OLA 2014: The Future of Library Systems

4,597 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

OLA 2014: The Future of Library Systems

  1. 1. The Future of Library Systems MJ Suhonos January 30, 2014
  2. 2. ① The Problem
  3. 3. The industry is broken • The market is increasingly oligopolistic • Next-generation systems (LSP/URM) are still monolithic, multi-purpose silos
  4. 4. Who owns your data?
  5. 5. APIs are a lie
  6. 6. Who owns your systems?
  7. 7. The Cloud is a lie
  8. 8. Who Owns YOU?
  9. 9. Who Owns YOU?
  10. 10. OCLC record use policy • Trying to protect their business model by preventing sharing • Deliberately exploited uncertainty of legality • Librarians argued vocally for public domain • Policy retracted and changed http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/OCLC_Policy_Change
  11. 11. We don’t just need better systems. We need better vendors.
  12. 12. ② Our Demands
  13. 13. We want our systems to be: • Driven by our evolving requirements, not vendor-led “features” • Modified on our schedule, on our terms • Driven by technology librarians, not library technology
  14. 14. Make things simpler • Reduce duplication & reliance on legacy technology • Leverage modern technology, less “enterprise” dependencies • Harmonize services across multiple platforms
  15. 15. Improve choice • Promote specialization of many systems • Control / choice over which data providers to integrate • Use open standards throughout, including within APIs
  16. 16. Move libraries forward • Use multiple concurrent metadata standards, including non-library ones • Share library data openly on the web • Facilitate transition to post-library (ie. Web) technology
  17. 17. How do we get there?
  18. 18. Openness Movements • Open Access: 1997 (SPARC) • Open Source: 1998 (Open Source Summit)
  19. 19. ③ Openness Outward
  20. 20. Open Data “freely usable, reusable and redistributable, subject, at most, to the requirements to attribute and share-alike” http://opendefinition.org/okd/
  21. 21. Open Data • Legal and policy framework for data interoperability • Clarifies the terms and purposes of data use • Allows for a spectrum of licensing options – see Creative Commons
  22. 22. Why Open Data? • Data is only useful when someone does something with it • No data = zero possibilities • Unrealized potential due to siloing
  23. 23. Bring library data to the web
  24. 24. 2010: TPL Open Data • Submit ted the entire catalogue to the Internet Archive • 2.5 million MARC records, about 2GB http://archive.org/details/marc_toronto_public_library
  25. 25. 2012: Dentographs
  26. 26. Visualizing Library Holdings http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/6300
  27. 27. “The coolest thing to do to your data will be thought of by someone else.”
  28. 28. Implementing Open Data • Consider the impact of usage restrictions when negotiating contracts • Establish institutional policies for data sharing and licensing
  29. 29. ④ Openness Inward
  30. 30. Linked Data • Technical framework for data interoperability • A common language for sharing data and relations online • Unrealized potential due to incompatibility
  31. 31. A new way of thinking • Fundamentally differs from data concepts of the 20th century • From concept of "records" as bounded sets, to an unbounded set of "statements”
  32. 32. Based on new technology • Same technology as WWW – URIs for names, HTTP for retrieval, plus RDF – Decentralized, open standards • Still organized facts about things, but infinitely more flexible structure
  33. 33. 2011: Library Linked Data • W3C Library Linked Data incubator group • Panel of invited librarians, academics, experts • “to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Semantic Web” • Final report produced October 2011
  34. 34. Why Linked Data? • Break data out of silos by linking to data within & between multiple organizations • Anyone can contribute unique data; allow local experts to curate their own • Integrate using a universal non-library framework
  35. 35. Bring web technology to libraries
  36. 36. 2011-2013: LODLAM
  37. 37. LODLAM • Informal, grassroots group working with LOD pertaining to libraries, archives, museums • Pair of small 2-day summits, #LODLAM • “Radially Open Cultural Heritage Data on the [Semantic] Web”
  38. 38. 2012: BIBFRAME
  39. 39. BIBFRAME • LC initiative to implement bibliographic description using Linked Data • Experimental new approach to modeling library data relations • A long-term replacement for MARC
  40. 40. Implementing Linked Data • Participate in LODLAM, BIBFRAME • Start using web-based (W3C) standards • Stop using proprietary vendor technology • Choose vendors who embrace openness
  41. 41. ⑤ Finale
  42. 42. Linked Open Data Linked Data Open Data Semantic Web
  43. 43. Benefits of Linked Open Data • Will be able to use mainstream solutions • Can give libraries a wider choice of vendors and developers to recruit from and interact with
  44. 44. Benefits of Linked Open Data • Much larger community to provide support, development, sharing • Smaller institutions can make themselves more visible and connected
  45. 45. Major goals for libraries 1. Foster discussion about Open Data and rights management issues 2. Develop library standards that are compatible with Linked Data 3. Apply library experience in curation and longterm preservation to Linked Open Data
  46. 46. Take the Power Back
  47. 47. Let’s Talk.

×