Technical Services 2.0: “Mashing up” traditional and new
services
Rebecca KempSerials Coordinator, UNC Wilmington
ACRL/NY Annual Symposium 2007“Library 2.0: A New Social Model”
What’s a “Mash-up?” Urban Dictionary: “A remix made by
taking two different songs, usually by two separate artists, and combining them into one.”
Wikipedia: “a web application that combines data from more than one source into a single integrated tool... Content used in mashups is typically sourced from a third party via a public interface or API”
Definitions as they appeared online as of 11/27/2007
Presentation Structure Traditional Technical Services What’s Hip and Happenin’? Some
new OPAC models Exemplars of Catalog 2.0 The larger information-storage /
information-seeking context What can we do to make the OPAC
even better?
Traditional Technical Services Acquisitions Bibliographic Control (Cataloging) Authority Control
All of these continue in Technical Services 2.0, but with more services added...
What’s Hip and Happenin’? Some new OPAC modelsFirst of all, ILS vs. OPAC. Emerging idea: Dis-integrated
Library System ILS for business operations, inventory,
and circulation Other program(s) for OPAC display What we want: standards-compliant,
interoperable systems
New OPAC models, continued What is wrong with the old OPAC?
Clunky search interface; no relevance ranking; inability to narrow down results easily
Not a social experience, personalized Lack of user-created content Information only about the physical holdings;
lack of connection with web resources Lack of information about the cataloged
items
New OPAC models, continued
What’s right with new models “A more fruitful and delightful library catalog search experience.”
--Faiks, Angi, Amy Radermacher, and Amy Sheehan. “What ABOUT the book? Google-izing the Catalog with Tables of Contents.” Library Philosophy and Practice, Special Issue on Libraries and Google (2007) : 1-12.
New OPAC models, continued Good search interface, relevance ranking;
faceted search results:NCSU’s Endeca catalog
New OPAC models, continued A social experience: user reviews,
rankings; personalized: Ann Arbor District Library SOPAC
New OPAC models, continued User-created metadata / authority control (tags):
U Penn’s Penn Tags
New OPAC models, continued Information about the cataloged items: TOCs,
cover images, reviews: UNCW’s implementation of Syndetic Solutions, in development
New OPAC models, continued Seamless integration of electronic content,
connection to web, and perhaps more to come here: Queens Library AquaBrowser
Exemplars of Catalog 2.0 Add-on services to a catalog
Del.icio.us tagging / PennTags / LibraryThing information
Call number browse (see WNCLN or NCSU Endeca)
Syndetic Solutions TOCs, cover images, reviews
XC: EXtensible Catalog, in development. Open source software to make catalog metadata OAI-compliant; to index all metadata; make interface to search index
Exemplars of Catalog 2.0, continued Del.icio.us in Thunder Bay Public
Library
Exemplars of Catalog 2.0, continued LibraryThing widget at Shenandoah
Public Library
Exemplars of Catalog 2.0, continued
New interface and search Endeca ProFind, MediaLabs AquaBrowser,
ExLibris Primo, Innovative Encore, OCLC WorldCat Local (beta at University of Washington)
Villanova University’s VuFind Casey Bisson’s Scriblio at Plymouth State
University (Formerly WpOPAC) Ann Arbor District Library SOPAC (Social OPAC) Koha and Evergreen (Georgia PINES) open source
ILSs Ungava (National Research Council Canada
testbed)
Exemplars of Catalog 2.0, continued Casey Bisson’s Scriblio at Plymouth State
University (Formerly WpOPAC)
The larger information-storage / information-seeking context Google, especially Google Book Search (AKA “The Competition”) Amazon.com (Also AKA “The
Competition”), LibraryThing Open Library – meta-library (?) project
incorporating OCA digitized materials, Google Book Search, in development
Open Content Alliance digitization project: incorporating materials in public domain, hosted by Internet Archive
A bigger WorldCat.org?
What can we do to make the OPAC even better? LC Working Group on Bibliographic Control
reportWatch for draft report: November 30, 2007 on LC
websiteFinal report expected January 9, 2008 Use metadata produced by publishers, increase
cooperation between publishers, catalogers Establish FRBR structure; serials work-level
identifiers Integrate user-created metadata into catalog “De-couple” components of subjects Encourage digitization of materials and integration
of digital materials into catalogs
What can we do to make the OPAC even better? Continued FRBR-ized serials...
Selected Sources Bahr, Ellen. “Dreaming of a better ILS.”
Computers in Libraries 27.9 (2007) : 11-14. Faiks, Angi, Amy Radermacher, and Amy
Sheehan. “What ABOUT the book? Google-izing the Catalog with Tables of Contents.” Library Philosophy and Practice, Special Issue on Libraries and Google (2007) : 1-12.
Library of Congress Working Group on Bibliographic Control. Interim Draft Report Recommendations. November 13, 2007. Available online at http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/bibfuture-report-nov13-2007.ppt.
Selected Sources, continued Markey, Karen. “The Online Library
Catalog: Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained?” D-Lib Magazine 13.1/2 (2007). Available online at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/markey/01markey.html.
Pennell, Charley. A New Kind of Catalog. 2007. Available online at www.lib.ncsu.edu/endeca/presentations/200710-ncla-pennell.ppt.
Rethlefsen, Melissa. “Tags Help Make Libraries Del.icio.us.” Library Journal 132.15 (2007) : 26-28.
Questions?Thanks for attending!
Rebecca KempRandall LibraryUniversity of North Carolina
[email protected](910) 962-7220