a public library was absolutely beyond me! I am not necessarily sure I agree that privacy should be an expectation, but regardless this article provided a wealth of information on the importance of privacy in libraries.
There were a number of things that stood out to me while reading this article. I think the first thing that struck me was that the ALA actually has recommendations for the protection of user privacy. These recommendations are limiting the degree to which personally identifiable information is monitored, collected, disclosed and distributed. They also recommend that you avoid creating unnecessary records (a fairly vague direction in my personal opinion), as well as avoid retaining records that are not needed for efficient operation of the library (which again in my opinion goes against what the library stands for in general). Finally they suggest that libraries avoid practices and procedures that place personally identifiable information in public view. I don’t in any way mean to sound trite, but these are pretty vague directions, and in some ways seem to contradict what libraries stand for in the first place. I discussed this a bit in my research paper on wikis, how digital diaries (as they have been described) are works that should be saved and recorded. The ALA seems to disagree. So then, my question based on this article is this: how much privacy do people really deserve to expect when using a publicly sponsored service?
Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
In a really neat article on the scholar project recently taken on by Google, Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) discusses the pros and cons of Google’s plans to digitize millions of copyrighted books. In fact, the author goes so far as to suggest that Google’s project may well bring about the most disruptive copyright battle since the invention of sound recording technology. I really found this article interesting, and my husband (a phd computer science student was equally interested). Essentially this author argues that the Google Library Project will force a judge to make a sweeping decision regarding copyright law, that will not only adversely affect the Library project, but the “free culture” movement as well.
I won’t lie, this was a long article to read, it threw a lot of cases at the reader, and though using simple language was a bit complex at times to follow. The things that stood out to me the most about this article was the author’s concern that something considered a “flagship” freedom of information project, will actually destroy the potential for free information in the future. Essentially, Google may ruin things for everyone else, because of how legislators will react. I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, but look forward to researching the problems more, so I can best form an opinion. My question as a result of reading this article is: Did we really see such sweeping litigation as a result of the Napster fallout, that we have evidence to actually believe that there will be adverse effects to this project?
I can’t believe this week is already here, the last week of LSC 555. I still couldn’t tell you all I have learned in this class, but my technology skills have definitely improved! The articles this week were focused on the Web, again. They focused specifically on Web privacy. The first article I read was written by an electronic services librarian at SUNY. The focus of this paper was to analyze what information libraries should protect. During the process of “going digital” at the SUNY libraries the author claims to have learned five things. These things are: that a privacy policy is more important than a written document, data can be stored in places most don’t think of, purging of user data can affect the library’s ability to function, the places user data is stored are not always controlled by the library, and finally privacy policies are constantly changing things. What a fascinating experience this must have been for this librarian! To be perfectly honest the thought of privacy being an expectation while being in a public library was absolutely beyond me! I am not necessarily sure I agree that privacy should be an expectation, but regardless this article provided a wealth of information on the importance of privacy in libraries.
There were a number of things that stood out to me while reading this article. I think the first thing that struck me was that the ALA actually has recommendations for the protection of user privacy. These recommendations are limiting the degree to which personally identifiable information is monitored, collected, disclosed and distributed. They also recommend that you avoid creating unnecessary records (a fairly vague direction in my personal opinion), as well as avoid retaining records that are not needed for efficient operation of the library (which again in my opinion goes against what the library stands for in general). Finally they suggest that libraries avoid practices and procedures that place personally identifiable information in public view. I don’t in any way mean to sound trite, but these are pretty vague directions, and in some ways seem to contradict what libraries stand for in the first place. I discussed this a bit in my research paper on wikis, how digital diaries (as they have been described) are works that should be saved and recorded. The ALA seems to disagree. So then, my question based on this article is this: how much privacy do people really deserve to expect when using a publicly sponsored service?
Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
In a really neat article on the scholar project recently taken on by Google, Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) discusses the pros and cons of Google’s plans to digitize millions of copyrighted books. In fact, the author goes so far as to suggest that Google’s project may well bring about the most disruptive copyright battle since the invention of sound recording technology. I really found this article interesting, and my husband (a phd computer science student was equally interested). Essentially this author argues that the Google Library Project will force a judge to make a sweeping decision regarding copyright law, that will not only adversely affect the Library project, but the “free culture” movement as well.
I won’t lie, this was a long article to read, it threw a lot of cases at the reader, and though using simple language was a bit complex at times to follow. The things that stood out to me the most about this article was the author’s concern that something considered a “flagship” freedom of information project, will actually destroy the potential for free information in the future. Essentially, Google may ruin things for everyone else, because of how legislators will react. I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, but look forward to researching the problems more, so I can best form an opinion. My question as a result of reading this article is: Did we really see such sweeping litigation as a result of the Napster fallout, that we have evidence to actually believe that there will be adverse effects to this project?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Ch, Ch, Ch, Changes!
Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services. 21(3). Pp. 156-166.
I must admit, I actually enjoyed the readings this week. After working so hard on the web page assignment, I have a new profound respect for the creation and upkeep of websites! The smallest detail, like a missing < or an ill placed “, can profoundly change what end users see! The two articles this week focused on web design, and how that impacts end users. In a really interesting article, though a bit over-detailed for my taste, Tolliver, Edwards, Fisher, Haines, Krolikowski and Price (2005), discuss the experience one library had with employing a usability expert during a redesigning of their academic library website. The authors focus specifically on what they learned through that process, including who the experts on end-users were, and what role an outside expert could play in the process of redevelopment.
There were a number of things that stood out to me in the reading of this article. By far one of the most important was the fact that during their study, the authors found that librarians were much more expert in understanding online content, and end user needs, over the usability consultant. Furthermore, I thought it was very interesting that the authors asserted the need for a collaborative team. This is so vitally important in a library environment, especially where technology is becoming such a prevalent part of the library! But, from my conversations with librarians, collaboration with outside resources is still not happening as consistently as it could! Those resources can provide knowledge and experience from beyond the library, that may put libraries on the cutting edge of technology use, and not far behind! The question I left with from this article is this: As librarians we need to think outside the box, what other experts could we bring into the library that would benefit our users? Might an expert in finances, or recycling, or meditation benefit our users just as much as an expert on website design?
McGillis, L. &Toms, EG. (2001). Usability of the Academic Library Web Site: Implications for Design. College and Research Libraries. Vol iss:4.
The second article this week focused even more on a lot of the topics we have discussed in class, regarding end users, and the development of technology around end users. In this article by McGillis and Toms (2001), a study was conducted to assess the usability of an academic library Web site and to better understand how faculty and students complete typical tasks by using that site. End users have incredibly high expectations for the functionality of library websites, having grown up in the age of amazon.com and google. In this article the authors concluded, after having studied 33 typical users’ interactions with the site, that library websites fail to take into account how people approach questions, and information. Libraries continue to focus on their traditional structures, which is not intuitive at all for the end user of today.
This article was actually really interesting, and not nearly as long winded as the previous article I read for this week. Not a whole lot actually stood out to me in the article however, I felt like a lot of the points discussed are well known, and have been discussed a lot during our class time! How information is categorized on library websites is not remotely intuitive for users, typically they create a directory style listing of options, but don’t provide any resources on what to do with those options. They are not educating! I agree very much with the final sentence of the paper, where the authors state that “We must take a systematic, user-centered approach to their development.” That is true, and we must consider that our users need to be educated, as well as provided with proper tools. I am in no way implying that we should change everything about the library system, I just think that we need to find a way to reeducate our users! My question from this article is: how can we train librarians to be educators, how can that become a vital part of their job description, and what kinds of education need to occur for the end user to be successful?
I must admit, I actually enjoyed the readings this week. After working so hard on the web page assignment, I have a new profound respect for the creation and upkeep of websites! The smallest detail, like a missing < or an ill placed “, can profoundly change what end users see! The two articles this week focused on web design, and how that impacts end users. In a really interesting article, though a bit over-detailed for my taste, Tolliver, Edwards, Fisher, Haines, Krolikowski and Price (2005), discuss the experience one library had with employing a usability expert during a redesigning of their academic library website. The authors focus specifically on what they learned through that process, including who the experts on end-users were, and what role an outside expert could play in the process of redevelopment.
There were a number of things that stood out to me in the reading of this article. By far one of the most important was the fact that during their study, the authors found that librarians were much more expert in understanding online content, and end user needs, over the usability consultant. Furthermore, I thought it was very interesting that the authors asserted the need for a collaborative team. This is so vitally important in a library environment, especially where technology is becoming such a prevalent part of the library! But, from my conversations with librarians, collaboration with outside resources is still not happening as consistently as it could! Those resources can provide knowledge and experience from beyond the library, that may put libraries on the cutting edge of technology use, and not far behind! The question I left with from this article is this: As librarians we need to think outside the box, what other experts could we bring into the library that would benefit our users? Might an expert in finances, or recycling, or meditation benefit our users just as much as an expert on website design?
McGillis, L. &Toms, EG. (2001). Usability of the Academic Library Web Site: Implications for Design. College and Research Libraries. Vol iss:4.
The second article this week focused even more on a lot of the topics we have discussed in class, regarding end users, and the development of technology around end users. In this article by McGillis and Toms (2001), a study was conducted to assess the usability of an academic library Web site and to better understand how faculty and students complete typical tasks by using that site. End users have incredibly high expectations for the functionality of library websites, having grown up in the age of amazon.com and google. In this article the authors concluded, after having studied 33 typical users’ interactions with the site, that library websites fail to take into account how people approach questions, and information. Libraries continue to focus on their traditional structures, which is not intuitive at all for the end user of today.
This article was actually really interesting, and not nearly as long winded as the previous article I read for this week. Not a whole lot actually stood out to me in the article however, I felt like a lot of the points discussed are well known, and have been discussed a lot during our class time! How information is categorized on library websites is not remotely intuitive for users, typically they create a directory style listing of options, but don’t provide any resources on what to do with those options. They are not educating! I agree very much with the final sentence of the paper, where the authors state that “We must take a systematic, user-centered approach to their development.” That is true, and we must consider that our users need to be educated, as well as provided with proper tools. I am in no way implying that we should change everything about the library system, I just think that we need to find a way to reeducate our users! My question from this article is: how can we train librarians to be educators, how can that become a vital part of their job description, and what kinds of education need to occur for the end user to be successful?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Web Part Two, We Love You?!
Paul Anderson (2007). “All that Glisters Is Not Gold-Web 2.0 and the Librarian” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol 39, No. 4, 195-198.
In a fascinating editorial on Web 2.0, Paul Anderson delves into the history of what Web 2.0 is, and where it is going. Web 2.0 is a term coined by Dale Dougherty a Vice President of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Rather than the term insinuating that there was a whole new revolution in the web, Mr. Doughtery and his company was seeking to show that despite the dot-com bust, the web was still relevant and stronger than ever. Mr. Anderson went on to discuss in his article there should be a framework set up to analyze web 2.0 and the roles that it could play. This framework focused on three different items that make up the backbone of web 2.0, first the “surface” applications (i.e. blogs, wikis, etc), then the “six big ideas” as identified in Tim O’Reilly’s paper, and finally the web technologies and standards (i.e. XML). The second component of this paper focused on the relationship between web 2.0 and the library. Anderson argues that there is no definition for what Library 2.0 is, but believes that it is high time for librarians to start harnessing the power of web 2.0, and provide feedback on how to make the framework even stronger. Which I tend to agree with!
I will admit right now at the beginning of my feedback, that I am very behind the times in understanding the forward movement of the web. This concept of Web 2.0, I really didn’t get. I mean, I guess I didn’t understand how there could be a revolution in the web, I thought it just existed and kept reinventing itself. Needless to say, this article was very helpful to me, in understanding what the term meant, and how it came to being. There were a couple of things that stood out to me in this article, and were helpful in the research I needed for my paper. I really appreciated the information provided on this history of Web 2.0, it helped me to see that those “dot-coms” that survived the 1990s made the web stronger and more relevant. The other component of the article that stood out to me was the idea that librarians need to play a role in the development of Web 2.0. I sincerely agree. Librarians are the ultimate resource in working with people, they must know from a variety of perspectives what the end user is looking for, and can provide valuable input in helping to develop practices for new Web 2.0, and Library Web 2.0 services. The question that I come to then is what role have librarians played thus far in the development of Web 2.0, and has their input actually been helpful?
Maness, J. (2006). “Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries.” Webology, 3(2), Article 25.
While I acknowledge that all of the articles for this week had a similar theme, clearly around Web 2.0, I don’t know if I could have chosen a better set of two articles to read, and the order with which I read them. This second article was almost exclusively about the concept of Library 2.0, this idea was introduced in my last article. Their purpose in writing this piece was an attempt to resolve some of the controversy about what Library 2.0 is. The authors here suggest that Library 2.0 is a term used to describe the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections. They believe that Library 2.0 has four essential elements: being user centered, providing a multi-media experience, being socially rich, and being communally innovative. The article goes on to detail different technologies that are already present in libraries, though they might be considered from Web 1.0. These technologies include synchronous messaging, streaming media, blogs and wikis and most importantly social networks. In conclusion the authors restate their believe that Library 2.0, is really a perfect marriage with Web 2.0, and that it is now the role of librarians to enable their users to share information, create online library communities, and focus on finding rather than searching.
I have to say this article was very helpful in my understanding of Library 2.0. It helped to define Library 2.0, and applies the idea of Web 2.0 to libraries. In all honesty the two ideas that stood out most to me were the concept of IM in the libraries, and enablement. Enablement is exactly what being a librarian is about, and by using the concepts presented in Web 2.0, librarians can help to create a community of users online. Librarians can encourage user created content, and cataloging, the web itself can become a whole new library not previously envisioned. This process has already started through the use of instant messaging with librarians. I love the idea that somehow in the future a librarian will be able to see that I am struggling in my online search in the OPAC and will be able to jump in and offer assistance, from afar! My question then, based on all this information, is how do we help people to redefine what libraries are, and what role will we play as librarians? Furthermore, what type of virtual set up can we create to have a library in a virtual world, and is that even necessary?
In a fascinating editorial on Web 2.0, Paul Anderson delves into the history of what Web 2.0 is, and where it is going. Web 2.0 is a term coined by Dale Dougherty a Vice President of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Rather than the term insinuating that there was a whole new revolution in the web, Mr. Doughtery and his company was seeking to show that despite the dot-com bust, the web was still relevant and stronger than ever. Mr. Anderson went on to discuss in his article there should be a framework set up to analyze web 2.0 and the roles that it could play. This framework focused on three different items that make up the backbone of web 2.0, first the “surface” applications (i.e. blogs, wikis, etc), then the “six big ideas” as identified in Tim O’Reilly’s paper, and finally the web technologies and standards (i.e. XML). The second component of this paper focused on the relationship between web 2.0 and the library. Anderson argues that there is no definition for what Library 2.0 is, but believes that it is high time for librarians to start harnessing the power of web 2.0, and provide feedback on how to make the framework even stronger. Which I tend to agree with!
I will admit right now at the beginning of my feedback, that I am very behind the times in understanding the forward movement of the web. This concept of Web 2.0, I really didn’t get. I mean, I guess I didn’t understand how there could be a revolution in the web, I thought it just existed and kept reinventing itself. Needless to say, this article was very helpful to me, in understanding what the term meant, and how it came to being. There were a couple of things that stood out to me in this article, and were helpful in the research I needed for my paper. I really appreciated the information provided on this history of Web 2.0, it helped me to see that those “dot-coms” that survived the 1990s made the web stronger and more relevant. The other component of the article that stood out to me was the idea that librarians need to play a role in the development of Web 2.0. I sincerely agree. Librarians are the ultimate resource in working with people, they must know from a variety of perspectives what the end user is looking for, and can provide valuable input in helping to develop practices for new Web 2.0, and Library Web 2.0 services. The question that I come to then is what role have librarians played thus far in the development of Web 2.0, and has their input actually been helpful?
Maness, J. (2006). “Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries.” Webology, 3(2), Article 25.
While I acknowledge that all of the articles for this week had a similar theme, clearly around Web 2.0, I don’t know if I could have chosen a better set of two articles to read, and the order with which I read them. This second article was almost exclusively about the concept of Library 2.0, this idea was introduced in my last article. Their purpose in writing this piece was an attempt to resolve some of the controversy about what Library 2.0 is. The authors here suggest that Library 2.0 is a term used to describe the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections. They believe that Library 2.0 has four essential elements: being user centered, providing a multi-media experience, being socially rich, and being communally innovative. The article goes on to detail different technologies that are already present in libraries, though they might be considered from Web 1.0. These technologies include synchronous messaging, streaming media, blogs and wikis and most importantly social networks. In conclusion the authors restate their believe that Library 2.0, is really a perfect marriage with Web 2.0, and that it is now the role of librarians to enable their users to share information, create online library communities, and focus on finding rather than searching.
I have to say this article was very helpful in my understanding of Library 2.0. It helped to define Library 2.0, and applies the idea of Web 2.0 to libraries. In all honesty the two ideas that stood out most to me were the concept of IM in the libraries, and enablement. Enablement is exactly what being a librarian is about, and by using the concepts presented in Web 2.0, librarians can help to create a community of users online. Librarians can encourage user created content, and cataloging, the web itself can become a whole new library not previously envisioned. This process has already started through the use of instant messaging with librarians. I love the idea that somehow in the future a librarian will be able to see that I am struggling in my online search in the OPAC and will be able to jump in and offer assistance, from afar! My question then, based on all this information, is how do we help people to redefine what libraries are, and what role will we play as librarians? Furthermore, what type of virtual set up can we create to have a library in a virtual world, and is that even necessary?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
WTH is up with the ILS?
M. Breeding (2005). “Re-Integrating the integrated library system” Computers in Libraries: 25(25).
The articles this week were primarily focused on the Integrated Library System, and all the benefits and drawbacks included in the system. In his article on reintegrating the ILS, Marshall Breeding discusses the idea that Integrated Library Systems have been left behind, as new technologies have been created in the past decade. The drawback of ILSs being left behind, Breeding argues, is that instead of there being one comprehensive system that libraries can utilize for search and find, there are a number of systems making search and find more complicated. Breeding also discusses how it came to be that libraries are in such a situation, and what is stopping integration from happening. He concludes is article with sentiments on solutions for the development of one tightly woven ILS, and believe that eventually add-ons and ILS will become one and provide resources and information in a “one-stop shop” format.
I personally found this article to be very interesting. Breeding is so very right, it is almost as though we are making our interactions with library systems even more complicated than they need to be, and let’s be honest the systems are already pretty hard to understand! While it is difficult because of money and resources, libraries need to not be afraid to throw out the books and work to create a system that is a one stop shop for end users. I believe it is possible, and will bring users back to the library from the “Google escape hatch.” As I read through this article, the question that occurred to me was: how will open source computing affect the systems that libraries have in place, could open sourcing be the solution that libraries have been looking for?
M. Deddisns (2002). “Overview of ILS” EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
In their article on Integrated Library Systems, the Evolving Technologies Committee of EDUCAUSE argues that today’s ILS is a multi0function web-based content form. That while the system may have been built on a standard relational database structure, it has changed with the times and provides must better access to information than web-based search engines. The article goes on to discuss in brief, three different vendor systems and their ILS offerings. The first one is from the Endeavor Information system, while they glorify their products (as any good marketing campaign should), they do offer to provide libraries at any point in their development as “digital libraries” with three ENCompas Solutions: Resource Access, Digital Collections and ENCompass. They also review Innovative Interfaces, Inc, and focus on the XML harvester, and a Metadata builder. Finally, they provide a brief overview of SIRSI, and their solutions for technology issues. Essentially this article stated that the ILS has long provided people with indexed solutions for searching, and is still better than web-based searches, and management of digital assets will help librarians and IT professionals make the library a better place.
What a drastic difference between two articles! This article spoke to me in a very different way than Breeding’s article. What stood out to me the most was two things. First, I noticed the question included in the conclusion, on whether to consider and ILS as a digital asset management system or to venture into more generalized vendor systems. I think this is an excellent question, and one I would like Breeding to have asked as well in his article. The other thing that stood out to me, and has become my discussion question is that the article argues that Integrated Library Systems continue to do what has always been the critical value of libraries. They provide access to large amounts of information and enhance access through drill-down organized indexing. My question then, is; do people want indexing in that format any longer? Or are the too “googleized” to have a preference
The articles this week were primarily focused on the Integrated Library System, and all the benefits and drawbacks included in the system. In his article on reintegrating the ILS, Marshall Breeding discusses the idea that Integrated Library Systems have been left behind, as new technologies have been created in the past decade. The drawback of ILSs being left behind, Breeding argues, is that instead of there being one comprehensive system that libraries can utilize for search and find, there are a number of systems making search and find more complicated. Breeding also discusses how it came to be that libraries are in such a situation, and what is stopping integration from happening. He concludes is article with sentiments on solutions for the development of one tightly woven ILS, and believe that eventually add-ons and ILS will become one and provide resources and information in a “one-stop shop” format.
I personally found this article to be very interesting. Breeding is so very right, it is almost as though we are making our interactions with library systems even more complicated than they need to be, and let’s be honest the systems are already pretty hard to understand! While it is difficult because of money and resources, libraries need to not be afraid to throw out the books and work to create a system that is a one stop shop for end users. I believe it is possible, and will bring users back to the library from the “Google escape hatch.” As I read through this article, the question that occurred to me was: how will open source computing affect the systems that libraries have in place, could open sourcing be the solution that libraries have been looking for?
M. Deddisns (2002). “Overview of ILS” EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
In their article on Integrated Library Systems, the Evolving Technologies Committee of EDUCAUSE argues that today’s ILS is a multi0function web-based content form. That while the system may have been built on a standard relational database structure, it has changed with the times and provides must better access to information than web-based search engines. The article goes on to discuss in brief, three different vendor systems and their ILS offerings. The first one is from the Endeavor Information system, while they glorify their products (as any good marketing campaign should), they do offer to provide libraries at any point in their development as “digital libraries” with three ENCompas Solutions: Resource Access, Digital Collections and ENCompass. They also review Innovative Interfaces, Inc, and focus on the XML harvester, and a Metadata builder. Finally, they provide a brief overview of SIRSI, and their solutions for technology issues. Essentially this article stated that the ILS has long provided people with indexed solutions for searching, and is still better than web-based searches, and management of digital assets will help librarians and IT professionals make the library a better place.
What a drastic difference between two articles! This article spoke to me in a very different way than Breeding’s article. What stood out to me the most was two things. First, I noticed the question included in the conclusion, on whether to consider and ILS as a digital asset management system or to venture into more generalized vendor systems. I think this is an excellent question, and one I would like Breeding to have asked as well in his article. The other thing that stood out to me, and has become my discussion question is that the article argues that Integrated Library Systems continue to do what has always been the critical value of libraries. They provide access to large amounts of information and enhance access through drill-down organized indexing. My question then, is; do people want indexing in that format any longer? Or are the too “googleized” to have a preference
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)