John Blyberg, an L2.0 luminary (who's recently joined us in CT at Darien), wrote this article about open APIs and our integrated library systems. This cry for us to be able to get at the information contained in our own Integrated Library Systems - at least in read mode - is similar to my cry earlier this year that database vendors start creating open access to their data sources. Today's vendors make us pay for data (whether it's generated by us, as in our catalogs, or by others, as in commercial databases) in online vaults that make information extraction and presentation a difficult and inflexible task.
Blyberg (as often is the case!) is right!!!!! -- ALL of our library vendors need to create open APIs. These APIs would then allow us librarians to encode a unified web interface - but more importantly, these APIS would allow our own end-users (the patrons!) to extract and decontextualize information from our online resources so that they can use said resources however they would like.
By ALL, I'm including OCLC - whose products, such as ContentDM and OCLC's Digital Archive, for example, lock up our data in less than flexible ways! In our own OCLC-based digital archive, some of our newsletters that were theoretically harvested for long-term preservation can't even be viewed by browsers that are not recent IE! Why can't the digital archive hold onto what it needs to hold onto, yet allow users flexible paths in - why can't it automatically generate RSS feeds? why can't it handle code in a way that allows Firefox users to view "ingested" html pages?
It's time for a revolution...
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Save Business2.0
so one of my favorite magazines - a quick & breezy read on the latest innovations (it always gives me a million ideas) - Business2.0 - is going under. If you're interested in saving it, consider joining the Save Business2.0 group in Facebook (see article on this effort at http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=119366) - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2420762508.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
changeover blues...
The great thing about technology is that it's always changing... that's also the downside... so I haven't posted in a while. Here's what's been happening, in case you were curious:
And then there's the website stuff - actually, collaboration is much harder on the webmaster than just doing it themselves - much, much, much harder at the outset. and more time-consuming. But in the end, it makes a better product/site, particularly if everyone communicates and follows the rules and standards set up. I want to facilitate collaborative development, but sometimes that's harder than developing on one's own!
What else? I'll hand over the new museum site to the education curator on Friday. Have to make sure it's all set for that switch, that I've documented some basics. They'll only publish to staging anyway, then do the web request to get to live. Should reduce chance of errors. Then I have to arrange training for various people on web authoring - basic skills. Have to have templates ready for all of them.
I'm exhausted writing about it all. It's all good - job security, eh?
- CEN & IT Support put in the new fiber connex - great work, guys, much improved bandwidth!
- the staging server was setup & new web process (that we sure hope works out) was revealed. Said process includes a development (sandbox) area where materials are gathered and initial work is done. A staging area, where editors/approvers can publish work that's made it out of the sandbox phase or where these editors work live on the server to update existing webpages. There is a web request form - like an online help desk - on the intranet - when a page is ready to go live (it's been reviewed on the staging server & found to be ready for primetime), the editor sends me a request, then I roll the page(s) live.
- we've changed all sites to host headers on the production box & dealt with domain name and ftp issues that were a part of this new way of doing things (releasing lots of extraneous ips and ports)
- reduced number of users on production box
- we've moved intranet from the production box, which is externally accessible, to its own internal server; along the way a couple of things broke for me that I'm still fixing (CDONTS for auto emailing of web request forms simultaneous to posting info to db; our existing MediaWiki installation)
- created a means for one of the org's directors to map directly to the root of the intranet site per her request and gave her rights to everything there
- getting new production box ready to go - need an ASP component hit counter for ccard db program - didn't come native with new sys - ? how to get it going
- install & run AWStats at new box
- set up website monitoring
- deal with all residual issues - usually people stuff - lots of phone calls, meetings to smooth things out
And then there's the website stuff - actually, collaboration is much harder on the webmaster than just doing it themselves - much, much, much harder at the outset. and more time-consuming. But in the end, it makes a better product/site, particularly if everyone communicates and follows the rules and standards set up. I want to facilitate collaborative development, but sometimes that's harder than developing on one's own!
What else? I'll hand over the new museum site to the education curator on Friday. Have to make sure it's all set for that switch, that I've documented some basics. They'll only publish to staging anyway, then do the web request to get to live. Should reduce chance of errors. Then I have to arrange training for various people on web authoring - basic skills. Have to have templates ready for all of them.
I'm exhausted writing about it all. It's all good - job security, eh?
Social Software Implications - living your life online
At the outset of the social software movement, the discomforting mix of two aspects of our lives - personal and professional seemed a distant problem. In general, I've never minded the mix - I gravitate to the transparency that Web2.0 seeks and in many ways forces. But then there are aspects of people's lives that relate to external forces (or should I say people?) - forces that a Web2.0 participant would have no control over.
Imagine the scenarios that will start to play out when everyone lives part of their lives online. The woman who writes about the very personal experience of being victimized somehow - because she wants to share her story of healing, for example. But then the victimizer finds her online, defaces her blog, tries to get into her MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, or other network. She could go underground (in this case, offline). But if her professional life requires some online visibility, then what? Does she give up her professional profile to preserve the sanctity of her personal life.
The story of the high-profile blogger who wrote at "Creating Passionate Users" is a case in point, though in her case, the victimization started online, then crossed a threshold when the victimizer threatened her physical well-being. She had to give up that excellent blog for her own safety, to forego a professional conference, to essentially lose the head of steam she'd built up in the blogosphere.
When we all believe in the essential goodness, the ultimate triumph of decency over darkness, we can hold onto the vision of Web2.0, but sometimes reality gets in the way - people are their own worst enemies - and they will as quickly seek to destroy as to build. And all it takes is one extremely destructive person or incident to set Web2.0 - or Library2.0 - back. We should all take some time to consider - not to lay aside our enthusiasm - but to start a sort of risk analysis of the Web2.0/Library2.0 movement. The theory here would be that anticipating the problems that may arise can help us to deal with them when they do.
Imagine the scenarios that will start to play out when everyone lives part of their lives online. The woman who writes about the very personal experience of being victimized somehow - because she wants to share her story of healing, for example. But then the victimizer finds her online, defaces her blog, tries to get into her MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, or other network. She could go underground (in this case, offline). But if her professional life requires some online visibility, then what? Does she give up her professional profile to preserve the sanctity of her personal life.
The story of the high-profile blogger who wrote at "Creating Passionate Users" is a case in point, though in her case, the victimization started online, then crossed a threshold when the victimizer threatened her physical well-being. She had to give up that excellent blog for her own safety, to forego a professional conference, to essentially lose the head of steam she'd built up in the blogosphere.
When we all believe in the essential goodness, the ultimate triumph of decency over darkness, we can hold onto the vision of Web2.0, but sometimes reality gets in the way - people are their own worst enemies - and they will as quickly seek to destroy as to build. And all it takes is one extremely destructive person or incident to set Web2.0 - or Library2.0 - back. We should all take some time to consider - not to lay aside our enthusiasm - but to start a sort of risk analysis of the Web2.0/Library2.0 movement. The theory here would be that anticipating the problems that may arise can help us to deal with them when they do.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Workplace bullying, innovation, and Library2.0
One of my favorite courses in my undergrad years was Organizational Behavior. (I think because I look at things systemically & holistically, so addressing the entire culture of an organization is intriguing to me... my anthropology background probably also plays a role, but...)
I've been cogitating on the issues of Library2.0 and innovation. What stops us from just doing things that would move us into the realm of Library2.0 - which would take us to the next level? There are many reasons. But, if you look at the issue honestly, few of them have to do with a lack of funding (especially since so many Web2.0 tools are free & open-source). Instead, they have to do with organizational culture.
An issue that I'm timid to mention, partially because if you haven't been exposed to the concept, you'll find it hard to believe that it's really out there in library land - but that really has an effect on our organizational cultures is how people treat one another - specifically I'm talking about workplace bullying.
From http://www.techcast.org/fup/articles/070217160036TC%20Erica%20-%20Bullying.pdf -"A bully is defined as '.... a person who is unable and unwilling to recognize the effect of their behavior on others, does not want to know of any other way of behaving, and is unwilling to recognize that there could be better ways of behaving.' This mindset leads to excluding colleagues socially, yelling, peristent criticism, and purposefully designing tasks for failure."
(I'm also nervous to write about it because of the political climate that prefers us not to talk about such things in libraries... and just so we're clear, I'm not trying to say that I personally haven't been anything but fortunate in my working life thusfar in libraries, but I have seen things and heard things over the years that inform this posting... don't forget, I've roamed far and wide and provided support for many libraries over many years... I've been to many conferences and networked with many librarians.)
But isn't it telling that I have a terror in the pit of my stomach as I write this? We need more transparency. We need to have this discussion, painful though it may be. Libraries are still part of the larger world. As workplace bullying increases in the larger world, is it possible that it increases in the library world? The demographics of bullying show that a majority (albeit slim) of workplace bullies are female bosses (58%). 80% of bullying targets are also female. Hierarchical organizations tend to breed bullies. Widening age gaps tend to lead to bullying. Do any of these characteristics fit today's libraries?
So, for libraries who have people whose sole goal is to deconstruct projects or to subvert them subtly but ultimately destroy those projects, I ask you this -- how can you ever expect to move forward? Your employees' energies are entirely focused on staying out of the line of fire and it's an effort just to show up for work every day in an environment characterized by bullying. And for those of you in shops that may or may not have workplace bullies, who think that you're safe because you're not currently the one with the target painted on your back, I can only say that workplace bullying is destructive to the entire ecosystem of innovation. If you have bullies, you'll never move beyond Library1.0.
I've been cogitating on the issues of Library2.0 and innovation. What stops us from just doing things that would move us into the realm of Library2.0 - which would take us to the next level? There are many reasons. But, if you look at the issue honestly, few of them have to do with a lack of funding (especially since so many Web2.0 tools are free & open-source). Instead, they have to do with organizational culture.
An issue that I'm timid to mention, partially because if you haven't been exposed to the concept, you'll find it hard to believe that it's really out there in library land - but that really has an effect on our organizational cultures is how people treat one another - specifically I'm talking about workplace bullying.
From http://www.techcast.org/fup/articles/070217160036TC%20Erica%20-%20Bullying.pdf -"A bully is defined as '.... a person who is unable and unwilling to recognize the effect of their behavior on others, does not want to know of any other way of behaving, and is unwilling to recognize that there could be better ways of behaving.' This mindset leads to excluding colleagues socially, yelling, peristent criticism, and purposefully designing tasks for failure."
(I'm also nervous to write about it because of the political climate that prefers us not to talk about such things in libraries... and just so we're clear, I'm not trying to say that I personally haven't been anything but fortunate in my working life thusfar in libraries, but I have seen things and heard things over the years that inform this posting... don't forget, I've roamed far and wide and provided support for many libraries over many years... I've been to many conferences and networked with many librarians.)
But isn't it telling that I have a terror in the pit of my stomach as I write this? We need more transparency. We need to have this discussion, painful though it may be. Libraries are still part of the larger world. As workplace bullying increases in the larger world, is it possible that it increases in the library world? The demographics of bullying show that a majority (albeit slim) of workplace bullies are female bosses (58%). 80% of bullying targets are also female. Hierarchical organizations tend to breed bullies. Widening age gaps tend to lead to bullying. Do any of these characteristics fit today's libraries?
So, for libraries who have people whose sole goal is to deconstruct projects or to subvert them subtly but ultimately destroy those projects, I ask you this -- how can you ever expect to move forward? Your employees' energies are entirely focused on staying out of the line of fire and it's an effort just to show up for work every day in an environment characterized by bullying. And for those of you in shops that may or may not have workplace bullies, who think that you're safe because you're not currently the one with the target painted on your back, I can only say that workplace bullying is destructive to the entire ecosystem of innovation. If you have bullies, you'll never move beyond Library1.0.
One of my favorite courses...
in my early college years was called "Organizational Behavior". I think because I look at problems systemically and holistically. So I was thinking about Library2.0 today and what gets in the way of all libraries immediately embracing Library2.0 principles like user-centered design and focusing on big picture / vision of the future type issues. So I'm following the lead of articles that talk about different organizational environments and management styles. What's clear is the following:
- an L2.0 world no longer holds to tradition for tradition's sake
- L2.0 focuses on the end-user and recenters itself around that; it puts aside all other concerns
- an L2.0 world no longer holds to tradition for tradition's sake
- L2.0 focuses on the end-user and recenters itself around that; it puts aside all other concerns
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)