Tag Archives: Alabama

Revisiting the soundbite issue

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post I ranted a bit about soundbites in our library profession and how I fear that such soundbites are too easily digested without question. Karen Schneider encouraged me to listen to the MP3 recording of the live panel discussion at ALA from which I derived my original criticism. So this is what I did late yesterday.

First, kudos to LITA (one of the only areas of ALA that I have any respect or use for) for making the recording of that session readily available. Second, I realize now that I should indeed have listened to that session first because it provides a much more well-rounded picture of the entire discussion than what I had initially derived from Roy Tennant’s shorter writeup. Just to be clear, I’m not then criticizing Roy for his short writeup. That’s usually the way information is reported from conference sessions. Instead this incident reminds me that basing one’s judgment on one short writeup isn’t a good idea at all. I should have known better by now.

So let me admit that I was too hasty to rush to judgment. Sorry.

But let me also state that I still have a problem with the growing prevalence of soundbites and the lack, at times, of more in-depth reflection and questioning about important issues like the role or future of the library catalog. Stephen Abram just commented on my previous post and in his comment mentioned the fact that all of the panelists in fact do provide deeper insights in terms of their writing in various forums or in books and articles. That’s a valid point.

I also still have issues with some of what was said in that particular panel discussion. (One example is the brief mention of use of sentence case in cataloging, which I truly think is a strawman argument, even as I concur that the average person can be confused by it, and agree that we need to be aware of how broadly cataloging data is being used in ways far beyond our small library universe.) But as Stephen reminded me, in a way, this discussion was purposefully about soundbites to stimulate debate and further discourse.

In sum, I’ll be more careful about getting as full a picture as possible about a discussion blogged or reported by someone before commenting on it. And maybe I need to spend more time and effort articulating my own views and possible counterpoints to some of the neo-dogma that I see out there.

Getting value out of conference attendance

Posted on by
21

I’ve been to my fair share of conferences, of all stripes and sizes. I have to say — and this may come across as arrogant — that I don’t get a whole lot out of most of them. A well known blog that I have been reading, called Lifehacker, recently posted about the issue of how to make conferences worth the trip and time. It’s worth reading and then thinking about ways in which you can improve your own conference experience.

A large part of my problem with conference attendance is that I am not the most sociable guy out there. Too many activities with complete strangers can leave me physically and mentally exhausted. (Even too many activities with friends has the same effect.) Another problem for me is that in my experience, too many conferences, particularly in the library world, consist of recycled speakers over and over and over again. While I have never attended them, judging by their publicly available conference schedules, two conferences that I think are pretty egregious in this area are Computers in Libraries and Internet Librarian. Every year it seems like they have the same people talk about variations on the same themes. That is a bit of a turn off. But admittedly I haven’t ever been so maybe my criticism isn’t valid in this case. But I have experience with many others that I actually have attended such as ALA, where this is true. A third complaint I have with conferences is that too much of the time speakers tout what they are doing and how innovative and the “latest and greatest” a certain thing is, and it isn’t. Too often, what I hear about at conferences is something that I already have experience with in my own library setting or know quite a bit about.

I want to go to conferences to learn new things, to hear more detail about things that I have only heard or read about, to stimulate my thinking beyond the boundaries of my own particular sphere of knowledge or work experience. I want speakers who challenge me, who are good presenters, who encourage attendee participation. I want the conference location to be accessible for non-conference activities if possible, to have pervasive (and FREE) wireless connectivity, and to provide ample opportunity for me to get away from it all for short periods of time to recharge my batteries.

One of the things I do when planning to go to a particular conference is to look closely at who is giving a particular presentation and not so much at the topic of that presentation. Maybe that seems odd but at this stage in my career, interesting topic + great speaker is the ideal but interesting topic + bad speaker is always trumped by not so interesting topic + great speaker.

I’m tired of the same old, same old at conferences. The thing is, conferences are really, really expensive these days. I think I have a right to have high expectations for something that I (or sometimes, but not always, my employer) am paying a lot of money to attend. We need new and innovative conferences models in the library world. From the conference organizer’s perspective, I fully realize how much work and effort go into making one successful, and how much can be ruined by pure chance (like bad weather). But I will continue to look for ways to get a better return on my investment. As a result of this outlook, for instance, I don’t ever bother going to an ALA event; they aren’t worth the cost at all to me.

EndUser 2006 photos and other impressions [Updated]

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I managed to take some photos at EndUser 2006. Here is a photo set on Flickr. Lots of friends and acquaintences were there and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing them. I also got to meet a few new folks including one who introduced himself to me as someone who enjoys reading this blog. (It’s kind of nice but also odd when this happens.) I spent some time talking to Ross Singer and enjoyed our conversation about the state of ILS vendors and relations with their library partners. Some of the Library 2.0 oriented sessions were extremely popular with standing room only as well as an overflow into the hallway outside. I particularly appreciated meeting up with my old classmate, Amanda Xu. We were in library school at UIUC together and were in many of the same classes.

The evening finished up with a nice customer reception. I was able to spend more time talking to friends such as Gaele Gillespie from the University of Kansas, Kevin Randall from Northwestern University, Beth Holley from the University of Alabama, and Kat McGrath from the University of British Columbia. [It was also great to meet up with Wayne Jones, from Queen's University, under whose editorial direction I am currently working as part of a group of people writing about the management of e-journals for a book to be published by Haworth Press.] NASIG was well represented! All in all it was an eventful day.

Thoughts on reports from conferences

Posted on by
19

I was thinking today, after reading through the many different reports about the recently concluded Computers in Libraries conference, that after having read all of them, I feel as if I did not miss much by not attending.  This is something new, I think.  Lorcan Dempsey phrases the phenomenon in a much more cerebral way than I can.  He wonders whether this is "some inflection point in the libary [sic] communications ecosystem" but I think we’re talking about the same thing.  I got tired of some of the same, repetitive stuff being presented (how many times are we going to read about Roy Tennant’s gospel about what’s wrong with OPACS and who the "good ‘uns" are??); like Walt Crawford, who made some comments about reports on his blog, I think that some of the new and cool stuff doesn’t live up to the hype.  And I particularly got tired of the "fangirly" comments about — gush — actually being able to — gush — speak face-to-face with the Library Gods (a.k.a. aforementioned Mr. Dempsey, among others).  Yes, I’m being sarcastic.  However in spite of these distractions, the reporting was really, really good overall.  Link that together with the photos already on Flickr under the tag "cil2006" and you get a more well rounded sense of what went on, who was there, and so forth.  And then there are the umpteen links to the presentation material itself, readily available to download, look at, and digest over time. 

I think this phenomenon is important, because a.) conferences are really expensive and time-consuming to attend; and b.) oftentimes they are a waste of the time and expense that you put into them.  In many ways I’d much rather read about it (and peruse other media about it, such as photos) than take the trouble to go only to be frustrated for the low return on investment.  Yes, ALA, I’m pointing the finger at you in particular.

Anyway, because I choose to not attend many conferences because I don’t want to be away from my family, I hope for more of the same in terms of blog reports from conferences that I have missed.  Many thanks to those who provided their insights from Computers in Libraries 2006.

Yet another bungled ALA initiative

Posted on by
1

This is the last post of the evening, I swear. I have made clear my problems with the American Library Association (ALA) in the past, and these problems stem from what I have seen from the inside, having actively participated in ALA and attended many, many ALA conferences over the years. Recently ALA began publishing a somewhat glitzy, heavily graphics oriented email newsletter called American Libraries Direct. I’ve read that some other librarian bloggers have trashed it but my initial thought was something like, “Hm, not bad. At least they are making some attempt at technological relevance.”

However when I perused today’s edition, in the ALA News section, my eyes were drawn to a blurb stating something about “ALA Recruitment Assembly launches recruitment website.” I then read more about the new site, www.librarycareers.org, and how it is focused initially on providing information on why and how to become a librarian and will soon be expanded to provide links to available jobs in librarianship. This really bothered me. Why? Because there are at least three excellent, well known, and widely used websites already out there that cover most if not all of the same territory as this ALA creation! These include Rachel Singer Gordon’s LISJobs.com, Priscilla Shontz’s LIScareer.com, and www.libraryjobpostings.org, maintained by Sarah Johnson and Rachel Singer Gordon. To be fair, some of these are mentioned in the www.librarycareers.org site. But still, my perspective is, why should ALA waste their efforts (and money) on reinventing the wheel? Why didn’t they or couldn’t they reach out to these well known, librarian operated sites and offer to partner in some way with them?

With the money they could have saved by doing this, maybe they could have put more effort into improving their horrible website.

It’s late, I’m probably overly grumpy, and I need to go to sleep.

This year’s crop of award winners from NASIG

Posted on by
Reply

I was pleased to get an email today announcing the winners of various annual awards from NASIG. NASIG generously gives out several different awards, but the highlight for me has always been the award for current Master’s level library and information science students. NASIG gives out several of these each year, and I was fortunate enough to be selected for one of them way back in 1991. Another highlight for me is the Mexico Student Grant Award, which I helped establish. This year’s crop of award winners includes a woman in the LEEP curriculum at my alma mater, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Congratulations to all the winners!

NASIG Conference Student Grant Award

Gregory Schmidt – University of Alabama
Sarah Morris – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lisa Harrington – Simmons College
Laura Baker – Simmons College

Mexico Student Grant

Martha Alejandra Alatorre Betancourt – Universidad Autonoma De San Luis Potosi Escuela De Bibliotecologia E Informacion

Fritz Schwartz Serials Education Scholarship

Claire Rasmussen – University of Wisconsin at Madison

Horizon Award

Jennifer Arnold – Central Piedmont Community College

Serials Specialist Award Winner

Wendy Lichte – Arizona State University

Ross Atkinson dies

Posted on by
2

Yesterday I was saddened by the news that Ross Atkinson, Associate University Librarian at Cornell, had died. I never met him but I’ve read many of his writings, so my view of him is definitely second hand at best. My opinion is that Ross was one of the most important thinkers regarding libraries, collections, and acquisitions of the past several decades. I thoroughly enjoyed his writing style, his deep and sometimes provocative thoughts, and his perspectives on important issues. One of his articles (Toward a Redefinition of Library Services” (In Virtually Yours. Chicago, ALA, 1999; p. 3-21)Find in My Library) is a required introductory reading to the course I teach and it invariably sparks a lot of discussion. Other articles or writings of his are also part of the course. If you don’t know much about him or are interested in his writings, I highly recommend that you find a copy of Community, Collaboration, and Collections: the Writings of Ross Atkinson published in 2005 by the American Library Association. Here is the complete citation in Chicago Manual of Style format:

Atkinson, Ross, Robert Alan, and Bonnie MacEwan. Community, Collaboration, and Collections : The Writings of Ross Atkinson. Chicago: Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, 2005.Find in My Library

Some Thoughts on RDA and ILS vendors [Updated]

Posted on by
Reply

Some time ago I noted here that an acquaintence of mine had snagged an interesting job at ALA as RDA Project Manager. Yesterday I sat down and read more about RDA, which stands for Resource Description and Access. In particular I read through the RDA Prospectus, published by an international group called the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, or JSC for short. This group is responsible for implementing changes to the cataloging code of practice in use by the majority of libraries in North America, the U.K., and Canada. The current cataloging code is known as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) and this has been the standard code for cataloging since the 1960s when the first edition of AACR was published. Having taken all of the cataloging coursework in library school and then starting out in the profession as a serials cataloger at the University of Chicago Library and then managing a large cataloging unit there for quite a while, I have “grown up” on AACR and have been actively involved in the cataloging community, particularly the serials cataloging part, in the past. I’ve since moved away from that professional focus somewhat and am no longer as current in my knowledge as I used to be. I had heard about RDA but didn’t really pay much attention to it. So it was a big surprise to me to read yesterday that RDA will be replacing AACR (or rather, AACR2R, which is the 2nd, rev. ed. of AACR that is currently in use). I decided to delve into RDA in more detail.

What I learned from the prospectus and from some of the discussion surrounding RDA that I could find is very intriguing. This is a very big change, and, in my view, a positive one. It is a big change on many levels but since I work for a major ILS (integrated library systems) vendor, I focused on what this new standard might mean for them. Here are some thoughts or impressions that came to mind:

  • Acceleration of the end of MARC, or at least, the lessening of emphasis on MARC. MARC (which stands for MAchine Readable Cataloging) is not directly tied to AACR2R or RDA in theory but nevertheless the two are closely entwined in practice. While AACR2R (and soon, RDA) describes cataloging rules such as how to choose the title of a book, MARC is the standard for how to record and transmit cataloging information electronically. MARC also drives or controls much of what cataloging information gets displayed to users in online catalogs. My reading of the prospectus makes it seem very clear that RDA will not assume the use of MARC but instead will be designed to be of use in a variety of metadata formats, of which MARC will be one of many. Of course there are already many other metadata formats in use by libraries other than MARC (e.g. EAD, Dublic Core, etc.), but this kind of emphasis by RDA on multiplicity of formats has far-reaching implications and solidifies or adds weight to the trend toward multiplicity of formats that’s been underway for several years. Why does this matter to ILS vendors? It matters because the core record or basis for just about every major ILS system is the MARC record. Expansion of multiplicity of metadata formats supported by an ILS calls for radical system redesign — assuming, of course (which I personally do not), the need for an integrated (some say, monolithic) library system continues to exist.
  • The prospectus makes it clear that RDA will be predicated on FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAR (Functional Requirements for Authority Records), conceptual models developed under the auspices of IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). These models have been around for quite a while yet very few ILS vendors have made their systems compatible with them as of yet. Implementation of RDA, as it is currently proposed, anyway, will change that from “it would be nice, but…” to “must be capable of…” In other words, it will no longer be desirable, but required. That’s a big difference. Those ILS vendors who have maintained the status quo on this one won’t be able to do so for much longer.
  • According to the prospectus, “RDA is being developed to provide a better fit with emerging database technologies, and to take advantage of efficiencies and flexibility that such technologies offer with respect to data capture, storage, retrieval, and display.” This could mean all kinds of things for ILS vendors and I am not certain really of what JSC has in mind. However, database design and maintenance is perhaps the most integral, complicated, and proprietary aspect of modern library systems. Any changes in that aspect of ILS work will be of huge significance for vendors.
  • Perhaps if RDA is successfully implemented, the idea of an ILS will enjoy a renaissance if/when vendors and/or libraries develop a system that can readily ingest, output, and manipulate library data no matter how it is encoded. Rather than component-izing (a madeup word) the disparate pieces of traditional ILS functionality as seems to be the general trend nowadays, maybe RDA, with its inherent tolerance for a multiplicity of metadata formats, will result in one central system that can handle those formats in one place with the flexibility that libraries need. Who knows?
  • One major portion of RDA will be dedicated to relationships. I find this interesting and a good thing. One of the biggest failings of ILS systems is that they have largely failed to readily help librarians piece together disparate works so that the user of the online catalog can readily see relationships among them.
  • One thing not mentioned at all in the prospectus is the whole concept of user-supplied metadata, e.g. tagging, and how that will play a role in the future for online catalogs and bibliographic utilities. I believe that tagging as a phenomenon is here to stay, even if I have my doubts about its efficacy right now. How can or should ILS vendors enable user-supplied metadata in conjunction with library-supplied cataloging?

I admit that I don’t know as much as I should know about RDA and surrounding issues, and I may have misinterpreted some of what I’ve read. Or maybe there are even more radical implications for ILS vendors than what I can think of right now. Regardless, I am fairly confident that RDA’s progressive approach bodes for a lot of upheaval for a lot of stakeholders. I’m going to pay a lot more attention to it than I have heretofore!

Weird job title

Posted on by
Reply

Chronicle Careers, from The Chronicle of Higher Education

OK, this is definitely a first, at least, for me. I just noticed a job ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education for a job title of “Associate Director for Content Management” for The University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Library. Huh? This is basically a job that oversees what others would call something like collections services, or information resources management, or collections and technical services. I find this choice of job title a bit odd because “content management” implies, to me, a job that involves web-based content delivery, as in “content management system.”

ALA = Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

I had a thought yesterday as I was struggling to articulate what pains me so much about the American Library Association (ALA) these days, especially as I read about the special screening of Michael Moore’s latest movie and Richard Clarke’s keynote address at ALA Annual in Orlando. There is absolutely no attempt at objectivity or even-handedness that I can see in these (and other) “progressive” moves on ALA’s part. Why do I dislike ALA so much? Well, how long do you have to read the litany of reasons ;-) I articulate some of those reasons below after having been very active in at least two major sections of ALA (LITA and ALCTS) for a number of years, after dealing with ALA Publishing and also participating in a search process to fill a position within ALA. In other words, these are not just the views of an uninformed outsider, but one who has participated and been involved. I also make these statements realizing that they are generalities, there are exceptions, as always.

Anyway, back to the thought I had: ALA is much like the traditional Democratic Party. It is an attempt to be all things to all people, which falls so far short of the mark, it’s ridiculous, due in no small measure to the litany of special interests that control and influence it. It is a bloated, overly expensive organization that, in my opinion and in my experience, fails to deliver real value to its members. It has some basic societal ideals that are laudable and good (freedom to read, equal access for all, and many others), but it never seems to truly deliver on its promises. It gets so caught up in “social responsibility” issues, rabid defense against what it terms censorship, and left wing radical agendas that it tends to miss the boat entirely when it comes to confronting and dealing with many important library issues such as funding, professional development, and others.

I decided a couple of years ago to call it quits. I did not renew my membership. I couldn’t afford it anymore, I couldn’t afford to travel to ALA conferences, and I just didn’t feel right about contributing to an organization that so blatantly disregards, and even attacks, my worldview. I have many colleagues whom I admire and respect (yes, some of them are those right wing radical evangelical Christians like me whom everyone loves to pillory) who continue to maintain their membership in this organization. That’s ok, and maybe I’m not taking the right step on this one. Maybe there is a need to continue to try to work within the system to change it for the better. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll change my mind in the future, but for now, I’m content with being out of that scene.