This presentation was provided by Oren Beit-Arie of Ex Libris, Inc. during the NISO event, "Library Resource Management Systems: New Challenges, New Opportunities," held October 8 - 9, 2009.
13. 15
Trend 4: technology, models
• Computing as a Service (Cloud
Computing)
• Open Interfaces (Openness)
• Service Oriented Architectures
(SOA)
• Semantic web /
Linked data
15. 17
Ex Libris interviews: What we heard
• Starting in March 2008 began interviews with libraries and
other stake holders globally. They told us:
• Meet users needs – provide a single interface for
discovery and delivery of all library/institutional assets
• Do more with less by consolidating workflows, uniting
traditional library functions with those of the “digital
library”
• Support collaboration to increase productivity, leverage
“network effect”,
• Support re-use of metadata
• Build future services with SOA-based interoperability,
Network-based (SaaS) deployment option
• Collect and incorporate user-provided data
• Enable new type of services. Expand the
reach
37. 39
Traditional - example of network-based services:
Aggregated indexes
• New discovery tools: many of them enable
indexing of article data
• With availability & affordability of computing
resources (e.g. cloud services) we can now
realize a really-large shared index
• E.g. DADS, Scholars Portal, Primo Central,
Summon, Ebsco Discovery Service, etc.
38. 40
To think/do:
• Do we really think there
will be one, single index
that will do-it-all?
• (no)
• Architecture of federation
is still required
• Blend the locals the
shareds (and the
remotes…)
44. 46
… The Library of Congress has
updated 3,266 records in the Prints
& Photographs Catalog, “based on
information provided by the Flickr
Commons project, 2008” with
more to come …
George Oates’ presentation: Into The Wild:
Breathing New Life Into Collections.
http://www.slideshare.net/george08/society-of-archivists-presentation
45. 47
So, what does it mean?
This is exciting (users as catalogers!)
This is depressing (why don’t they use,
for e.g. Primo, for this?)
______________________________________________________________
We must meet the users where they are
(URM::DisseminationControl)
We must deploy back-end processes in
other than library contexts
As I was preparing for this talk and thinking about Library Resource Management Systems, I remembered a very cool kinetic-sculpture that I saw at the MIT Museum. It’s called Gary’s Yellow Chair:
“With this piece, I imagined the chair suddenly exploding with tremendous force into 12 pieces—and then watching the pieces slow down, reverse direction, and finally implode with a force equal to the explosion. Remaining whole for just an instant, the chair exploded again! “
This work by Arthur Ganson kind of reminded me of the evolution of Integrated Library systems. Integrated for a (short) while, exploding into modular pieces that seem to move away from each other, slow down, reverse direction and finally get back together…
And if this metaphor doesn’t appeal to you, you may still want to pay a visit to this nice little museum of science engineering and innovation.
While you are there, you may well meet the future system engineer. Or perhaps a future librarian?
(Kismet: the sociable Robot…)
So, I plan to talk today about some of the things we have been seeing in the marketplace (at a fairly high level) and some of the conclusions that we’ve been drawing
The best way to predict the future is to invent it." — Alan Kay
Alan Kay is the inventor of Smalltalk, which is considered the inspiration and the root of Mac (and Windows)
--
So, there are a lot of things that are happening, many changes in our environments and many trends worth noting:
Here is what I am NOT going to talk about (at least not directly)
The economy (at least not directly)
The very essence of libraries collections seem to transform dramatically and arguably much faster than some anticipated (in part due to the economic pressure)
libraries are no longer what they used to be…
… and neither are books…
… and book services…
But here is what I Will be talking about: it is directly represented in a number of important works that came out of the library, education and research communities..
These represent a sub-set of thinking and reporting processes..
====
“No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st Century”
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub142abst.html
New Media Consortium & EDUSAUSE: “The Horizon Report” (2008, 2009)
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-report.pdf
JISC & SCONUL Library Management Systems Study (2008)
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ media/documents/ programmes/ resourcediscovery/ lmsstudy.pdf
ARL “engaging with e-science”
Elisabeth Jones, “Reinventing Science Librarianship: Themes from the ARL-CNI Forum,” Research Library Issues, no. 262 (Feb. 2009) [PDF]
ARL Working Group on Special Collections led by Alice Prochaska of Yale University.
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf
- Issues of Metadata, preservation, digitization and born-digital, ownership and roles…
- Exposing “hidden treasures” – ensuring access and discovery
- Users contributions
- collaborations
Taking into account costs of preservation
The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access was launched last year by the National Science Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in partnership with the Library of Congress, JISC, CLIR, and NARA.
It is jointly chaired by Fran Berman of the San Diego Supercomputer Center and by my colleague Brian Lavoie.
http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Interim_Report.pdf
The Atkins Report:
Revolutionizing Science and Engineering
Through Cyberinfrastructure:
Report of the National Science Foundation
Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure
http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports/atkins.pdf
(Academic and Research) Libraries exist and operate in a much larger context: academia, scholarship, publishing.
Therefore discussions about their future is in-separable from the future of those environments.
ARE WE READY FOR THIS?!
Herbert et al: “There is a dramatic change in the manner in which scholarly research is conducted”
Rick Luce (NBC, p. 45): “Over the next 5 years we will collect more scientific data than we have collected in all of human history”
eResearch embraces multidisciplinary approach
Three relevant dimensions:
1. Issues of disintermediation of scholarly publishing: subscription pricing; restricted access; latency; control
2. Shift in importance: from final output only (published article/book) to products of earlier activties in the research cycle: data-generation, data-gathering, data-modeling – which are products of much more dynamic and collaborative processes
3. As a result: less formal means of communication (repositories; slideshare; youtube; blogs; wikis…)
As these methods of communication change, the procedures, skills, and expertise that libraries need to manage them will change as well.
All these trends and changes are compounded – or at times fueled by significant technology trends
Computing capacity (processing speed, memory capacity, storage etc) is improving (roughly) at an exponential rate (double every 2 years).
In March of last year, Ex Libris began a series of interviews with libraries around the world to validate our understanding of library needs
Have talked to key personnel at more than 30 libraries to date
There interviews were typically 2-3 hours with library leaders on issues affecting libraries, how libraries will “look” in the future
We focused on:
What are the major “pain points” in the library?
What kinds of new tasks do you anticipate?
What kinds of things won’t you do in the future?
Daphnee Rentfrow, UIUC
“We must…seek to understand how the library functions in this new world where large data repositories becomes the norm for some disciplinary practices; where many students never visit a physical campus, let alone a library; where libraries assume part of the role of publishers;…where special collections become indistinguishable from museums.”
As new forms of scholarship emerge, is there a need for new form of librarianship?
And if so – <move to next slide> how do we get there?
Collaborations – at different levels, with different players and stakeholders -- are really key theme that will also be in the center of the remaining of this presentation.
Libraries – and the technology necessary to support them – have evolved over the last twenty years. Integrated library systems like Aleph/Voyager et al served the needs for physical content management; with the growth of electronic resources, additional technologies like linking, federated search, and ERM developed. Then we saw emergence of digital repositories for the management of digital content.
An important step (indeed in my view, one of the most important stages in recent evolution of library services) was introduced right around 2006/7, with the introduction of de-coupled discovery services, built on top of exsting library management systems. The main gaol/need was to provide a more simple and unified discovery and delivery experience, as expected by users.
In the most basic sense, we deal with resources (objects, collections; data!)
And we:
Manage them and
Serve them
This is how we see it. There may be other ways for other vendors
Re the Beyond: it is shown here as an “extra curriculum” component, but these are things that started off outside the framework, but need to be brought in, into the framework… kind of reminding me the way we started with SFX and OpenURL…
OK, here is some EXL specific view. I painted it with black background nto to scare anyone, but to make sure it is remembered as the EXL take on the more general URM concept
Other potential areas on need:
Methods for interop of data services
KB; the KBART initiative:
Another form of collaboration: NISO UKSG
Focuses on traditional publishing – only Journals at this point (not even books) and pertains predominantly to Link resolvers KB
We are going to need lots more in this area
E.g: Leverage Linked Data; realize how to use it
E.g.: bX-Link Resolvers interop (based on OpenURL and OAI-PMH)
1. Traditional
Doing many of the same things, but in new ways
2. Transitional
Doing things that may support traditional services, but which have not previously been possible
3. Transformative
Doing entirely new things
The first change we see in collaboration and partnership is a change in how we’ll deliver services in the future. There are a number of buzzwords out there – network level, cloud computing, Web-scale, Software as a Service – that all describe this new model of deploying software. Perhaps John Gage said it best with the Sun slogan “The network is the computer.”
But not less importantly, this extends to Data, not just software…hence Data-as-a-Service
production and supply chain of bibliographic metadata
VIAF: The Virtual International Authority File
VIAF is a joint project of several national libraries, implemented and hosted by OCLC. It is now available as Linked Data
Participating: LC, BNF, NAL (aus), DNB (Germany),…
We need to go beyond the traditional content, mainly the text-based bundles (e.g, Books and Journals).
2.
Linked Data:
One of the operational issues that seem to emerge relates to deployment in large scale. We may need to use complementary methods to the “standard” URI Dereferencing
Scholars Portal: a service out of OCUL (Ontario Consortium of University Libraries)
This is the Nirvana we all aspiring for, but is it:
desirable?
Realistic?
1. Traditional
Doing many of the same things, but in new ways
2. Transitional
Doing things that may support traditional services, but which have not previously been possible
3. Transformative
Doing entirely new things
E-research, preservation, etc.
George Oates was a lead designer of Flickr and is now the director of Open Library.
This is a personal view that can obviousely be argued:
The goal is not to be one. To a great extend, collaboration is a means to an end not the end itself
Bibtip – service provided by Uni of Karlsruhe. OPAC-based; local usage only.
MESUR:
A Mellon funded project that looks at the definition and validation of a range of Usage-based metrics of scholarly impact (that provide assessment of the impact of scholarly items)
Project MESUR, using SFX link resolver data and data from publishers and aggregators has created this amazing Web of Knowledge.
Map the structure of the scholarly community – based on what the users are actually doing rather than based on what is cited.
This map of knowledge is based on electronic data searches in which users moved from one journal to another, thus establishing associations between them.
The map includes sciences and humanities in a hub and wheel arrangement with humanities at the centre and the sciences arrayed around them. This is not what one might expect.
The journals are color-coded
Physics – light purple
Chmeistry – blue
Biology – green
Medicine - red
Social sciences – yellow
Humantities - white
The interconnecting lines reflect the probability that a reader will click from one journal to another on the computer screen.
Case study: Viking Lander data
When the US space agency NASA sent two Viking
Landers to Mars in 1975 to find out whether life might
exist on the red planet, it was assumed that the datasets
painstakingly compiled by scientists at the time would be
available for future generations of scientists on magnetic
tape.
Yet, just a few decades later, despite the space agency’s
best efforts to keep the tapes in a climate-controlled
environment, time has left them cracking and brittle.
Furthermore, when scientists attempted to re-use some
of the data in the late 1990s, they found that they could
not decode the formats used. In the end they had to
track down old printouts and retype everything.1
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/21/tech/main537308.shtml
Open Archival Information System Reference model.
An ISO standard.
It is an abstract model that outlines:
A Vocabulary:
A simple data model
A set of required responsibilities & functions to carryout these responsibilities.
But I think we are now facing a much more “down to earth” (excuse the pun) issues.
A lot of work that work is focused in cultural heritage and memory institutions (but see later)
In the academic/research realm we’ve seen a lot of activities, but many of them remain at the level of studies, task forces and committees.
We spend a lot of time on evaluating, defining, mapping, etc. but:
There is surprisingly too little actual work on the ground…
DataNet is an NSF program intended to develop preservation partnerships and tools focusing on the needs of the research/science communities.
Another example of collaboration.
The first 2 awards were announced at the end of 2008:
DataOne: a data preservation network led by Prof. Bill Michner of Uni of NM.
The other award went to <next slide>
The Data Conservancy: a national consortium of data preservationists, led by JHU. The big “news” is that this project is led by the library…
There is a striking similarity between the way we (ought to) design our systems (SOA) and the way we (ought to) design library services:
“These managers—
be they called librarians or not—would be responsible for building
and maintaining the multiple partnerships with scholars, learned
societies, content creators, publishers, and, above all, with each other
across the globe, that would support persistent access to high-quality
research resources.”
We believe that we are moving toward a future in which a new paradigm of library services is bound to emerge.
Let’s call this new form: Service Oriented Librarianship.