Tag Archives: roy tennant

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.

The soundbite phenomenon

Posted on by
30

I have enjoyed reading about presentations at the recent ALA annual conference. Of particular note for me are Owen Stephens’ extensive notes, available here. The ability for those who aren’t present at conferences to quickly catch up on essentials of what was discussed is, to me, hugely important and beneficial. I’m thankful for the efforts of others to record their impressions for someone like me to read.

The discussions that are written about often raise important issues in my mind and at times I feel strongly enough about an issue to respond to what was written, usually via commenting on a particular blog post. Such is the case with a recent blog post by Roy Tennant, called “Shoot the Dogma.” In this post Roy talks about a presentation in which one of the panelists uttered the statement, “Shoot the dogma,” as part of a larger narrative about why we should question many of our longstanding beliefs and practices. In this case she was referring to cataloging in particular. Roy picked that as the title of his post and said that this was one statement in the discussion that really stood out to him.

After thinking about that statement for a little bit, I decided to respond. See the link above to the post and the following comments for a complete picture of what was said and by whom. I guess what bothered me (and still does) about that statement is that it represents, to me, the latest in what I would call “the soundbite phenomenon.” Someone else who is regularly quoted with provocative or interesting soundbites is Stephen Abram. No personal affront intended, but I get tired of soundbites like this. Why? Well, there are many reasons. One is that many things are easier said than done. Another reason is that in my observation over many years in the profession, there is a tendency for us to grab ahold of a soundbite like this and shake our heads in affirmation, without really exploring its meaning and implications to see if the point made is actually credible or defensible.

In this case, as Karen Schneider pointed out in responding to my comment in Roy’s post, I need to understand and be aware of the larger context of the discussion. I plan to listen to the audio archive linked from that post so that I can be better informed. This is a reminder, as many others have found in the past, that responding to what someone has chosen to filter or write about in a conference session on a blog somewhere, especially if that response is critical, can be tricky.

One final observation. I find it weird that my criticism of something someone said should be met with the response that, basically, questions my criticism because “This is a domain in which [that other person] has a lot of knowledge.” Oh, please. Let’s just set aside the implication that I lack experience in these areas for now. My criticism, or anyone else’s for that matter, should stand or fall on its own merits. Maybe my criticism, such as it is, will turn out to be invalid. If so I will be the first to admit it.

Answers to Roy Tennant’s questions

Posted on by
4

Several times over the past year or so, I have offered up criticisms of OCLC. OCLC is a staple of the library world, especially here in the U.S., but its reach is global and it is expanding all the time. The simplest or most concise way of expressing my criticisms is to say that I think OCLC is the Microsoft of the library world.Roy Tennant, a respected colleague who recently joined OCLC, and has taken issue with my criticisms a couple of times. His latest response poses several good questions and I’ve purposely taken my time in considering how to respond. What follows are statements or questions excerpted from Roy’s lengthy comment on a previous post. Please be sure to read the whole thing.1.) “We’re a not-for-profit membership organization. We’re not Google, for cryin’ out loud, or Microsoft, or Innovative Interfaces, or (name your favorite commercial company here).”OCLC is a not-for-profit membership organization, sure. But in my view, that is true in name only. OCLC behaves in ways that are similar to the businesses you name, and more than that, it has a growing monopoly over library data and services that I think makes a legitimate comparison to say, Microsoft’s monopoly and control of the OS and most of the critical desktop applications we use. Microsoft, Google, and others are for-profit, yes. But I still believe there are legitimate comparisons. Especially when I think of the control ceded to OCLC of the data we librarians create — control that inhibits, rather than fosters, libraries’ use of their own data for innovative applications that serve their own needs.2.) “But I still have a hard time figuring out what your root beef is — is it that you object to the cost of particular services? What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed? Would you prefer that libraries NOT have an organization that instead of being focused on making a buck actually plows the investments of individual libraries into research and products that leverage the benefits to all libraries?”I’m not sure why it is so hard to figure out. I’ve stated quite plainly what my “root beef(s)” are, including OCLC’s control of library (MARC) data, its growing monopoly of library data and services, what I believe are high costs of many of its services. I’ve also made it very clear that in spite of repeatedly being told that OCLC is “our” (implying all libraries) organization, that it is a membership driven organization, I for one do not feel that OCLC is “my” organization and I never have. And I resent being told that it is. Now, technically speaking, my library is an OCLC member but if I had my druthers we wouldn’t be. Why? Because I see very little value for the amount of money spent, and because I believe we can get better service for cheaper by doing things on our own.3.) “So I’m grasping at straws here to understand how we’ve hurt you so.”
Roy, with all due respect, it seems a little silly for you to think that you (OCLC) have “hurt” me in some way. The implication in that statement is that I am miffed about something, that this is personal, that OCLC has disappointed or rejected me in some way. That implication sort of demeans what I believe are legitimate and objective criticisms of the organization.4.) “How many of your postings pillory vendors owned by investment firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them?”Well, since you ask, probably just as many as those that have openly criticized OCLC. And unlike several other prominent vendor naysayers in the library field, I have worked for one of those “vendors owned by investments firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them.” Having had that experience, I can say that your broad strokes characterization is way too simplistic and frankly, unbalanced. That is not to say that such vendors are without flaw. There are very good reasons why I no longer work for such a vendor. I have lots of reasons to be critical of vendors but one of the important lessons I gained from working in that environment is that things aren’t so black and white as I used to think, i.e. libraries=good, vendors=bad. I found that there are many very thoughtful, innovative librarians working in vendor settings who care every bit as much, if not more, about the things that you and I care about, who want to see libraries succeed, who support and encourage professional involvement. (Ironically, in my experience, vendors support professional involvement to a degree unmatched by any library I have ever worked for). Vendors, like libraries, also have more than their fair share of incompetence, inefficiencies, and dysfunctional organizations and practices. Frankly, OCLC is every bit as much of a vendor in my view as a company like Innovative Interfaces or Ex Libris. OCLC has done, and continues to do, many very good things. But it also does many things badly, just like any other vendor (or library, for that matter).5.) “I can think of no better time to come together around common problems and build common solutions. Can you? What would your world be without OCLC? Even if you think we do nothing for you now, wait three years and ask yourself the same question.”I agree that the vision you articulate sounds wonderful and desirable. The big difference between you and me, though, is that I do not see OCLC as the only or main vehicle for achieving that vision. In fact, I strongly distrust OCLC (obviously). I think that placing all of our eggs in the OCLC basket, to make OCLC the savior of the library world, is a very flawed approach. I think there are many very exciting technological and functional developments occurring at the local level or in open communities of practice. I prefer to work in those environments and to invest in those areas, and not leave it up to OCLC.

Sick, sick, sick

Posted on by
Reply

I have been sick for a week now and I am sick of it. I wish there was a way that I could build up my immune system. All of the kids except Keegan have been sick — for the second time in as many weeks — as well.In other news, in the past three days I received comments on old posts. Once upon a time I used a WordPress plugin that automatically turned off comments on old posts. In the last WordPress upgrade, I quit using it. I’m glad I did, now. It constantly amazes me that an obscure blog such as this can still generate or reach people on the Internet.One recent comment in particular, from colleague Roy Tennant, deserves more attention and a thoughtful response. Roy takes issue with my criticisms of his employer, OCLC, and asks some really good questions. I hope to provide a response soon, in a separate post.

Responses to OCLC criticism

Posted on by
1

A few people including Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) and Carol Ou commented on a recent post I wrote comparing OCLC to Microsoft. Roy Tennant responded to this post on the hangingtogether blog, written by former RLG – now OCLC employees. Roy also responded to Carol Ou’s idea about FRBRizing local library catalog records for free. I thought I’d repost Carol’s original comment here along with Roy’s reply because I think this dialog deserves more attention and thought. Having it in the comments to that post may have effectively squashed the conversation:

Here is a portion of Carol’s original comment:

…One way OCLC could convince me that they’re truly a member organization though, with the best interests of libraries at heart, would be to FRBRize all their member libraries’ individual library catalogs for free. And I don’t mean via WorldCat local, but in analyzing our records per their algorithm and then handing those records back to us to do what we will. After all, the majority of the original bib records were created by individual library catalogers, and our fees certainly helped pay for any R&D. How about it, OCLC?

And here is Roy’s response:

That is an interesting idea, and one that may be worth pursuing if we can determine what, if anything, you would be able to do with these “FRBRized records” once they were produced for you. One of the problems is that our present integrated library systems (ILS) are mostly not set up to deal with such grouped records. We can’t simply hand you a smaller set of records than you gave us, that would be mostly useless. You need to have a system that can take advantage of FRBR relationships. In other words, although you can find out right now which items you have that may be related by using the OCLC xISBN service (see http://worldcat.org/affiliate/webservices/xisbn/app.jsp ), it is really more complicated than that. You may need to have a system that can deal with a grouped display but also allow someone to see the individual items that are part of that group. So although the initial idea is intriguing, I think it requires a bit more thought to be something that we could consider as a service to provide to our members. But I really want to know if this is something you could put to work today in your ILS, so if it is, let me know directly at roy_tennant@oclc.org. Thanks!

How about it, any readers who have an opinion on this proposal?

Staying current: a survey response

Posted on by
5

Ann Ercelawn, a dear friend and co-moderator of the SERIALST discussion list, posted a survey on that list yesterday that asked for responses to a series of questions relating to how we keep current within the LIS field. Below is the response I sent her. It’s not as detailed or complete as it should be but I was in a hurry ;-)

1) What are the websites that you find most useful?

I find that I rarely go to a library-related website anymore, instead relying on RSS feeds. And if a library-related website doesn’t offer an RSS feed, I am highly unlikely to refer to it much again.

2) What listservs do you find indispensable?

Here, too, I am finding myself really paring down my participation in listservs. I’m still subscribed to SERIALST and I also pay attention to SFX-DISCUSS-L, LIB-STATS, LIS-E-JOURNALS, and ERIL-L. That’s about it, though.

3) What are the most important formal publications (in print or online) that you read on a regular basis?

Serials Review, LCATS, D-LIB, Library Journal. Increasingly, though, I am not reading formal publications as much, instead, as in the case of websites and listservs, relying on blogs, wikis, and RSS feeds to obtain the information about what’s going on in my areas of interest. I am much more selective about what parts of formal publications I read.

4) What are the top 5-8 blogs that you read?

Walt at Random, Thingology (LibraryThing’s ideas blog), Roy Tennant’s Digital Libraries, Peter Scott’s Library Blog, One Big Library, Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog, LISNews.org, Information Wants to Be Free, Hectic Pace.

5) Are there podcasts that you listen to on a regular basis?

Not really, but ones I have listened to and/or recommend include Library Geeks by Dan Chudnov, and the podcasts output as part of the SirsiDynix Institute.

6) What other resources do you consult or recommend?

I am a huge fan of RSS because it saves me so much time and money. Use a free RSS reader like Google Reader or Bloglines and begin collecting library-related feeds. You won’t be sorry.

OCLC: the Microsoft of the Library World?

Posted on by
7

Recently Roy Tennant joined OCLC and explained his reasons for taking this step in a post on the Library Journal: Digital Libraries blog. Roy is someone whom I admire and respect, a visionary and great communicator about technology and libraries. He has done, and continues to do, a huge amount of great things.

When I saw Roy’s posting I decided (maybe foolishly) to write a comment on it (see it here). In that comment I mentioned that while I respected his decision, I didn’t really agree that “OCLC is us” and I used that forum to label OCLC as the Microsoft of the library world. I had also used that characterization in a comment posted to The FRBR Blog a few days before. This drew the ire of at least one OCLC staff member who commented on how easy it was to use labels.

I have thought this way about OCLC for years. It isn’t something new that I came up with recently. To me, OCLC is an entity always to be reckoned with in terms of library technology in the same way that Microsoft is all-pervasive in personal computing generally. That doesn’t mean that all that they do or that their business model as a whole is laudable and always good for libraries. There are other comparisons that seem to fit, including what I think are over-priced services that most libraries seem to blithely accept without critical evaluation of whether they truly meet our needs, a fierce protectiveness of intellectual property that really doesn’t belong to them (in my opinion) in the first place but instead belongs with individual libraries who’ve actually created that intellectual content.

I think there are pros and cons in evaluating OCLC. My position, such as it is, is simply that we as a library community should be wary of monopolies of any sort, that we do not just accept without questioning the premise that OCLC’s approach is the best or in the best interests of libraries, and that we value diversity in terms of options for systems and services available to us in fulfilling the missions of our individual libraries.

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.

Inner circles in library blogland

Posted on by
6

At the risk of sounding rather negative, even petty (or worse), I’ve noticed an awful lot of the inner circle syndrome in library blogland lately. It seems to be getting more and more obvious, but perhaps not to those who might be deemed part of that inner circle. Some time ago I commented about Walt Crawford’s (of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large and Walt at Random fame, among others) use of the phrase, “the great echo chamber.” My comments here are pretty much in the same vein.

My main beef or criticism is that there seems to be — or there is at least the appearance of — an elite clique of library bloggers out there, all of whom know each other, give presentations at a bazillion different conferences together (how on earth they have the time or money, either personally or from their organization of employment, to go to so many so often, I don’t know), constantly make reference to each other’s postings, often echo what each other is saying, and on and on. One current focus of their attention is something referred to as “Library 2.0.” What the heck that means is still up for debate, although I gather it is in some sense a response to the whole “Web 2.0″ mantra that is currently being discussed in the broader info. tech. environment. The way in which this term or phrase is discussed is what bothers me, more than what I can understand of the meaning of it. In other words, I am all for the so-called “two-way communication” evolution in the broader web environment that is being fostered by blogs, wikis, tagging, and other technologies. But I am cautious about the way Library 2.0 is pitched or hailed as a “movement” or “rallying cry” as many seem to do, seemingly without critical evaluation or assessment. There is also an inherent meaning to the term that anything pre-Library 2.0 is passe, old, even perhaps retrograde, and I object to that. Unlike some who have commented on this phenomenon, I am a relatively young librarian. Also, unlike many who espouse this new approach or philosophy, I have spent a considerable amount of time in both worlds, the traditional library, and the information science/technology realm.

There is an air about this discussion that bothers me that somewhat encapsulated by Roy Tennant in his most recent Digital Libraries column in Library Journal, where he writes about lessons learned in his career thus far. One of those lessons is “Don’t let the past be your guide.” He wasn’t writing about Library 2.0 at all but this lesson is one that I think too many proponents of Library 2.0 are practicing. Forget what we did before, because that landed us in the mess we are now in. Embrace the new stuff wholeheartedly. These words are my interpretation of what Roy wrote. (I really like most of his article and also I am in general agreement on his perspectives about the state of libraries.) I am concerned about the idea of forgetting what is past. Why? Here are some reasons:

  • With my academic background in the study of history, I happen to agree with the old adage that says something to the effect that forgetting the past leads to repeating it. I wonder, e.g., if all the flurry and hype about tagging and folksonomies and the like will lead us to reinventing or covering the same ground that we have covered for over 100 years in developing a code of cataloging standards and practice.
  • I vehemently disagree that there is nothing to learn from the past because as the book of Ecclesiastes famously says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The terms, the technologies, the attitudes may change, but there are, I believe, several overarching principles and theories of librarianship that we need to remember now more than ever. There may be new principles to develop or flesh out, I don’t deny that. But they must co-exist with longer term principles. Articulating what I think those longer-term or historical principles are is something I’ll try to get to in a future post.
  • The “past” is still present and will continue to be with us for a long time. If we don’t understand past practices, we are being shortsighted and ineffective. Just one example of this is in cataloging, where most catalogs still have older records in them that were created under earlier codes. Also, the “past” in terms of print or traditional library material will coexist with the supposedly all digital future for a very long time. I am excited about, actively engaged in, and fairly proficient with the new digital library stuff, but I think it is silly (and detrimental) to ditch the traditional library stuff from our minds and considerations as if it was a millstone around our neck. (Granted, it sometimes feels that way.)

I’ve rambled on quite a ways from my original complaint, which is that there is too much in breeding of ideas and thought among some library bloggers. I think this tendency, whether real or perceived, may tend to freeze out or exclude disparate voices. I hope not. What I advocate is balance, if that’s possible. Sure, blogging is great but beware of the tone used, beware of always using first names when referring to others (I have been guilty of this, too), beware of only paying attention to those who are popular or controversial. Beware of overhyping anything new (guilty).

I sat for a minute before posting this and suddenly realized that this post is somewhat ironic since I have often been accused of being an overly eager purveyor of new things, new technologies, new ways of doing things. Maybe it’s a sign of old age. Maybe I’m finally growing up. Maybe it’s just late on a Friday afternoon.

Roy Tennant to give Windsor Lecture at UIUC GSLIS

Posted on by
Reply

Roy Tennant, well known columnist, speaker, moderator of Web4Lib and Current Cites and (last but not least) fellow Mac lover, will be giving the Windsor Lecture at UIUC GSLIS tomorrow (October 21). His talk will be on the topic of “The Academic Library in a Googlezon World.” More detail can be found here. I wish I could attend it. (Oh and Roy, I like using the term “Amazoogle” rather than “Googlezon.” :-) )