Posts Tagged ‘ala 2009’

We hear about a lot of different types of computer-related security issues these days – hacking attempts, virus infections, phishing scams and the like. At the recent American Library Association annual conference, I noticed a couple of behaviors that reminded me that not all security breaches are high-tech escapades.

On a couple of different occasions during the conference, I was typing notes into my laptop during a session when the person next to me leaned over, stared at my screen for a few seconds to see what I was typing, and then went back to his/her own notes. I was a little shocked, but probably not as offended as I should have been. I realize that these people were probably just trying to catch a few words that they might have missed during the presentation. I didn’t have any sensitive data on the screen so it shouldn’t have been a big deal . . . but it still feels wrong. Maybe it’s because I was taught that it’s impolite to come up behind someone and read over their shoulder without being invited to do so. Or perhaps it’s because a complete stranger very pointedly read my screen. Whatever.

My next example falls along those lines as well. Think about all of those nice, glossy iPhone screens we’ve all gotten so used to seeing. One thing about them – they’re big – at least compared to a regular cell phone screen, and their size makes them pretty easy to see. A couple of times during the conference I noticed people leaning forward in their seats and staring fixedly at an iPhone in the row in front of them. Now maybe they were just trying to figure out what that cool app was so that they could download it later. Or maybe they just had to know what that person was tweeting or texting. But again, it just feels like a no-no.

It kind of reminds me of those social engineering horror stories in which someone was duped into typing in a password while another person just stood behind them and watched their keystrokes. The big difference though is that there is no duping here. In some cases perhaps people are just being rude while others are being careless. In a lot of meetings it just doesn’t really matter because everyone is busy trying to get the same notes, and their isn’t a security issue at all. But increasingly I see people absolutely buried in their laptops and cell phones, logging into e-mail, Twitter accounts, and all manner of other services without being aware of their surroundings. Let’s just hope none of them are sysadmins with the keys to the kingdom, eh?

Advertisements

David Lee King

Cindi Trainor

Michael Porter

Meredith Farkas

Roy Tennant, Moderator

 

Description of the analogy of the elephant – People grab onto different parts and form an opinion based

 

Q – What does library 2.0 mean to you?

 

Cindi – It’s not just a set of tools and technologies. It’s a philosophy. It’s about creating services and spaces for users that invite them.

 

Michael – What libraries do to fulfill their roles as community anchors has to change. There are new tools tht make us more vibrant and more relevant than ever before.

 

Meredith – Creation of services as an iterative process. You’re constantly fixing and assessing. It’s about putting our money where our mouth is and being really user focused.

 

David – Wikipedia as a tool – It’s a new way to present information and to let everyone contribute their knowledge. It’s a new philosophy about how to do things.

 

Michael – I’m more interested in what works. I don’t care about Twitter or Gmail or Facebook. Focus on why the tools do or do not meet our needs.

Cindi – It’s useful to think of Library 2.0 as a derivative of Web 2.0. Distinguish new types of companies from dotcom bubble companies. It enables software as a platform. There are applications on the web (not just on the desktop).

 

Meredith – Technologies that allow us to build communities and communicate with one another. People form relationships with others who are only electronic blips.

 

David – Making tech tools easy for non-tech audience to use. 2.0 technologies are made to connect people. If it is succeeding, the technology is out of the way.

 

Michael – 2.0 technologies can be distracting. It’s hard to know what to use as brands change (so pay attention to functionality). It’s very difficult to track the success (or lack thereof) of your institution’s use of these tools. It’s all anecdotal.

 

David – It’s sad that we’re still trying to figure these tools out because some of them are 15 years old. Disagree with Michael on tracking success. You can find blog stats. If users are commenting, then they are reading and engaged. Facebook gives some basic statistics and demographics.

 

Cindi – Just because someone had a page open for 10 minutes, how do you know they were actually reading it and not talking with friends?

 

Meredith – It’s scary that so little assessment is being done. We’re spending time on these services. Why not assess them?

 

Michael – If you use the reporting tools from these various sites, they don’t always sync up on the same timeline. When the way you report is numbers-numbers-numbers, that doesn’t account for social connections and interactions and how people’s lives are impacted.

 

Cindi – Tools like WordPress, Blogger, PBWiki, and Flickr gives libraries the power to reach out to audiences in new ways.

 

David – In a normal library, how do you capture this anecdotal evidence? It’s recorded in these social tools.

 

Q – What are some of the barriers you see to libraries adopting and using these new tools?

 

Meredith – We’re entrusting our knowledge and hard work to third party sites that may or may not be there in the future. Twitter is a good example of a highly popular service that is constantly losing money. People aren’t planning for web 2.0 tools the same way they’re planning for others with regard to backups, etc.

 

Cindi – Any time you want to do something new or create a new service, don’t be afraid of failing. Take a risk management approach. What are the terms of service?

 

David – What are the barriers? Technology. The bigger barriers are our own. If you want to really "get" a technology, you have to immerse yourself in it.

 

Michael – Years ago, there was a debate in public libraries about whether to circulate fiction. In the 1970s the companies that produced VHS and Betamax tapes went to court to prevent libraries from circulating them. Do we circulate digital movies in our libraries? Very few. Go to Netflix. THEY circulate digital movies. These companies are usurping our content distribution. If we don’t figure out a better way to circulate digital content, we’re in deep trouble. Setting up a blog or a Flickr stream are first steps in doing something about it.

 

Meredith – Time is a barrier. People say that they don’t have time to learn or do a new thing. People are asked to do new things, but no responsibilities are being taken away from their jobs. This has to change at the organizational level. People have to be given the time and resources to do this.

 

Michael – Use the tools to get more effort out of what you’re doing.

 

Meredith – We spend a lot of time outside of work learning to do these things. If our administrators don’t give us time and resources to do these things, then they don’t value them.

 

David – Some people are better at managing their time than others. Reference librarians do 20 hours n the reference desk and 20 off. What are they doing with the unscheduled time?

 

Q – What libraries are good examples of using 2.0 technologies and principles?

 

Michael – Lester Public Library in Wisconsin.

 

Q – What is the one thing you want to say to the audience?

 

David – Administrators and managers – let your staff go with it. The worst thing that can happen is that you have a filed project and learn something from it. That’s a positive outcome.

 

Meredith – These technologies are not a magic wand. We shouldn’t use a tool just because someone else is. Think about what is appropriate to your audience.

 

Michael – If you focus on your role and mission in your community, you’ll be fine.

 

Cindi – It’s a matter of having someone in your library who understands the role of these tools in the community.

 

Q – How can library 2.0 tools be supported in brick and mortar libraries?

 

David – We had a tweetup with free food sponsored by a local tv station. The library will be hosting a conference on 2.0 tools for the community.

 

Q – What are ways to help people who are intimidated by computers, let alone 2.0 technologies?

 

David – If you have staff who are still intimidated by computers, why did you hire them, and why do you still have them? Why have you not fired those people if they are not fulfilling their roles?

 

Michael – I’m a big advocate of partnering people. Pair someone with greater technology skills with someone with lesser skills.

 

Meredith – Technology petting zoos. I like the idea of having a place where people can play with technology in a non-threatening environment. Host a training session where people can just play around.

 

Cindi – Subject guide boot camp. People will spend all day together working on subject guides  and reinforcing their skills.

 

Q – It sounds like a lot of library 2.0 is marketing. Would you say that that sums it up or is there something that goes against that?

David – That’s only part of the picture. Marketing is part of it because it’s a broadcast medium. It’s also a collaboration platform for connecting and sharing. It’s more about using pooled knowledge to come up with a better idea.

 

Cindi – It’s also a tool that lets users give feedback to us. It’s not just a wooden suggestion box in the corner.

 

Q – If you’re going to have a technology petting zoo, what tools would you show them?

 

Meredith – It depends on your population, what they need, and what will be appropriate to them.

 

Michael – Kindle, iPhone, Palm Pre, Flip camera, Livescribe Pulse

 

________________

 

David – Set your priorities and focus on them. Don’t focus on what will take the most or least amount of time.

 

Michael – If you’re going to do something like a blog, you have to have the plan, commitment, and follow-through to keep it updated.

 

Q – What some of the privacy pitfalls that we need to be aware of and let our patrons know about?

 

Michael – Every company doing these social tools is a for-profit enterprise. We care about privacy, but these companies don’t. I think there should be a non-profit connected to libraries that develops tools like this.

 

David – The bigger privacy concern is just a lack of understanding about what these tools do, where they go, and who follows them. People THINK they’re being anonymous. Some people don’t quite understand the tools well enough to know who can read them.

 

Q – There are people with legitimate arguments and complaints that Facebook and Twitter are a waste of time. These users may be feeling left behind in face of 2.0 initiatives.

 

David – The largest growing segment of Facebook users is the over-50 group.

 

Michael – We don’t have any trouble doing what we’ve always done.

 

David – My job is digital branch manager. My patrons ARE these users of digital tools.

 

Additional Reading

 

The Great Debate – Has Library 2.0 Fulfilled Its Promise? – at Librarian by Day

 

Has Library 2.0 Fulfilled Its Promise? at LITA Blog

 

Starter Questions for Ultimate Debate 2009 by David Lee King

<begin rant> Okay there was no reason for writing it as "mE" except that I’m fed up with companies that use funky capitalization to try to make themselves and their products stand out. </end rant>

I’m currently at ALA for the annual conference, and I realized something shocking today. I brought a book with me. A paper book.

Does that sound counter-intuitive – being shocked at the idea of someone taking a book to a library conference of all places? Well it shouldn’t, but for me it is. I’ve owned PDAs and/or smartphones for around 10 years, and one of my very first and very favorite applications was iSilo, a book reader. I’ve upgraded each time iSilo had an upgrade, and it was easily my most heavily-used application. Since I had this great book reader I really liked, when I traveled I just took several eBooks along on my handheld. Less to pack, a variety of books, easy, convenient. I liked it so much and it worked so well for me that I stopped taking books along. Sometimes I would buy a buy while traveling, but I had basically reached the point where I didn’t take them with me anymore.

Enter the iPhone. For various reasons, I just couldn’t stay with the Palm OS any longer. After switching to the iPhone, iSilo was one of the first apps I downloaded. (Incidentally, I was right in the middle of a book when I made the switch.) Unfortunately, I really dislike the iPhone implementation of iSilo’s autoscroll feature. I used it all the time on the Palm. Loved it. iPhone implementation? Not so much. The iPhone’s limited battery life and iSilo’s autoscroll problem have conspired to make me really go easy on actually using the phone. Yeah, that’s right. I’m afraid to use my iPhone too much, because I’m afraid the battery will run down leaving me unable to receive a call or send a text at the end of the day.

So . . . as I was heading out the door for ALA I picked up a paper book I bought in the airport on the way home from my last trip. Totally weird. I bought a new device that I thought would help me enjoy eBooks even more. But the limitations of the device and the program have actually pushed me back to paper. Who would have guessed?

Google Wave – Jason Griffey

Google describes Wave as e-mail if you invented it now.

Check out more info at http://www.yourbigwig.com/node/154.

Wave seamlessly knows if people are online or offline. The service is synchronous if everyone is online, asynchronous if they are offline.
If someone is added to the wave, the new person can see everything that has happened in the wave, and – if allowed – they can edit everything that has happened. It allows real-time and asynchronous editing of multiple pieces of information by multiple people.

Google is planning to open-source this product. It will be downloadable an installable to local servers.

A wave is an embeddable client. You can get to it from anywhere. For example, you could have a reference wave with all reference librarians a member, and students can be part of it as well. Multiple libraries can participate in shared wave reference.

You can write plug-ins for it. Google demoed a robot plug-in that can parse text and automatically respond. This can happen with no human intervention. For example, a student needs resources for a Sociology 101 paper. The robot could parse "sociology 101" and recommend the sociology subject guide, the top sociology databases, etc.

A robot could parse the name of a book, search the library catalog, and automatically return results to patrons.

Semantic Web – Julia Bauder

The underlying concept is to make the web machine readable. The idea is to eventually make the web work like Wolfram Alpha: you ask a question and the answer gives you an answer.

With this concept, the answer just pops up. This raises the obvious question of information validity.
To make the semantic web work, everything (including people) has a universal identifier. Privacy concerns.

Q – What are companies doing to facilitate this?
A – Not much yet. There are semantic web browsers out there, but you have to know a subject’s universal identifier. You can’t do natural language searches.

 

Facebook Pages – David Lee King

Using Facebook to push programming – Facebook Events
Meetings are listed selectively because this facility hosts thousands of meetings. They’ve tried some discussions through Facebook, but that hasn’t gotten particularly good response. Status updates have been the most successful tool.

The Facebook statistics have revealed some information about their users, and they have used that to market to their high use constituencies.
Content is updated by David, two web people, and the marketing person (but mainly the marketing person).

Q – Do you have photos and videos?
Y – We’re using boxes for YouTube and Flicker.

Q – How are academic libraries increasing use of their page?
A – We’re posting fun things such as news stories about the anniversary of the Sony Walkman. We’re trying not to be too librarian-y.

Upcoming instruction sessions can be advertised. Some libraries are are friending their student workers, and that leads to some additional friends.
One of the big issues is deciding what your Facebook identity is.

Facebook can also be used to give status updates and construction and renovation projects.

 

Cloud Computing – Matt Hamilton, Cindi Trainor

Computing power moves from your local device to the server on the web.
Cloud computing is like Play-Doh. Break off a little or large piece depending on what you need. When you’re finished, it goes back into the big lump for everyone else to use.
There are software and tools aimed specifically at libraries: Liblime, SFX, ILLiad are all available as hosted services. You don’t have to have staff who can manage server hardware and OS.
Other tools – Google Docs, DropBox
Distinction between having servers in the cloud vs. having services in the cloud.
Amazon idea – companies spend a lot of their resources on supporting the infrastructure. What might happen if you could shift the infrastructure support and focus more local resources on development and innovation?
What about the security of your data? When you put your information on someone else’s server, you’re subject to their privacy policies, their backup procedures, their disaster recovery plans, etc.

 

Government Information Mashups – Rebecca Blakely

Think about extracting raw data and combining it with services to make something new.
www.data.gov

Individuals and non-profits are using this information. Check out www.ilive.at

www.recovery.org – Non-profit site used the http://www.recovery.gov data to create something better.

EPA – Toxic Release Inventory

www.opencongress.org – Pulls data from other government sources.

Managing Staff Furloughs – Melissa Shepherd

Used Drupal to manage furlough information. Many user-developed modules already available.

 

Mobile Websites and Applications – Cody Hanson

Beta site is in development for the UMN community.
Site is developed primarily for the iPhone because it has the most forgiving browser.
Mobile site is php-based.

Site is using Metalib to provide mobile-optimized search results/interface for specific databases.

Q – What level of expertise is required?
A – The lead developer has a lot of PHP experience as well as experience with the ILS.

Q – Did you have a lot of demand from the users? Is that what drove the development?
A – No, we just thought it would be cool.

Q – How much development time has been invested?
A – We’ve just had one developer who sent 2-3 days.

Q – What kind of usability testing will you be using?
A – We do a fair amount of usability testing, but our usability lab is setup for desktop testing. Still trying to figure out how we’ll do this in a mobile environment.

LITA Top Technology Trends
InterContinental Grand Ballroom
Sunday, July 12, 2009

It’s a wrap for this year’s Top Technology Trends discussion. I’ve tried to hammer out the bits I can catch, and they’re listed here. For more information, check out the information captured in the live blog. This year’s backchannel was particularly rich thanks to all those who tweeted. To review the Twitter posts, check out #ttt09 and #toptech.

Panelists
Eric Lease Morgan
Joan Frye Williams
Clifford Lynch
John Blyberg
Geert Van Den Boogaard
Roy Tennant

Online Trendsters
Marshall Breeding
Sarah Houghton-Jan
Karen Schneider

Video help from the Shanachies.

Blyberg: Mobile devices and handhelds and ultraportables and sub-laptops have already outstripped laptops and desktops.

Van Den Boogaard: At Delft there are already devices for downloading books in the library.

Williams: I always feel like the outlier. There is a presumption that information is the point. The counter is that transformation is the point. The creative process is going to be very similar regardless of the technology. Are people isolated by mobility or merely integrated in new places?

Tennant: We’ll do some things on smaller devices and some on larger. I don’t see a lot of massive transformations in just five years.

Lynch – Clear that there is more access from various portable devices. Contrast access from computation. Computation is moving to the cloud.

In terms of the roles of libraries, the striking omission is the preservation role. Cloud may be part of the storage solution. The management is not really transferable to the commercial sector.

How much are we willing to put into the cloud, and how much are we willing to trust it?

Displacement of laptops to other devices. Ramification – easier to capture images and video. It’s a lot harder to generate substantial amounts of prose.

Morgan – Use the right tool for the right job. Supplement the handheld device with something more powerful. Mobile is good for small facts. Larger jobs require different tecnology.

Finding stuff isn’t the problem anymore. More information than I know what to do with. Need to create tools that let people do what the need to do with the information.

Blyberg – Everyone who gets online develops a secondary persona. Persona is developed through the handheld device. Need to distinguish between what is important and was isn’t.

Van Den Boogaard – People use mobiles for many different functions, but they’re not for everyone. Depending on the user, some people can do a lot with them. Look at what users are using handhelds for what purpose.

Open Everything

Morgan -Some institutions will want more control over their computing environment. Other institutions will be happy to have others manage it for them.

The photocopier didn’t put publishers out of business. The Internet didn’t put them out of business. It will be a balance.

We feel compelled to provide services to our patrons at any cost. We’re feel that we’re providing a public good.

Williams – I don’t think the market will be the library. It will be the end-user What we thought of as our tools are really now THEIR tools. Vendors are marketing directly to them.

Blyberg – Vendrs providing service vs. software – in the next 10 years (maybe less), companies that focus on services.

Blyberg – Open-source software is separate and completely different from the idea of software as a service.

Van Den Boogaard – I wouldn’t go for completely open software. I would go for a small system that users can build and add onto.

Tennant – It’s much more likely that Google will tire of negotiating with vendors and write them a check.

Lynch – The future of authoring and communication. Those

It’s important to recognize that the world of mass market communication is informed by a different set of values and economics.

Research libraries that interact heavily with the scholarly communication world will see a need for different kinds of systems. There is still an enormous historical mass of printed literature. It still embodies the practices of the past.

Lightning Round

Morgan – Exploring the realm of digital humanities to a greater degree. If you understand that there is enormous amounts of free text – more than ever before – there is a whole giant wealth of untapped information.

Tracking ideas through vast amounts of text, analysis to find similarities in texts, find tools to use against these texts.

We need to think about ways of harnessing the computer in different ways. What about sticking the computer in the greenhouse?

I have yet to see federated searching really fulfill the promise that it had. Instead people are trying to aggregate data and combine it with local content.

If we as librarians did this, we would be come more self-reliant

Williams – A human drive towards the reconstruction narrative.

In their work people are iterative are collaborative. It’s like jazz – finding the thread that runs through things. Find things that enrich one another.

Williams -The aggregation and combination of objects and experiential unfolding of training snacks. Doesn’t use a lot of someone’s time but uses a lot of communication techniques. Immersive but brief experience. New opportunity for libraries.

Question from audience – What about the democratization of access?
Williams answer –more people have phones than have ever had computers.

Government-issued information stamps? Easier to subsidize information access.

Lynch – Many mobile devices are rented by the month. In some ways that makes them more accessible.

Lynch – Agrees with Williams’ comments about narrative. More widespread and deeper than many people realize. Seeing a lot of discussion about how to make narratives portale across tools.

The idea of digital humanities has been building to critical mass.

We’re inviting the population to reconnect with 2,000 years of original documentary evidence.

Lynch – Bandwidth is a problem and getting bigger. The rise of the cloud is pure rhetoric if the bandwidth can’t support it.

Lynch – The continued sudden implosion of various things under economic pressures.

Lynch – Some things are just vanishing suddenly, but we aren’t dealing with the consequences. Corporate records, corporate history, public records.

Blyberg – The future of journalism. Micropayments.

Who’s going to do it first? There is an opportunity for libraries to get involved in the process. Libraries need to say this is an issue about access to valid information. We have a vested interest in making sure the transition to from print to online goes smoothly.

Rapid trending – Example of the Iran election Twitter tag. At first it was very practical information. Then an element of extremism was introduced. It was the world getting caught up in emotion and anger.

In the last year and a half, we’ve started to engage the end-user from an experience design standpoint. We used to use the term customer service. We see this in architecture, web pages, content management.

Audience Question: Are Google, FaceBook, etc. spawning crowdthink. Is it a fault of the tools? Are they making us stupid?

Blyberg – No, they’re making us smarter. I can have answers in 20 seconds. Our online experience lets us do instantaneous queries.

Williams – In talking about technical services, if you just automate a mess, you’re going to get a fast mess.

Lynch – How much of knowledge is just a command of facts vs. ability to use them. How much of a base of what kind of knowledge do we need to make interpretive synthesis?

Van Den Boogaard – Research what the user is doing and where he is taking his culture.

People are using media many hours a day, so you need to have a picture of what the user is doing. How are they using it? What are they using it on? Who recommends it to them?

Van Den Boogaard – Some people know how to digitize, but they don’t have a clue about how to present it in a way that people will use it.

Van Den Boogaard – If you look at where people are getting their movies/music/books, it’s peer-to-peer downloading. The libraries should be where the people are getting their products. It can be tricky.

Tennant – The Flow – the trend of communication being in the flow (Twitter). If you’re not there watching it, it can be hard to go back and get it.

The flow gets trapped in your inbox, but it’s there.

Journals publish papers as they become ready to publish. They let them our right away.

What do we do about capturing information that are parts of this flow? Scholars may way to study the communication that happened as events unfolded (ex. Iran election.)

Tennant – The Cloud – GoogleOS – Designed to get the user on the web right away. So many applications already live on the web.

Many server rooms will go away. Trend of software as service. Shift in staffing.

Reallocate people to have more interactions with real users.

Tennant – The Rain – Tough economic times. Think carefully about how to cut wisely.

Audience Comment: Semantic web – There seems to be an ability to organize everything, but the metadata structure behind it doesn’t seem to be able to support it.

Tennant – I’m not a fan of what’s called "the semantic" web. Too overblown.

New term : link to data. If we can expose data in away that it can been linked to other data, then we’re on the way.

Additional Reading:

ALA Conference 2009: Top Provocative Tech Trends from Library Journal

ALA Inside Scoopthe Blog for American Libraries

LITA’s Top Technology Trends at PLA Blog

LITA’s Top Tech Trends at David Lee King

The Monday Muse: Top Tech Trends at Libraries Interact

Top Technology Trends Today at Troy, Michigan, Public Library Tech Desk Blog

The Open Library Environment Project: Building an ILS for Service Oriented Architecture Integration
McCormick Place West, Room: W-196a

Beth Forrest-Warner, University of Kansas
John Little, Duke University
Robert H. McDonald – Indiana University
Carlen Ruschoff – University of Maryland

What is the OLE Project?

Community source alternative to current ILS

International participation from libraries and consortia
100+ institutions, 350+ individuals

Planning phase: September 2008 – July 2009

The goal is to have a reference implementation model available in 2011

Why OLE?

"Our current library business technologies cost too much and deliver too little. We need to rethink our services and workflows, and to use technology that enables innovation rather than locking us into the status quo."

There is a growing need for library systems to integrate with other enterprise systems: Financial, identity management, course management, content management

Library technology systems have not kept pace with changing users and a changing information environment.

OLE Campus

Manages locations
Manages resource subscriptions
Integrated into: course/learning management system, accounting, student/HR, consortia
Flexibility
Community Ownership
Service oriented architecture
Enterprise-level integration
Efficiency
Sustainability

Audience poll: What do you think is most critical to the future of your library? (From above list)
Respondents ranked Flexibility as being much more important than Sustainability.

Why OLE now?

Current ILS products are inadequate
Growing need for library systems to interact with other enterprise systems
Vendor consolidation

Community Source Projects

A group of institutions sign an agreement to contribute specific resources. Under this model there is an established level of buy-in as opposed to open source in which a community may or may not develop. The Community Source participants have an ongoing commitment to participation and support.

Have sustainability over the course of the product development
Invest in the community of practice for long-term support and development
Fosters innovation and shared knowledge
Coordinates institutional goals rather than individual goals

Looking at better integration and interoperability with campus enterprise systems – not just "tacking on". Why are we looking at our own patron databases? Those are campuswide functions. This will ultimately result in more efficient processes and better use of campus investments.

From Theory to Reality

Approximately 30 months build time.
The project will build on existing pieces.
RICE – Enterprise level middleware

Kuali Nervous System
Kuali System Bus
Kuali Enterpise Workflow
Kuali Enterprice Notification
Kuali Identity Management

Use Existing systems
Existing data feeds
Open ERM data
Shared database feeds

Two Year Timeline

Year 1 Deliverables (will focus on one of these)
Management of Electronic Resources Services
Leased and owned eContent
Peer Resource Sharing Services
Sharing content – peer to peer
Sharing workflow – consortial
Acquisitions
CRM

Year 2 Deliverables

Integrations
Orchestrations
Functional Scope

Risks of Participation

No CS project has yet failed, but . . .
Achieve consensus
Acquire sufficient resources
Deliver software of adequate functionality
Problems could arise with contract software
Adoption
Build sufficiently large vendor services community

Benefits of Participation

Cost savings
Access to emerging technologies
Use monetary resources in a productive and directly influential fashion
Leverage ROI on campus for enterprise systems

Build partners are agreeing to put some portion of OLE into production. At the end of the 30-month build cycle, it will be possible to close out at least one module from the legacy ILS in favor of an OLE module.

Cash Contributions Needed

$5.2 million total partner contribution
7 partners – $185k per year
6 partners – $216k per year
5 partners – $260k per year

To Be or Not to Be . . . DRM-Free
McCormick Place West, Room W470b
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Opening statements from speakers

DRM – Digital management of digital objects; the policies and practices that surround the delivery; creator -> resource -> end-user. At the University of South Florida we currently have about 300,000 e-books: NetLibrary, eBrarary, Early English Books Online, etc. If the books are DRM-free, we buy those wholesale. We are buying fewer and fewer books that have barriers to use.

Question from audience: Can you currently buy just certain chapters of a book?
Answer: No

Some Problems with current eBooks
Visual verification
Printing
Having to login after you’ve already been "authenticated"
Software installations

Publishers frequently don’t own the copyright to the material that they’re making available. The author may license the content to the publisher. The publisher may have some control, but they have responsibility for protecting the content as well. For books that run through many editions, authors may not be willing to update the contract to accommodate new technologies.

Many libraries are seeing e-use up and print-use down. An audience comment notes that ease-of-use is a key factor driving this. Panelist notes that some libraries in underprivileged areas continue buying print simply because their clientele don’t have computers at home.

Vendor perspective: There are no standards for DRM. Some publishers are offering DRM-free content on their site, but they’re requiring the vendors to use it! Double standards from publishers.

 

Vendor perspective: There are no standards for DRM. Some publishers are offering DRM-free content on their site, but they’re requiring the vendors to use it! Double standards from publishers.

 

Publisher response: I let my kids do more in my own house than when they go to a friend’s house. When we control the content on our site, we can be a little more relaxed. When we license content to a vendor, we have a responsibility to copyright owners, too.

 

Publisher: If our books are so encumbered with DRM that they can’t be used, libraries will stop using our product. It behooves us to let our decisions be informed by the issues that libraries are facing.

 

Vendor perspective: Quality content still needs DRM. Publishers provide a service that blogging doesn’t really replace. Libraries select and purchase content that has value to their readers. Publishers are still struggling with ebook revenues. Print revenues are shrinking, and ebook revenues are miniscule. The new revenue models are not making up for falling revenues in the traditional models. Although publishers are embracing ebooks, they still have to find a way to survive. Piracy is still a significant problem for publishers. What is the appropriate level of DRM? There is a huge social cost when we lose quality content.

 

Audience comment: When technology comes on board without standards, there are always problems. This needs to be addressed as a joint effort between libraries, publishers, and vendors.

 

Will the market define the standards?

 

Publisher: As a publisher, I can’t see much plausibility in all publishers coming to an agreement on how to implement DRM.

 

Vendor: Springer Publishing is often cited as a positive example in the DRM arena. However, they’re currently up for sale. The argument was made that Springer’s model focused on short-term revenues where other publishers are focusing on long-term survival.

Audience comment: Some countries essentially don’t have copyright laws. They don’t understand the concept of copyright, and they don’t see why they can’t just share everything they find on the Internet.

Audience question: What are some of the different forms of DRM?

Visual verification

Login name and password

File tethering to a certain device

File encryption

Limiting access (viewing, printing, copy/paste)

Watermarking (doesn’t prevent anything, but it serves as an identification)

 

This watermarking approach sometimes links files to specific institutions. If a publisher suddenly sees dozens of files watermarked for a particular institution appearing on freely available websites, they can address security/DRM issues with that particular institution.

 

Problem for publishers with Google Books

The Google Book project requires publishers to make 20% of the content available through the site. This amount is non-negotiable. For publishers of reference works, this is practically untenable because the nature of the work lends itself to snatch-and-grab use. People just need a quick fact and then they move on. If 20% of a reference work is available, this significantly impacts the publisher’s revenue stream.

 

For publishers what is the final measure? Do you get more or less revenue from DRM-free content? Once you have the numbers, then you have a basis for comparison and can make intelligent decisions.