A Strategic Framework
for Library Automation
Moving Beyond Web 2.0
Toward a vision for the nextgeneration
Abstract
Blogs, wikis, social tagging, and other Web 2.0-inspired
constructs, now commonplace, have become their own silos
within the libraries' overall web presence. It's time for Web 2.0 to
grow up and move into the strategic infrastructure that supports
the library mission. No longer should blogs and wikis exist as
stand-alone tangents and social computing be an afterthought to
the overall computing environment. Breeding proposes a
transformation of the way libraries approach their web presence
that systematically blends Web 2.0 concepts into the fabric of its
supporting technologies. Hear his tips for building on what we've
learned from Web 2.0 to create an enterprise environment that
more effectively supports the strategic mission of libraries.
Overview




Web 2.0 Context
Web 2.0 critique
The demise of the legacy ILS model
A new vision of library automation that blends
new concepts of an ILS with collaborative and
social computing
Key library technology strategy



Support the core mission of the library
Deliver library content and services
Automation for all aspects of library operations
Web 2.0 Context
Web 1.0



Static Web
Information silos
One-way communication
Web 2.0







Coined by O’Rielly Media in 2004
Web + Social Computing
Dynamic Content
Highly interactive
Collaborative
Focus on the user
Focus on communities
Web 2.0 examples







RSS delivery of content
Blogs – Web logs + comments
Wikis – content created in community
Instant Messaging, SMS,
Voice over IP – Skype
Podcasting
vlogs
Web 2.0 supporting technologies





Web services
XML APIs
AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML)
Microformats
OpenSearch vs SRU/SRW
Web 2.0 media


Rich media – beyond text
Music and audio


Video


Well experienced: File swapping, p2p, iPod, MP3
Recreational and academic: youtube.com,
myspace.com/video, yahoo! Video, bittorrent
Opportunities to remix. Usually recreational, but
explore ways to tap this interest with an academic slant.
The sprit of Web 2.0




YouTube
Facebook
MySpace
Flickr
Library 2.0



First mentioned by Michael Casey
Web 2.0 + Library = Library 2.0
Apply Web 2.0 concepts to library applications
Examples



Library Blogs
New book lists through RSS
Wikis




Intranets for staff documentation
Collaborative resources for library users
Enriched library catalogs
User participation in library resources



User tagging in catalog
Reviews
Ratings
Web 2.0 Benefits




Major improvements in library Web presence
Better engagement of library users
Fuels energy and engagement of librarians
Sparks Innovation
Web 2.0 Critique
Beyond Web 2.0





Web 2.0 concepts already 4+ years old
Time to start considering next phases of Web development
Many libraries have implemented Web 2.0 concepts in ad hoc
ways
There has been a proliferation of Web 2.0 silos that are not well
integrated with the strategic technology infrastructure that
libraries rely on for the automation of their operations and for
the delivery of their content and services on the Web
Better integration of new Web concepts into library technology
infrastructure
Web 3.0



Web 2.0 + artificial intelligence
Semantic Web
Web 2.0 + enterprise computing
Some of the problems with current
Web 2.0 efforts





Many/Most Web 2.0 projects result in silos of content
No way to integrate Web 2.0 applications with other
content managed by a library
Often isolated from the key mission of delivering
content and services to users
Can even push users out of the library Web presence
when we need to be funneling them inward
Sustainability: many dead library blogs
Web 2.0 Systems Architecture




Uncoordinated matrix of data and users
No curation of content residing in Web 2.0 applications
Lack of interoperability of Web 2.0 applications
Lack of identity management. Web 2.0 applications
inherently rely on user interaction with content.
Currently there are few Web 2.0 applications that
integrate with the identity of library patrons as
managed by their basic automation infrastructure. E.g.
ILS.
What’s beyond Web 2.0?



Don’t plateau at Web 2.0 but continue the
evolution of library technologies toward a fully
collaborative model of computing.
Must evolve into an organized fabric of
interrelated Web services.
Evolve Web 2.0 to enterprise technologies
State of library automation




Largely in the Web 1.0 realm
Fragmented set of tools for library automation
Fragment user experience
Next-generation catalogs helping to move into
Web 2.0
Library Catalog
Development
Problems with the legacy OPAC





A look and feel that may not meet the expectations of
the current generation of Web-savvy users.
The conventional library environment requires users to
interact with many different interfaces, and search many
different resources.
Overly complex
Not always intuitive
Users have to go to different places to find different
kinds of information on a given topic: Library OPAC
for books, Article and E-journal locators for articles.
An urgent need




Baby boomers and Gen X’rs are happier with traditional forms
of content and existing modes of service
Millennials will move on to non-library provided information
sources and services if not readily satisfied
There is a lot at stake for the future of libraries in adapting to
generational transitions.
Web 2.0 provides a metaphor and model for adapting library
services to today’s Web-savvy users.
Web 2.0 flavorings



A more social and collaborative approach
Web Tools and technology that foster
collaboration
Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking,
user rating, user reviews
Library OPAC 1.0






Feature rich, but complex
Advanced Boolean Search
Textual displays
Results in alphabetical or catalog key order
Slow, cumbersome
Focused on the physical inventory
The best Library OPAC?
Change underway



Widespread dissatisfaction with most of the current
OPACs. Many efforts toward next-generation catalogs
and interfaces.
Movement among libraries to break out of the current
mold of library catalogs and offer new interfaces better
suited to the expectations of library users.
Decoupling of the front-end interface from the backend library automation system.
Working toward next generation
library interfaces





Redefinition of the library catalog
More comprehensive information discovery
environments
Better information delivery tools
More powerful search capabilities
More elegant presentation
Redefinition of library catalogs





Traditional notions of the library catalog are being
questioned
It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to
print resources
Digital resources cannot be an afterthought
Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on
type of content becoming less tenable
Libraries working toward consolidated search
environments that give equal footing to digital and print
resources
Library OPAC 2.0






Satisfying to the Web-savvy user
Faceted browsing – drill-down model of search
Graphical displays – cover art images
Enriched content – TOC, summaries
User tagging, folksonomies, ratings, reviews
Federated search as a separate service
The Competition
Better?
Better?
Provide an integrated user
experience


Tag items in catalog
System delivers content in ways that take into
account the preferences and previous selections
of users
Recommendation services
 Option for relevancy based on user’s past search
behavior


Reviews and ratings
Library OPAC 3.0

Comprehensive search environment:









Digital on equal footing with print
Federated search as an integrated service: access to full-text of subscribed
content
Beyond MARC metadata: Dublin Core XML, Onix, etc: full-text
searching
Searching “inside the book”
Integrated resource sharing architecture
A more social OPAC with built-in tools for collaboration
Fully integrated with other community and campus resources
ILS fully integrated with other information and business systems
One-click fulfillment
Deep search






Entering post-metadata search era
Increasing opportunities to search the full contents
 Google Library Print, Google Publisher, Open
Content Alliance, Microsoft Live Book Search, etc.
 High-quality metadata will improve search precision
Commercial search providers already offer “search
inside the book”
No comprehensive full text search for books quite yet
Not currently available through library search
environments
Deep search highly improved by high-quality metadata
See: Systems Librarian, May 2008 “Beyond the current generation of next-generation interfaces:
deeper search”
Beyond Web 2.0


Readying library collections and catalogs for the
next generation will require more than a
cosmetic touch-up
Prompts libraries to accelerate changes already
underway
Moving toward new
generation of library
automation
Multiple fronts



Continued development of new interfaces that
embrace collaborative computing
Reinvent basic automation systems
Provide better support for the collaboration and
user interactivity into the core automation
infrastructure.
Rethinking the ILS





Fundamental assumption: Print + Digital = Hybrid libraries
Traditional ILS model not adequate for hybrid libraries
Libraries currently moving toward surrounding core ILS with
additional modules to handle electronic content
New discovery layer interfaces replacing or supplementing ILS
OPACS
Working toward a new model of library automation


Monolithic legacy architectures replaced by fabric of SOA applications
Comprehensive Resource Management
“It's Time to Break the Mold of the Original ILS” Computers in Libraries Nov/Dec 2007
ILS still in Web 1.0 realm


The current ILS model does not lend itself to
Web 2.0 concepts
Front-end evolving, back-end modules locked
into legacy models
ILS: a legacy concept?

ILS = Integrated Library System
(Cataloging + Circulation + OPAC + Serials + Acquisitions)





Focused on print and physical inventory
Electronic content at the Journal Title or collection
level
Emerged in the 1960’s – 1970’s
Functionality has evolved and expanded, but basic
concepts and modules remain intact
Note: Some companies work toward evolving the ILS to
competently handle both print and digital content (e.g.
Innovative Interfaces)
ILS: ever diminishing role





Many libraries putting much less emphasis on ILS
Just an inventory system for physical materials
Investments in electronic content increasing
Management of e-content handled outside of the ILS
Yet: libraries need comprehensive business automation more
than ever. Mandate for more efficient operations. Do more with
less.
Dis-integration of Library
Automation Functionality









ILS -- Print and Physical inventory
OpenURL Link resolver
Federated Search
Repositories and digital collection platforms
Electronic Resource Management Module
Discovery layer interface
Blogs
Wiki’s
Intranets
Is non-integrated automation
sustainable?





Major burden on library personnel
Serial procurement / installation / configuration /
maintenance cycles take many years to result in a
comprehensive environment
Inefficient data models
Disjointed interfaces for library users
Very long cycle to gain comprehensive automation
Breaking down the modules

Traditional ILS
Cataloging
 Circulation
 Online Catalog
 Acquisitions
 Serials control
 Reporting


Modern approach: SOA
Legacy ILS + e-content modules
End User
Interfaces:
Staff Interfaces:
Serials
OpenURL
Linking
Electronic
Resource
Mgmt
System
Library Wiki
Data Stores:
Cataloging
Acquisitions
Library Blog
Federated
Search
Functional
modules:
Circulation
SOA model for business automation

Underlying data repositories



Local or Global
Reusable business services
Composite business applications
SOA for library workflow processes
Composite
Applications
Granular
tasks:
Data Stores:
Reusable
Business
Services
New models for library automation




Discard traditional modules and add-ons
Broad conceptual approach that proposes a
library automation environment that spans all
types of content that comprise library
collections.
Close attention to defining services in ways that
invite participation from individuals and groups
Inherent design for resource sharing
Fulfillment oriented



Search works more like shopping
Content silos > syndicated content providers
Fulfillment = Circulation + ILL + Consortial
borrowing +
Example: Blog module for ILS




Create interoperability for traditional Web 2.0
functionality
Become part of library discovery environment
Curated content
Makes use of patron profile in the ILS
Open Library Environment
(OLE) project

Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation





Research in Information Technology program
Duke University selected to lead project
Core Participants: Kansas University, Lehigh University, National Library of
Australia, Library and Archives Canada, University of Pennsylvania, Marshall
Breeding
Advisory Participants: University of Chicago, Wittier College, University of
Maryland, ORBIS Cascade Alliance, Rutgers University
Working toward a next-generation library automation environment based on
SOA and business process modeling.
http://oleproject.org
Challenges

Web 2.0 community:



Automation Vendors





Evolution toward enterprise approach
Explore ways to bring concepts into systems that deliver core
content and services
More modern systems based on services oriented architecture
Embrace collaborative computing and social networking
Better interoperability
Fewer isolated products
Open source community


Work toward new generation of library automation
Not simply open source versions of legacy systems
Challenges and Opportunities
abound




An exciting time for libraries
Web 2.0 fuels new excitement for modernizing library
services and supporting technologies
Projects underway that attempt a more comprehensive
approach for library automation
Need to bring Web 2.0 concepts into the core of library
automation
Questions and
Discussion