• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
LIS 653 Posters
 

LIS 653 Posters

on

  • 4,073 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,073
Views on SlideShare
4,069
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
15
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

LIS 653 Posters LIS 653 Posters Presentation Transcript

  • The Social OPAC: Past, Present and Future Carolyn Brown, Rebecca Chovnick and Sara Mangel Knowledge Organization – Spring 2009 The History of the Catalog A library catalog is a record of all the bibliographic items found in a library or a group of libraries. An item can be many different things: books, movies, CDs, computer files, maps, etc. Libraries started cataloging their holdings as far back as ancient times. Catalogs started as lists of manuscripts, typically in a loose leaf or book form. The card catalog most people are familiar with emerged in the 19 th century alongside the Dewey Decimal and Cutter Classification systems. “ Next Generation” OPACs “ Next Generation” OPACs offer a wide variety of new features geared toward the needs of the next generation user: “immediacy, interactivity, personalization, and mobility” (Rettig 2003). Based on analysis of seven current OPAC interfaces, the most popular features are: Relevancy Ranking, Enhancements (Visual Appeal and Content Enrichment), Faceted Results, Breadcrumb Trails, Persistent URLs (Permalinks), Syndication Feeds (RSS), Suggestions for Search Modifications, Recommendations, Tagging, Annotations, Rating, Reviewing, and Social Networking/Web 2.0 Tools. Figure 1. Traditional card catalog entry. Figure 2. Comparison of Current OPACs Figure 3. “Next Generation” Features in SCRIBLIO Figure 5. University of Virginia’s Blacklight Interface OPACs of the Future New models of Social OPACs are constantly being created. New features are being incorporated into these new models in the hopes of making searching more effective and easy for the catalog user. Two new models currently being tested are Blacklight and Extensible. It is important for Social OPACs to be intuitive and simple to use. It is also imperative that these OPACs provide instruction on how to use the navigation/interface. Two radical ideas about the future of library catalogs are that a) there is no library catalog, and b) there is a central catalog, either world-wide or regional. References Rettig, J. (2003) Technology, Cluelessness, Anthropology and the Memex: the future of academic reference service. Reference Services Review, 31 (1), 17-21. What Is an OPAC? The Online Public Access Catalog is an online database of materials held by a library or group of libraries. Early OPACs tended to closely reflect the card catalogs they were intended to replace. The interface was often confusing, search options were limited and results lacked relevancy ranking. Next Generation OPAC Options Libraries can take different approaches to make their OPACs more user-friendly: Enhancements (LibraryThing for Libraries), Wrappers (Scriblio) and Replacements (AquaBrowser). Pratt Institute School of Information & Library Science
  • Sarah Ball & Sara Grozanick Abstract We examined the use of semantic web technologies in accessing and sharing cultural heritage information. After researching theories and concepts of semantic technology we looked at specific applications designed to make cultural heritage accessible through the semantic web. We also explored some of the current cultural heritage projects utilizing semantic technologies, evaluating the degree to which we felt they were effective. Through discussion, and supplemental interdisciplinary reading, we were able to understand the challenges specific to the idea of cultural heritage and the task of presenting it within the semantic web model.
    • Ontologies & Cultural Heritage
    • ISO 21127:2006: CIDOC-CRM
    • What? CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, a formal domain ontology for cultural heritage; object-oriented
    • Objective? To enable integration and exchange of information between different cultural heritage sources
    Figure 1. Layered approach to Semantic Web. (G. Antoniou and F. van Harmelen, 2004, p. 18) 653-02 Knowledge Organization
    • Ontologies & Semantic Web: Layers
    • URI (Uniform Resource Identifier)
    • XML (eXtensible Markup Language) allows the creation of tags to annotate the Web pages or portions of text on the page; programs called scripts can make use of these tags, but the script has to know what the tag means.
    • RDF (Resource Description Framework): encodes meaning in triples similar to a
    Spring 2009 Figure 2. The central classes and properties for data interchange in CIDOC-CRM ( Ø. Eide, A. Felicetti, C.E. Ore, A. D’Andrea and J. Holmen, 2008)
    • sentence’s subject-predicate-object structure. The triples form “webs of information about related things.”
    • Ontologies: provide a solution to semantic confusion by formally defining relations among terms.
    • Logic: enhances ontology language for the writing of declarative knowledge in specific applications.
    • Proof: actual deductive process and representation of proofs in Web languages and proof validation.
    • Trust: digital signatures, etc.
    • (G. Antonious & F. van Harmelen, p. 15-18).
    • Scope? Heterogeneous “scientific document-ation” relating to museum collections, a.k.a. “the curated knowledge of museums” (CIDOC-CRM, 2006)
    • Convertible to machine-readable fomats, i.e. RDF Schema, KIF, DAML-OIL, OWL, STEP, etc.
    • Able to be encoded in RDF, XML, DAML-OIL, OWL and more
    • Cultural Heritage on the Semantic Web: CultureSampo
    • CultureSampo is a project that aims at creating a “collective semantic memory of the cultural heritage” of the nation of Finland.
    • almost 30 different types of content
    • 18 different metadata schemas
    • aggregated knowledge base of 52,000 cultural objects
    • draws information from 22 different Finnish museums; also Wikipedia and Panoramio
    • also Web 2.0 features like user comments to contibute new knowledge (i.e. identifying a photograph) (E. Hyvönen et al, 2009, p. 1-2)
    Figure 3. Hetergeneous information sources integrated through CultureSampo. References (see page 2)
  • R eferences  Agar, M. (1993). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation . New York: Wm. Morrow.  Antoniou, G., Franconi, E., & van Harmelen, F. (2005). Introduction to Semantic Web Ontology Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. (3564), 1-21.  Antoniou., G., & Van Harmelen, F. (2008). A semantic Web primer . Cooperative information systems. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.  Asian Semantic Web Conferences, Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z., & Giunchiglia, F. (2006). The semantic web - ASWC 2006 :First Asian Semantic Web Conference, Beijing, China, September 3-7, 2006 ; proceedings . Lecture notes in computer science, 4185. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=issue&issn=0302-9743&volume=4185 .  Berners-Lee, T. The Semantic Web. The Scientific American Magazine, May 2001 . Retrieved April 6, 2009 from Scientific American Web site: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web.  Davies, J., Studer, R. & Warren P. (2006). Semantic web technologies: trends and research in ontology-based systems.  Eide, Ø., Felicetti, A., Ore, CE, D’Andrea, A., Holmen, J. (2008) Encoding Cultural Heritage Information for the Semantic Web: Procedures for Data Integration through CIDOC-CRM Mapping, in press  Floridi, L. (2004). Open Problems in the Philosophy of Information. Metaphilosophy. 35 (4), 554-582.  Herman, I. (2009). W3C Semantic Web Activity. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from W3C Semantic Web Web site: http://www.w3.org/2001/ sw/  Hyvönen, E. et al. (2009). CultureSampo—Finnish Cultural Heritage Collections on the Semantic Web 2.0. The 1st International Symposium on Digital Humanities for Japanese Arts and Cultures (DH-JAC2009). Retrieved April 28, 2009 from PDF: http:// www.seco.tkk.fi/publications/2009/hyvonen-et-al-culturesampo-dh-jac-2009.pdf  ICOM-CIDOC. (2004). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (version 4.2.1 October 2006). Retrieved April 20, 2009 from International Council of Museums Web site: http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/official_ release_cidoc.html/  Lakoff, G. (1984). Classifiers as a reflection of mind: A cognitive model approach to prototype theory . Berkeley cognitive science report, no. 19. Berkeley: Cognitive Science Program, Institute of Cognitive Studies, University of California at Berkeley.  The Paul J. Getty Trust. (2009). Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online . Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.getty.edu/research/ conducting_research/vocabularies/aat  UNESCO. (2009). Culture . Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en  Web Ontology Language . Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Web_Ontology_Language  Wilson, M. (2008) Retreived April 27, 2009 from W3C: http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/pasttalks/slidemaker/Pandora/talk/slide11-0.html  Woods, D. (2006). Providing Access to Maori and Pacific Photographs. The Journal of Pacific History, 41(2), 219-25. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from Humanities Full Text database.  W3C (2004). W3C Recommendation. Retrieved April 25, 2009 from W3C Web site: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf- primer-20040210/#rdfschema  W3C (2005) Retrieved April 25, 2009 from W3C: http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/personnel/Fabien.Gandon/tmp/grddl/scenario- gallery.htm
    • What is it?
    • The “unseen” web- over 500 times larger than the surface web
    • 7,500 terabytes of information, compared to the surface web’s 19 terabytes
    Topics of Deep Web Data: Agriculture ・ Arts ・ Business ・ Computing/Web ・ Education ・ Employment ・ Engineering ・ Government ・ Health ・ Humanities ・ Law/Politics ・ Lifestyles ・ News/ Media ・ People, Companies ・ Recreation, Sports ・ References ・ Science/Math ・ Travel ・ Shopping A Presentation by Davida Marion, Katie Giari, and Nicole Gitau 4/30/09 Pratt SILS LIS 653-03
    • How does one access it?
    • Specialized search engines using a combination of sorting/ranking algorithms
    • Special divisions of familiar search engines (Google Scholar)
  • Build the Open Shelves Classification Description: I hereby invite you to join the Open Shelves Classification (OSC), a free, "humble," modern, open-source, crowd-sourced replacement for the Dewey Decimal System. The Vision Free Modern Humble Collaboratively written. Collaboratively assigned Why it's necessary. The Dewey Decimal System® was great for its time, but it's outlived that. Libraries today should not be constrained by the mental models of the 1870s, doomed to tinker with an increasingly irrelevant system. Nor should they be forced into a proprietary system—copyrighted, trademarked and licensed by a single entity—expensive to adopt and encumbered by restrictions on publishing detailed schedules or coordinating necessary changes. This mural is said to depict Dewey and the railroad service he gave to Lake Placid, FL. It's time to throw Dewey under the train. Emma Carbone (Fiction) Suki Park (Religion) Janice Dekoff (Performing Arts) Jessica Peterson (History) -- Pratt SILS LIS 653-03 – April 23, 2009
  • eXtensible Catalog (XC) A next generation library catalog interface and metadata management tool Yasmin Mathew and Chris Bentley www.extensiblecatalog.org
    • Developed by University of Rochester Libraries
      • Created out of dissatisfaction with their current library catalog
    • XC will be released as open source software
    • Works alongside a library’s ILS to provide new functionality
    The eXtensible Catalog (XC)
    • Endeca, VuFind, Blacklight
      • Innovative user interface
      • Faceted searching
    • Unique features of XC:
      • Incorporation of FRBR and RDA
      • Metadata enrichment and transformation
      • XC Metadata Schema
      • Modular framework
    Comparison with Similar Applications
    • MARC metadata is not well suited for use in the open Web
    • XC fully integrates the catalog with the library website
    • Provides a new front-end user interface for the library catalog
    • Facilitates new OPAC functionality
    Integrating Library Metadata with Web Environments
    • XC establishes a single discovery environment that consolidates access to:
      • Library catalog, digital library, institutional repository, commercial databases
    • Searching across silos
    • Improving findability for digital and traditional content
    Unifying Access to Multiple Library Repositories
    • NSDL Metadata Management System
    • Programming languages: Java, PHP
    • Communication protocols: OAI-PMH, NCIP, LDAP
    • Metadata standards: MARC 21, Dublin Core, RDA
    • Open source applications: jOAI, MARC4j, Lucene, SOLR, Drupal
    Underlying Technology and Standards
    • 1 st phase (2007): $283,000 from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
    • 2 nd phase: $749,000 from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation + $2 million from University of Rochester
    • Future: members of the XC community (participating institutions) will fund further research and development, as will benefit and save money using open-source software.
    • Release: NCIP and OAI-PMH toolkits released in March 2009, MST and Drupal in development, and LMS in design phase, July 2009 for complete launch on Apache software license, code available on Google Code
    How is XC funded?
  • The eXtensible Catalog (XC): A Next Generation Library Catalog Interface and Metadata Management Tool Yasmin Mathew and Chris Bentley Acknowledgement: Special thanks to Jennifer Bowen at the University of Rochester for providing us with insight into the XC development process. Pratt Institute School of Information and Library Science
    • Impact
    • Potential Impact on Libraries
    • Transitioning libraries away from the “silo-model”
    • Helping libraries transition from AACR2 to RDA
    • Facilitating adoption of open access
    • Why do libraries need new tools like XC?
    • Viable open source alternatives improve the quality of commercial products
    • Platform for experimentation and testing
    • Lowered tech bar allows almost any library to implement XC
    • Libraries need these tools if they expect to maintain relevance in a rapidly evolving information ecosystem
    • The Way Forward
    • Metadata reuse is the future: Libraries and other institutions need to pool and share their existing metadata in new contexts
    • XC is forming partnerships with libraries, vendors, and community-sourced tech support
    • XC is nearing its launch date and development partners are talking it up
    • The library community awaits with anticipation…
    • Underlying Technology and Standards
    • NSDL Metadata Management System
    • Programming languages: Java, PHP
    • Communication protocols: OAI-PMH, NCIP, LDAP
    • Metadata standards: MARC 21, Dublin Core, RDA
    • Open source applications: jOAI, MARC4j, Lucene, SOLR, Drupal
    Figure : XC System Architecture . XC features a modular framework make up of toolkits, applications that are useful individually, and collectively. The yellow box in this diagram shows the starting point for metadata as it is harvested from the ILS via OAI-PMH. The metadata is then sent to the Metadata Services Toolkit for enhancement and transformation, before being delivered to one of the user interfaces. (Diagram source: Bowen, J. (2008). Envisioning an “eXtensible” future [PowerPoint slides].)
    • Description
    • What is the eXtensible Catalog (XC)?
    • A set of new open source software toolkits for libraries
    • Developed by University of Rochester Libraries
    • Not directly comparable to either a traditional integrated library system (ILS) or a “next-generation” discovery interface
    • Works alongside a library’s existing ILS to provide new functionality
    • A discovery layer + metadata infrastructure
    • Goals of the XC Development Team
    • Provide libraries with an alternative way to reveal their collections to library users
    • Integrate library content more effectively with the open Web
    • Unify access to information resource silos in a single discovery environment
    • Implement a next generation user interface featuring faceted searching, user tagging and FRBR-informed search results grouping
    • XC Project Timeline
    • Development Phase 1: 2006-2007
    • Development Phase 2: 2007-2009
    • Product release: July 2009
  •  
  •  
  • Ruby Gaba, Jaclyn Costa, Rachel Correll Dr. Pattuelli, LIS-653-02, Pratt Institute, 7 May 2009 References Faceted classification. (2009, April 23). In  Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia . Retrieved 22:20, May 5, 2009, from  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faceted_classification&oldid=285686129 Five laws of library science. (2009, April 28). In  Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia . Retrieved 22:17, May 5, 2009, from  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_laws_of_library_science&oldid=286547974 Mi, J., & Weng, C. (2007, April 11). Revitalizing the Library OPAC: Challenges faced by academic librarians . Paper presented at The Academic Librarian: Dinosaur or Phoenix? Conference. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/conference/aldp2007/programme/aldp2007_full_paper/CathyWeng.pdf Taylor, A. G. (1992). Introduction to cataloging and classification . 8 th ed. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. "The ultimate goal is that users will be comfortable and confident  using library OPACs for their information needs wherever a computer is available and  without special training."  -Jia Mi and Cathy Weng Faceted Classification A system allows the assignment of multiple classifications to an object, enabling the classifications to be ordered in multiple ways, rather than in a single, pre-determined, taxonomic order. Faceted classification is used in faceted search systems that enable a user to navigate information along multiple paths corresponding to different orderings of the facets. The Colon classification developed by Ranganathan is an example of faceted classification applied to the physical world, specifically for the purpose of organizing library materials. Ranaganthan and his Five Laws Ranganathan formulated objectives and principles for the organization of, access to, and use of library materials, which he called his, “Five Laws of Library Science.” These Laws are: First law: Books are for use – books and other library materials are important not as objects but for the knowledge and information they contain. Second Law: Every reader his or her book – this law teaches us two lessons. First, is that we do not acquire library materials in the abstract. Second lesson is that even the most apt selection choices can be vitiated if they are not backed up by an efficient and user-friendly bibliographic control system. Third Law: Every book its reader - Ranganathan is telling us that when a library user comes to a library or gains access to library services, certain materials (textual, graphic, and/or numeric) will meet his or her needs. Fourth Law Fourth Law: Save the time of the Reader - when properly understood and employed a management tool of great utility. Fifth Law: The library is a growing organism - libraries do grow and change and will always do so.
    • Facet Facts
    • A facet:
    • Consists of “clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive aspects, properties or characteristics of a class or specific subject” (Taylor 1992)
    • Is divided into values that represent various possible situations for the facet (e.g. “Books” and “DVDs” as values for the facet Format)
    • Faceted browsing allows the searcher to enter a simple search term without much forethought
    • The searcher can then focus on a certain facet of the topic and even further refine by other facets such as material format, library location, and language
    • This is exploratory searching, where the first search is not necessarily the most important part of the search
    • The results list continually gets smaller as the searcher adds more facets
    OPACs with Faceted Browsing Endeca at North Carolina State University Libraries n
    • Problems with Traditional OPACs
    • Subject searching was difficult
    • Users wanted other items in a collection added to the OPAC
    • Search results not organized in an effective way
    • Does not allow users to correct mistakes easily
    • No way to refine searches once begun
    • Only citation available
    • Users were not able to connect with the information that they were seeking in a time efficient and simple way . 
    Example of a facet with the specific values below it Facet-nation with OPACs Visual representation of exploratory searching with facets used to narrow results Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www2.lib.ncsu.edu/ catalog/?Nty=1&N=0&Ntt=zombies&Ntk=Keyword Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://virgobeta.lib.virginia.edu/catalog?q=zombies&focus=&per_page=10 Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://uwashington.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=zombies Blacklight at University of Virginia WorldCat Local at University of Washington Facet Values
  •   Danielle Panek and Lindsay Friedman LIS 653, Section 02, Spring Semester Pratt Institute “ A good catalog will allow access to the image through multiple access points regardless of the principle decisions. IFLA came out with Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to elucidate whether something is a work, a manifestation, an expression, or an item. However, there is still ambiguity in many cases. CCO is spoken of as a data content standard and its closest parallel among library cataloging tools is AACR. Yet it goes beyond the basic description and access rules of AACR by providing a section on authorities and an XML schema and data structures while AACR does not...No matter how old or new your rules are, it is really a matter of applying them. Even a literal application of rules by two catalogers will not yield the same results. The fundamental thing to remember, however, is that you have to use some sort of rules and guidelines, and use them consistently in conjunction with controlled vocabularies, if you want to effectively share your records with others. ” - Sherman Clarke, New York University Libraries   The Visual Resources Association is a multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to furthering research and education in the field of image management within the educational, cultural heritage, and commercial environments. The Association offers a forum for issues of vital concern to the field, including: preservation of and access to digital and analog images of visual culture; cataloging and classification standards and practices; integration of technology-based instruction and research; intellectual property policy; and other topics of interest to the field.
    • Ten Key Principles of CCO
      • Establish the logical focus of each Work Record.
      • Include all the required CCO elements.
      • Follow the CCO rules.
      • Use controlled vocabularies.
      • Create local authorities that are populated with terminology from standard published controlled vocabularies.
      • Use established metadata standards.
      • Understand that cataloging, classification, indexing, and display are different but related functions.
      • Be consistent in establishing relationships between works and images, between a group or collection and works, among works, and among images.
      • Be consistent regarding capitalization, punctuation, and syntax.
      • Use English-language data values whenever possible.
    VRA Core + CCO + XML = Sharable Metadata Imaging Cataloging: Cataloging Cultural Objects and VRA Core 4.0
  • Personal Information Management Marvin Rusinek, Joseph Ketner, Sabrina Hirsch Pratt Institute, LIS653 Spring 2009
    • The Challenge
    • We regularly locate, encounter or acquire information that we know we will want to use again.
    • We need to organize and manage the information that we need to use for work, fun, and everyday tasks.
    • The Need for PIM
    • Information gets stuck in inaccessible silos
    • Finding information created earlier is difficult
    • Secure sharing of personal information with others is difficult
    • Inability to re-use information
    • E-mailing documents to self creates inbox clutter
    • Keeping Found Things Found
    • How people keep information
    • How people re-find their information
    • How people organize their information
    • Dealing with Information Fragmentation
    • Easier to organize, rearrange, incorporate, order, and keep everything together. You can drag and drop web-pages and documents; create emails within the plan.
    • Facebook’s Sentiment Engine
    • Goal: “real-time awareness” of user opinions and feedback, via:
    • active engagement in polls
    • passive, automated collection of data
    • Gauging public reactions “just by listening to what people are talking about in status updates and comments.”
    • Track reactions to current events and changes in reactions over time
    • Discern the major preoccupations and interests of Facebook users
    • Marketing and product feedback
    • Study public awareness of specific issues
  • THE THE/OPEN THE/OPEN/SHELVES THE/OPEN/SHELVES/CLASSIFICATION PROJECT An Adventure in No-Holds-Barred Classification
  • How OSC Came to Be
    • OSC is part of a larger project hosted by LibraryThing.com (LT)
    • JULY 8, 2008: Tim Spalding, founder of LT, invited all members of LibraryThing to help build a new classification system called Open Shelves Classification (OSC). 
  • LibraryThing / Introduction
    • LT is a site for users who want to catalog their books online. ( http://www.librarything.com/about )
    • LT is a social site.
    • You can search, sort, and tag books or use LCC or DDC to organize your site library.
    • The site is also self-described as “a full-powered cataloging application, searching the Library of Congress, all five national Amazon sites, and more than 80 world libraries” ( http://www.librarything.com/about )
    • LT is not entirely free.
  • OSC / Vision
    • A“free, humble, modern, open-source, crowd-sourced replacement for the Dewey Decimal System." ( http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Open_Shelves_Classification
    • One to five librarians to lead and guide contributors.
    • LT was willing to host the project, but not lead it. ( http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2008/07/build-open-shelves-classification.php )
  • OSC / Why the Need?
    • DDC was brilliant in its time, but
      • A modern classification system was needed for modern libraries.  
      • OSC would include:
        • Progressive development
        • Public-library focus
        • Real-time statistical testing
  • OSC / Our Initial Involvement
    • Contact with leadership.
    • Given the rundown and parameters.
    • No timeframe.
    • Warned.
    • (L. McCarthy, personal communication, Feb. 20th, 2009)
  • OSC / Our Plan
    • Initially:
      • 4 people, 2 teams and
      • Real-time testing and build the second levels.
    • Then:
      • Email asking for just the second levels.
      • Email asking for post-publish monitoring of forums.
    • Finally:
      • 4 people, individual levels.
      • Build and monitor categories.
      • (L. McCarthy, personal communication, Feb. 20th, 2009)
  • OSC / Our Approach
    • Joined LT.
    • Created blog, LT group, and webpage for possible future use.
    • Read over OSC group posts.
    • Updated leadership.
  • OSC / Research / Reasons
    • OSC: publicly built with professional guidance?
    • OSC: the laymen’s bookshelf?
  • Flexibility for the Masses
  • OSC / Levels / Flexibility
    • Leadership pointed us in the direction of intuitive levels.
    • Treated each second level as if it were a first, and each subsequent level as a second.
    • Different libraries, different top levels.
  • OSC / Example
    • If I were in a gargantuan public library, I could
    • have this for Quebec:
    • HISTORY / North America / Canada / British Dominion/ Quebec / General
    • and building on that, I could have: 
    • HISTORY / North America / Canada / British Dominion / Quebec / French Colonial
    • HISTORY / North America / Canada / British Dominion / Quebec / Modern
  • OSC / Example / Narrower Collection
    • HISTORY / Quebec / General
    • HISTORY / Quebec / French Colonial
    • HISTORY / Quebec / Modern
    • HISTORY / Quebec / Toronto / General
    • What if I were in Toronto?
    • HISTORY / Toronto / General
    • You get the idea. 
  • 4 levels = 4 lines of research
  • Approach / Religion
    • Should represent broader spectrum on world religion.
    • Went over OSC group forum to start
    • BISAC
    • Wikipedia
    • Commercial bookstore classification models
  • Approach / Fiction
    • Started with BISAC.
    • Drama and anthologies included at first, then later removed.
    • Considered also integrating juvenile (children’s) fiction classifications from BISAC
      • delineations were too narrow and clearly specific to items like picture books.
    • Combined some items for easier browsing (sci-fi and fantasy)
    • Added some categories (verse novels and immigrant experience).
  • Approach / Performing Arts
    • No posts except for guidelines
    • Began with BISAC subjects
    • New York Public Library for the Performing Arts – Consulted collection components
    • Wikipedia
    • Consulted DDC and LoC
  • Approach / History
    • No posts except for guidelines (geopolitical).
    • BISAC – dismissed b/c was too broad.
    • DDC – more inclusive, but not friendly enough for browsing.
    • LCSH – unintuitive and can be outdated.
    • Consulted general historian.
    • Started continentally, and worked down.
  • The Response
  • Posting Activity / General
    • No introduction = hostility.
    • Since 2 categories had some prior activity, they thought we were usurping territory.
    • Confusion as to our roles in the project.
    • Offense at our outside blog.
  • Posting Activity / Religion
    • The Good:
      • Possibly most debated category
      • Group began posting at #58
    • The Bad:
      • Group felt that we had ignored the previous list.
      • We asked for a summation and was told there was “no definitive form.” ( # 61 http://www.librarything.com/topic/58485 )
      • No consensus as of today.
      • More bickering than constructive criticisms.
  • Posting Activity / Fiction
    • The Good:
      • Extremely constructive. Ex:
        • Most were concerned about it being too narrow.
        • Some were concerned that it would be too broad.
        • Hot debate over anthologies
        • Good contribution to Sci-Fi category
    • The Bad:
      • No one on the forums fully supported the list, citing:
        • Too narrow for browsing
      • Failed to see the potential such categorizations could have for librarians as well as patrons.
  • Posting Activity / Perf. Arts
    • The only points that were brought up regarding 2 nd  levels that should be located beneath other top levels.
    • No real interest in this category from OSC community
  • Posting Activity / History
    • The Good:
      • Immediate and constructive responses.
      • Continued cooperation.
      • Ironed out all kinks in participation.
    • The Bad:
      • Initial criticism of general OSC leadership.
      • Confusion over top level decisions and leadership.
  • Conclusion
  • OSC / Future / The Good
    • OSC is a good idea.
      • User-generated content may be more expansive and inclusive.
        • Less bias?
        • System of checks and balances.
      • Striving for effective and easy-to-use flexibility.
        • Vastly different institutions can use the same system.
        • Engender better browsing experiences.
      • Free.
        • It wouldn’t try trademark itself and sue over usage rights. (Hello, OCLC)
  • OSC / Future / The Bad
    • OSC has some technical problems.
      • No real way to test the system.
        • We called for hands-on testing as best we could.
      • Participation is sporadic.
  • OSC / Future / The Ugly
    • Better/more leadership
      • Leadership should remain professional. Ex:
        • About religion: “How about ‘something that people would think would be in the religion section of the library.’"  (Tim Spaulding: LT Creator) ( http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=58485 )
      • More guidance.
      • Must have dedicated, officially recognized moderators.
        • Moderators should be able to communicate w/ leadership.
    • Better / More Professional Organization
      • Shakespeare's monkeys.
      • Quote:
    • “ Sounds like what OCLC staff are doing with DDC, which is in fact an international collaborative effort. (I guess the major failing here is that this is the collaboration of experts, who actually know what they're doing, rather than well-intentioned "users" who don't?)”
    • - Comments (JRR) (http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2008/07/build-open-shelves classification.php )
    OSC / Future / The Ugly
  • http://sheikspear.blogspot.com/2009/03/134-shakespeare-hot-hunk-bunk-or-junk.html
  • OSC / Future / The Ugly
    • Better / More Professional Organization
      • Moderators in an information profession would be beneficial.
        • Wikipedia?
      • Majority of participants were/are not Librarians. 
      • Mob craved leadership.
      • Expertise is extremely erratic.
  • OSC ? Tileable 1600 http://www.macguff.fr/goomi/unspeakable/links.html
    • References
    • AllBookstores.com. Browse by Subject : Religion. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from http://www.allbookstores.com/Religion.html
    • Book Industry Study Group . (2008, December 18). Retrieved April 1, 2009, from  http://www.bisg.org/standards/bisac_subject/performing.html
    • Launet, F. Tileable 1600 . Goomi Studio. Retreived April 20, 2009, from http://www.macguff.fr/goomi/unspeakable/links.html
    • Library of Congress. Library of Congress Classification Outline. Retrieved April 10, 2009.  http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/  
    • LibraryThing.  About librarything .  LibraryThing . Retrieved April 11, 2009 from:
    •        http://www.librarything.com/about
    • LibraryThing . Open shelves classification – History.   LibraryThing . Retrieved April 21, 2009 from: http://www.librarything.com/topic/58501
    • LibraryThing.  Open shelves classification - Wikithing .  WikiThing . Retrieved April 11, 2009
    •        from:  http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Open_Shelves_Classification
    • References
    • New York Public Library for the Performing Arts . (, ). Retrieved April 2, 2009, from  http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/collections/
    • OCLC. Dewey Decimal Classification summaries : A Brief Introduction to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from  http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/summaries/#200  
    • Spalding, T.  Thingology (librarything’s ideas blog): Build the open shelves classification .
    •        Thingology. Retrieved April 11, 2009 from:
    •        http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2008/07/build-open-shelves-classification.php
    • Wikipedia . (, ). Retrieved April 18, 2008, from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
    • Wikipedia . (, ). Retrieved April 2, 2008, from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_arts