Where is the Library as a brand?
Perceptions of libraries and information resources – OCLC report (available online)
3300 respondents to questions on library use, awareness and use of library electronic resources, internet search engine the library and the librarian, free vs for-fee information, the brand itself.
Libraries are trusted sources of information, search engines are trusted about the same, people care about quality and quantity of info they find, but speed is less important (not believable). However, convenience is very important.
Do not view paid infomration as more accurate than free info.
The overwhelming brand image of libraries is BOOKS!

Library Brand Equity – we need a strong visible brand on the web.  Libraries currently are a black and white presence in a colorful, flashy web world.
How do we build the brand?  Build on the trust of our patrons. Build on our business model – making info look free to our end-users.  Build on the scale that libraries represent – presence in every community, global scope and reach.  Improve awareness of library resources.  Make libraires a part of the new electronic environments that dominate social, educational and work environments.  We need to be there!

Social netowrking software!  Its not new, just the technical manifestation is. Deliver library services into the emerging social networks. Motivate people to participate: tagging, book reviews, emergent relationships that are evident from data about what people borrow, like and dislike, link to the people as well.  Need to build our own systems into the social structures that are so quickly developing.

Numbers of content creators and contributors are changing – increasing.  More people are wanting to get their content out on the web.  Their are great innovative approaches to attract that content to the library community.

Social Networking is not just for games: Facebook, MySpace, Second Life and Twitter.  All are flawed as service delivery models – business models are closed or obscure, features are rudimentary or overbearing. But they foretell a digital future in both their virtues and faults. Stuart Weibel has both Twitter and Facebook accounts and will be your friend.  They teach us about what people are doing out there – think of it as a professional investment.  They are all goofy because they are all new.  They will develop and some of that development will be interesting.

Libraries must compare favourably with experiences that our patrons expect: discovery and recommender services, web 2.0 social network capabilities, experiences of comparable commerical services, last-mile delivery capability, bookstore social experiences.  We are offering an experience as well as a service.  Save the user time.

Can Libraries compete in this space?  Should they?
Social software movement is fueled by (dollar denominated) entrepreneurial fervor.  Rate of innovation (and failure) is rapid. Distinguish between trends and the trendy and don’t get wrapped on the latter, especially when they fail.

Future of library catalogues?
Evolving towards network level. Collections linked to people, organisations, global location, concepts, context, metadata and social networking benefits.  Fit into the workflow and social lives of patrons. Help create a scaffolding for past knowledge and future productivity.

Web or Scaffolding?  We want more conherence and context, durable environments that help us preserve and fix resources in the context of culture, librarianship embedded in the emerging technologies of a social web.

Our catalogues need to be wholistic, treating not only works, but also people, concepts, works and objects (FRBR).  In addition we need book reviews, lists, services, commentary, other?  Book reviews are part of social bibliography, user created content.  All these things should be First Class Objects which have to ahve a persistent identity on the web, accessible by anyone or any applicaation, stand alone (attribution, clear IP rights), curated (not left alone). Allow the user to enter and tranverse the catalogue from any point.

WorldCat Identities – Beta product from OCLC – Another piece of the puzzle?
Tag cloud shows the top 100 identities.  Uses bibliographic data and mining it from other sources at OCLC.

Complicated puzzle – where ya gonna turn?
People, information, resources, places, terminologies, user generated content, FRBR (explain it to your patrons).  We need to better mine and utilise the data that we have.  Hook everything together with the right sort of identifiers.  A coherent identifier infrastructure is essential. Broad dissemination of identifiers serves the library collaborative and is the single most compelling means of making library assets persistent and visible on the web.

Persistence: not technological but rather a function of the commitment of organisations.  Libraries and other cultural memory organisations do this well.  Harder to do in the digital era, but the community is up to the task.
Universal access and global scoping: open to all, public identifiers in a public Web. Should work everywhere. WorldCat is the first globally-scoped identifier architecture for library assets in which the global surrogate is mapped to locality.  But we’re not quite done yet.
SEO and canonical identifiers – visibility of assets in the global library is diluted by the multiplicity of identifiers, agreement is needed on a canonical identifier.  Lack of it is a dilution of our brand and a lack of visibility on the web.
Branding is an important component of URIs – every URI is a micro-billboard branding library content in a crowded and largely commercial Web landscape. URIs need to be designed for people as well as machines, should be speakable, should be as short can be as managed, should have a predictable pattern that makes them hackable and truncatable.

FRBR is an important ocintrubtion to resource organisation on the web, but it is a challenge to explain to users.

World Cat – Mid 2006. Globally unique, freely available, citable and resolvable, independent of location, but not quite canonical.  Falls short because of duplicates, either mistaken or functional, not always resolvable to content and only sort of canonical.

NEWS!!!   Pilot project by OCLC – GLIMIR – Global Library Manifestation Identifier which is global in scope, canonical, business neutral, provides the URL equity necessary to support the library brand, fits comfortably with the FRBR model.  If its going to work, it can’t be an OCLC product, but it will be managed by them. It will require participation, buy in and support, all of which will be very tricky to achieve.  Can a global community agree and adopt this when there are already so many identifiers – eg. ISBN.  OCLC is launching this pilot to identify functional requirements and practicalities solicited review from technical specialists,moving forward will require a careful balance of use cases, business issue and more.

Identifiers are key to fulfilling the mission of libraries in a digital future, to compete ont he open web for recognition of our brand, to integrate our traditional bibliographic values with social networking content, to provides services and access to the digital tribe – our future constituency.

weibel-lines.typepad.com.
twitter – stuartweibel
flickr – weibel-lines

Rovers were used in the Learning commons – student peer mentors who worked in pairs.  Created RoverSpace – an online community for Rovers to share knowledge and problems, initially used Elgg (open source social networking space), now use Google Groups and Mediawiki.

Student rovers need to be peers (complementary service to librarians), seed a culture of learning (exemplars of good learning practice, paid work as a positive (good addition to or complement of their coursework), where the community meets (some rovers see working for the library as an honour).
Having rovers who reflect the university’s student population, in terms of background, courses etc.

RoverSpace – contains shift reports, statistics, administrative communication, reflective tasks, organic information sharing space.

Duties: – basic advice, assistance, operational support to students in the Learning Commons regarding IT and Library queries
- assist students to clarify their learning issues and develop strategiese to tackle them
- refer students to online/library resources, formal student learning advice and other forms of assistance

Rovers handled 4500 queries in the first 2 semesters of 2007  83% dealt with in a few minutes. 7.2% referred to library staff. 70.5% of queries were for printing, photocopying, catalogue, borrowing and returning, finding items on shelf and the swipe card technology.

Happily Ever After?
better publicity and more visibility
more training and better knowledge management
different roles (lead rover and webmaster)
more efficient support (only one in off peak times)
capitalising on online support potential
other platforms – Cosmopolis
PDAs

Bruce Heterick – JSTOR
“Shift happens: how the network effect, two-sided markets and the wisdom of crowds are impacting libraries and scholarly communication”

Check out the YouTube video “Shift happens” – series of factoids on how the world is changing.

“Technology is everything that is invented after you were born.”  “Technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.”
eg. Printing press (Gutenberg -1440) led to the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance
Linotype machine (Merganthaler – 1886) led to increased newspaper circulation (cheaper production costs)
Integrated circuit (Kilby/Noyce – 1961) led to digital computing
World Wide Web (BernersLee – 1989) led to search engines, e-commerce, information transition
iPod (Apple – 2001) – led to portable media

Library in use is using audio avatars – surfer dude on using Google, southern lady on archives from JSTOR – podcast how to use the resources.  Students downloading and listening to them when they want.

Four exponentials ….. working together
- Moore’s Law – power of computing is doubling every 18 months ( hold true for last 25 years and probably for next 10 to 15)
- Law of Fiber – capacity of the bandwith is doubling every 9 months – allowing us to deliver much more than we could have imagined a few years ago
- Law of Storage – digital storage doubles for the same cost every 12 months (its not a concern anymore because it is so cheap)
- Law of Community (Metcalf’s Law) – the power of the network goes up with the square of the networked people interacting with it
Each law is an exponential change agent, but with all of them working together, feeding off one another, it has caused such great change that it has become unsettling for people.

“If things are under control, you are moving too slow”.

They are facilitating the transition from the Information Age to the Age of Participation:
- actively engaging with what they are receiving – blogs and wikis are descendents of that need
- multilateral, not unilateral – not just working person to person – more apparent but also can be more confusing
- communities, not silos – around the information, how will they be facilitated through the platforms being used
- contribution as well as consumption

They are contributing to an environment with new dynamics:
- The Network effect – service becomes available as more people use it, growth can be extraordinarily fast (often virally) and can occur with little or no centralized control, glider – the power of the network must move down.
- Two-sided markets – WEb 2.0 where people contribute and consumer, economic network having two distinct user groups

Wisdom of crowds – groups are smarter than the smartest individual in the right circumstances
- decisions by crowds work when the crowd is diverse, decentralized & work independently ie. Wikipedia

Libraries will have to engage more at the place where their users are – proactive engagement.
Publishers have to be building self-sustaining communities or be consolidated.
Faculty – have to become more conversant with the technologies, adopt these advances, focus on networks, not institutions.

Law of change – libraries will have to change as the larger system of which we are a part changes, or risk being ejected from it.
Gorbachev Syndrome – leaders swept away by the tide they have created.

Do we move forward to what is inevitable or do we hold on to the continuity that we have, however profoundly it is flawed?

IM trial was run in tandem with the Ask Now chat service. Trial has now concluded.

2 types of IM – client based (ie. MSN Messenger, Google Talk) and website integrated (embedded – Meebo).  Embeds a flash based box in your webpage – used by many bloggers – eg. Topeka Shawnee County.

Impetus: technical issues with proprietary chat reference products – software issues, login requirements etc
desire to meet users in their own space – on their turf, reach audience with their communication model of choice

How did it work – listed IM names on the Asknow homepage – noting that the users should add the appropriate name to their buddy list.  (couldn’t use embedded, too much demand).  Once listed in their buddy list, users know when the service is available. When it is – click on to start a session.

Quick stats – to inform practice going into the future.  Surveyed staff before and after the trial, in a focus groups and a wiki was used for field notes.  Once staff realised how simple it was, they were overwhelmingly supportive of it.  Almost 1200 enquiries in 6 months, 45% of surveyed users aged 15 to 24, 73% of enquiries completed in session, 100% of users would use it again. (all users surveyed at the end of the session)

Lessons:
1. There is a demand for an IM service.  Hours offered did not affect the growth of enquiries and word of mouth was an important promotion tool.
2. Concept of IM reference is viable.  Librarian said they thought it better than chat ref or email – more immediate and synchronous
3. True synchronicity has some meaningful impacts. Librarian said that it met the expectations of users in terms of speed, efficiency and ease of use and enabled the reference interview to be more complete and quicker.
4. Inhabiting the users’ space brings some new challenges (and a pleasant surprise). Informal language – txt speak. Up to each individual librarian as to how they communicate.  Some users just wanted to come and chat (they were bored). However, there was no increase in inappropriate behaviour from the Asknow service. IM resulted in a significant increase in repeat users.
5. IM is not just for kids….. but the kids certainly do like it. Kids were a big audience, but so were 15-24, particularly in the morning and early afternoon.
6. A simple aggregator IM client is insufficient. (can only have one person logged in at a time to offer service) Having more than one operator is crucial – too many clients is scary, exhausting and demanding.

Embedded IM: an opportunity to innovate – three lines of code plugged in to your website gives you an onsite contact point. Place the widget in the places where they most need help (no results page, wrong address etc).

Towards an IM system architecture:
Necessary – multiple librarians to be logged in and monitoring simultaneously (Pidgin client based software now offers this functionality)
- queueing and/or automatic routing of users – preferably both
- automated statistics logging functionality
Desirable – automated workflow for referring enquiries infor follow-up and better transcript archiving functionality (in trial it was far too labour intensive)
- built in scripted message

They developed specifications for IM system architecture with a Jabber IM server (self hosted), Java based routing component (to be written, Web based dashboard for shift management (where they can identify themselves as primary or secondary operator and pick up clients, Browser based anonymous entry point for users which could be embedded in the web page and an admin module (for stats and scripts etc).

What now – Routing component being built by NLA developer – likely to be open source. Looking at opportunities for cooperative arrangements.

Through the crystal ball: the future of virtual reference: centred around website, synchronous chat, will embrace pluggable system models – that can scale and will embrace open source.  Using a triage model, incorporate multiple delivery models (FAQs, subject guides, email, VOIP and IM), will see the nature of enquiries change as we get into their space, be device agnostic – particularly important with the expansion of the mobile web.

Wilma Kurvink – Wesley College
“A new paradigm for reference librarians in the online world: developing relationships around research and learning with library users”

About learning, not about schooling. Their collections have conflicting ideas and perspectives to expose students to a range of ideas and use their morals, critical thinking to make sense of them.

When laptops introduced, they found that student work was not significantly improving in key research assignments, students appeared to want to work independently and were reluctant to seek help.

Research into search behaviour by Rita Bilal: students experienced high rates of failure (1 in 2 searches failed for younger students), students experienced breakdowns.  Better results by older students who use keywords better.  10 year study of UK tertiary students: search engines dominated their information seeking strategy, half began their search in Google, only 10% used the OPAC first and 9% went to Yahoo.

Students prefer search engines, use of academic resources is low, find locating information difficult, may trade quality of results for effort and time spent searching, students use of search engines now influences their perspective of online resources.

Jean McKay and Helen Bronleigh – Murdoch University, Annmaree Brown and Margaret Wright – Macquarie University
“Shibbolising Online Librarian: how two university libraries enhanced their collaborative chat reference service by using a MAMS Mini grant to add authentication and develop an interoperable chat client”

In 2006, the IM service that had been introduced 2 years earlier, was now causing too many headaches.  With only one librarian able to login at any one time, it made management problematic at best.  Service was offer for a limited time of 34 hours per week.  Had started with Net Meeting and VOIP, but users preferred chat, so moved to MSN Messenger and the service took off.

Started project with MAMs in 2006 – to develop and improve a text chat information service, building on the existing online librarian services.
MAMS – Meta Access Management System project – based at Macquarie Uni with DEST funding from the “Backing Australia’s Ability” program.

Allows multiple operator logins and where possible, students will be routed to a librarian from their home institution.  If all operators are busy, they will be redirected to the email service. Client has to go to the webpage, identify their home institution, authenticate and then the chat starts.  Have a link to a feedback form at the end of the session.

Not a lot of feedback, but all received is overwhelmingly positive, easy to use, will use again.  Only 5% reported access problems.  The stats module gives them client affiliation, operator institution, start/end time of call, no of transactions in each session, transfer history, notes regarding who ended or timeouts and gives turnaways by user campus and try time.  If a call is not answered in minute, it is routed to another operator – 1/3 of sessions did this.  50% ended by operator. If it is, the feedback form is offered as is the option to have the transcript emailed to them.

Resulted in the service being offered 87 hours per week, where the physical desks are offering 77 and 65 hours service per week. Librarians are not rostered, but are expected to respond to chat in the same way that they do with email and the telephone.

Both libraries will continue with the service – looking to appear in the portals being developed at both Unis and hope to be able to incorporate a widget.

Two ISO standards in common use – ISO 15693, ISO 18000-3 (newest).
Tag Data model and privacy and data security mechanisms are not prescribed in these standards.
Implications: no interoperability between systems, have to reprogram tags when changing vendors, difficult to mix and match equipment.
Standards work on the communication between the tag and the reader.  ISO working group is working on an international standard of data models on the tag – some debate over the format, been going on for over a year.  Compromise position adopted at a third meeting.

ISO 28560 to be structured in three parts: (standard aimed at libraries, but could be adapted to other organisation types)
1. General requirements and data elements ie. item identifier, call no, instituitional ID, title etc – approximately 25 items thus far.
2. Encoding based on ISO/IEC 15962 (as proposed by Standards Australia) – only item ID is mandatory, the rest is optional
3. Fixed length encoding – variation on fixed models already in place

Ultra High Frequency (UHF) RFID in libraries:
RFID operates at multiple frequencies, usually use Band 19 – high end of the frequency.
Frequency selected to match the application – read speed, distance and other performance criteria

Why differ? advantages for libraries – faster read rates, greater read distance, cheaper tags and readers, greater immunity to tag masking, compatability with supply chain initiatives. ie. Walmart.

UHF FAQ: HF is more mature and capable and can deliver to libraries.  UHF is still very new in libraries, limited suppliers.
Why not UHF? More info is needed on UHF libraries – works on mobile phones range of the spectrum.  Mostly used in warehouses, what are the implications for office type environments with people not just objects.  How long will they last?   Mainly used for short term use in warehousing.  Lose anything going to UHF? Less control, narrower product range, not interoperable with HF systems, suppliers are not library experienced.  Can’t mix HF and UHF.  Future is unknown, don’t know which will come out on top – might coexist or something new may come out.  RFID systems on the market now can deliver the benefits that libraries are seeking.

www.sybis.com.au – “RFID for Libraries: a comparison of HF and UHF options” – white paper

Kathryn Greenhill – Murdoch Uni, Constance Wiebrands – Curtin Uni
“Libraries Interact: collaboration and community in the Australian library blogosphere”

LINT is one of only two group library blogs in Australia.  Encourages contributions from anyone, as long as they are on-topic. Not aligned with any formal body.

200 hits per day and have 550 subscribers.  22680 hits in December 2007 – includes a lot of spam.  Visitors – 1/6 from Australian, most from US, also readers from Egypt, Netherlands, Canada, UK and Europe.

THALI – this helps all libraries interact – Indian dish with many different tastes.  Spread across the country and across the world.

Platform – self hosted WordPress – $100 per year.  Plugins to control Spam, for editing, statistics, to apply metadata, backup.  Feedburner is used for RSS feeds and gives an email subscription option.  Tools for collaboration – 90% done using Google groups, PB Wiki for documentation. Social bookmarking using Connotea and CiteULike.

Tools for Australian libraries, based on the blog: Australian Library blogs list, Australian Library blogs search using Google custom search. Surveys. VLINT – Virtual libraries interact.  Frappr map of LINT’s readers.  Thali tags – hot issues in the Australian blogosphere – takes thali blog posts, sends them through a Yahoo pipe and generates a tag cloud. Professional reading room – a page on the blog, where we can put out a list of articles which we think Australian librarians should read – with an RSS feed.

Went live on 8th July 2006 – discussed for a month or so.  Established over the course of a weekend.  Jan 26 2008 – 313 posts, 557 comments.  Very informal group, not written principles.  LINT is a growing, evolving project.  An idea will work only if someone has time to do it, but everyone is available to bounce around ideas – fantastic professional support network.  No single person is in charge – can be a slight disadvantage, but all have a sense of responsibility for LINT.  No formal decision making process, done by informal negotiation and discussion – consensus is accepted by the group.  Assess situations and deal with them as they arise and we don’t create pre-emptive rules.  Highest return for lowest effort.

Community of practice – learning is not a separate activity, it comes from participation in daily life. (citation in paper – Lave and Venga).  Engagement in shared activity facilitates shared learning.  About: LINT is an ongoing process – its about a shared activity, continually negotiated by its members.  All tools we have used have improved our coding, writing and communication skills.  Function: social nature of LINT keeps us focussed, but adds an element of interest and fun to the process, no real difficulty in keeping motivated.  Capability: tangible aspect is the blog, plus the tools that have been created, but the intangibles are almost more important – development of the community, not just the technical community but a support network, which is extremely valuable.  Physical meeting of group members just confirmed the relationships that had been established online.

Survey Monkey was used in September 2007 to survey other group library blogs. 63 responses: uses – professional and was part of their job and was required – learning skills including writing, community – contributing to the profession, and other personal reasons.

Get involved – librariesinteract.info – read, subscribe, comment and write a post to contribute to the blog.

Future: we have a new look but the rest is in planning.

Ellen Forsyth – State Library of NSW
“Fancy walkie talkies: Star Trek communicators or roving reference? (2006 Travel Scholar)”

Travel Scholarship investigated roving reference using walkie talkies, wireless bluetooth, shelf end OPACs and more.  Roving reference in these instances also have a desk, although desks are changing also. Taking the services away from the desk involves changes to the service. Consideration needs to be taken of technology to help the librarian to help the user.

Low tech – OPACs at the extremities of the library, so its on hand when you are in shelves.

Vocera voice command system on a badge hung around the neck, used by some public libraries to assist with staff communication as well as reference.  Needs a good wireless network and was used mainly in very big libraries.  Most libraries have 50 devices, keyed into individuals and all had licences for more, mainly reference staff.  Staff are encouraged to stay logged in all day, but can put them on hold when you don’t want to be disturbed.  Very easy to use, library staff commented on ease of implementation and training.  System was trained in 5 minutes to understand your accent in relation to commands.  Incoming phone calls can be transferred to someone with a badge. Can call individuals, a group or all staff, for emergencies, or help required etc. Telephone reference is being redirected straight to the Vocera badges, instead of ringing a phone, it goes to the rostered reference librarian.  Reference desks are being rebuilt as smaller and less daunting.

Walkie talkies and headsets with earpieces are also being used at some libraries. Radio means you hear every single message, but it worked well at those libraries.

His website – www.ntu.edu.sg/home/assfoo/

Was impressed with the developments in Librarianship in Australia, as evidenced by the papers and showcases at VALA. Encouraged the audience to share internationally and not think that the innovation can only come from the US or Europe.

National Library Board oversees the National Library and all public libraries in Singapore.

Singapore is a very IT savvy country. As young as 3 year olds are given mobile devices to play and learn with. Everywhere in Singapore, heads are down, using their handheld devices. Government initiative promoting Singapore as an IT island. Social and affluent society, cosmopolitan – coffee drinking is an experience in itself.

Singapore Libraries – brick vs click, collect-organise-store-access, mediator (source to user), authoritative, trusted content

Library users are in the minority and are scholars, researchers, library savvy.  Others find info needs met by search engines, see web info as legitimate and the only source, they think Google, Yahoo, MSN not library, expect instant gratification, find info until is downloadable, expect exception user experience (memorable, unique, exquisitely simple).  How do we find solutions to reach the majority and bring them back to our physical and virtual libraries.

What do hey do to close the gap? Delve into the information space of the users . Make resources more discoverable for them, thus bringing them back to the library.

Mobile phone penetration in Singapore 2007 – 109.1% of the population. SMS Nation – 3rd place afer Malaysia (210) and the Phillipines (846) – with a monthly average of 209 text messages per month.  Relatively cheap to send SMS and is often used to close business deals (no signature required).

Role of library – to connect users to resources that users need, for whatever purposes, in any format, from anywhere, using any device at the time (instantaneous for some) they want it.  Library as an info-concierge – individual info object is a self sustaining, self contained node unit, can be content or service, in any format.  Need to be inter-connected with multiple access points. Upon discovery, an information object becomes an info-concierge with ability to connect to other content (in library or outside) or other information seekers.  Connectivity can be achieved by hyperlinks, different platforms, pusing information – connectivity not necessarily one way.  Evolving a mesh (web) of information.

What’s Next? Browse by subjects, browse by format, recommended relational search, up and coming events, photos and stories to share. This content is harvested rom internal and external resources. Content can be released to spaces tousdie the library to promote discovery.(ie social networking spaces)  Residency in other spaces allows users to use them as best suited for their needs. If they don’t want the content, they can ignore it, but its there if they are interested or a need arises. Example: BookJetty.com.(like Library Thing) but will show if its in a local library or link to an online bookseller for purchase.

Library as a network of inter-connected info-concierges. Requires harvesting of other resources, selecting and authenticating contents, meta-tagging, creating, maintaining and growing taxonomies, information content organisation. Internal – NLS web content and subscribed databases. External – GYM, MICA, IDA, NAS.

Library as a network of true collaborators. Connectivity: content to content, people to content, people to people. Libraries are best placed to provide this. Dialogue/information sharing tools: wikis, blogs, social spaces.  Both library owned and other owned content.  We don’t have to own everything, we need to harvest content that is useful to our users, regardless of source.

In house exhibitions are rendered as far as possible to virtual exhibitions, once the physical one has ended.  National Library of Singapore is a smart building, approximately $300 million. ie. maximised airflow, use of sun and reflecting panels, trees on the 7th floor were chosen from thriving ones in the surrounding area. (book to be published on it soon).

NLS repositioned its reference service to meet users’ changing expectations and consumer lifestyles. Service within reach – SMS reference. Ask a librarian service by phone, one public library has a video conferencing service (no librarian in the branch), email and now SMS. 60 characters in Chinese, up to 160 in English.  Librarian resolves enquiry and enters answers via a standard template.  Reply with a direct answer or a URL. The URL gives more info, including more search terms to use, highlighted resources including notes on where to look in them, links to their availability.  At the end they include feedback questions which the user completes and submits. The answers are kept in a database as a future searchable resource.

Observations: overall positive feedback.  Various types of questions answered. Some users expect instant replies. Usgae rates averages 10-15 enquiries per day. Accessing NLS through Google, Yahoo and MSN. Created Infopedia – articles authored by NLS reference librarians about personalities, places and historical events in Singapore.  Use SEO to make sure it appears high on search engine results.  (infopedia.nlb.gov.sg)  Using Google based content (ie. maps) helps get links to your content. Content usage has increased exponentially with better exposure on the web – from 400 views to 63,000 views per month.  Other micro-sites are being explored.

Collaborative reference network. Making use of community expertise – librarians, researchers, community members. If questions can not be answered, referred to the network of specialists – who will then respond to the query which the librarian will then return to the user.  Uses forum for the discussions occuring over a query, can follow a thread.  Observations: still goes through the library, reference communities can included librairans, experts or others.

Challenges: requires support, experimentation, budget, time and innovation. Future promises excitement for librarians, managers, developers and vendors. Librarians will continue to grapple with constant flux of technological changes, users’ behaviour, users’ expectations and the need to reinvent themselves and continue instilling information literacy knowledge to users.  Need to continually learn about our users.  Referred to the JISC/British Library report on the Google Generation – Information behaviour of the researcher of the future.

Information, once in digital form, can travel by itself.  It doesn’t need someone to direct it.

Implications: Google search instead of LISA – curiousity, serendipity, fun
Long tail (Anderson 2006) – obscure, esoteric, trivial, non-commercial content, which would never have been distributed if not for being digital.
Staggering amount of information – problematic cornucopia
Web is an interactive space – multidirectional, consumer as creators
Collaboration – wikipedia, comments, advice
Personal/private space – blogs, photo albums, social networking: My Space, Facebook – privacy, exposure risk

Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 as manifestations of Information Society/Knowledge Society/Information Economy
Modern ICTs effecting a profound transformation – some trends and countertrends:

Dematerialisation – information unbundled from physical carriers – can travel by itself, physical constraints limited, flow no longer linear, weightless – dematerilaised economy
Example – sub-prime mortgage debt crisis
Virtual documents replace diaries, photo albums. They are ephemeral, a conservation challenge – what how much how, international – place of publication is obsolete
Digital libraries – virtual content – it has to reside somewhere – physical server space.  But we are still building big physical libraries.  Counter trend – everything else is getting smaller, but libraries are also a social space.  Easy to pull the plug on content, censorship, withdrawal of articles from e-journals: plagiarism, scientific fraud, errors – however there is a need for a complete scientific record. IFLA and International Publishers statement recommending retraction rather than removal.

Globalisation – World Bank defined as he “growing integration of economies and societies around the world” (2001)
Involves the flow of goods and services, people, capital, technology, culture, information.
Globalisation brings benefits: faster economic growth, living standards, poverty reduction, peaceful resolution of conflicts, For countries that “engage well with the international economy”.  Contested terrain – lots of protests.  Disadvantages for those that don’t engage well – heavy social costs, growing gap between rich and poor, environmental damage, protectionism, erosion of national cultures and languages.  McDonalds – best known food brand in the world, symbol of globalisation and Americanism.
Symbolises a one-way information and power flow.

Information flows between developed and developing countries – needs to be two way.  Exploitative information flows – export of unique documentary heritage, use of local resources and informants, exploitation of indigenous knowledge, brain drain.
Desirable flow – scholarly contributions by scientists and scholars from developing countries Obstance – under-represented in scholarly databases.  Internet has potential to level the playing field. eg. African Journals Online – almost 300 titles, affording article delivery, not for profit, similar projects in S and SE Asia, capacity building projects.
Open Archiving – big potential for access and exposure. Fundamental change of attitude needed – respect, sharing.  Synthesis – knowledge from both.

Counter trends – regionalism, nationalism, fundamentalism. Reactions to globalisation, increased security and privacy post 9/11, glocalisation – net exposure for small languages.

Commodification – knowledge as a strategic resource, intellectual property, ICTs enable exploitation of the long tail, aggressive enclosure of intellectual property.  Mickey Mouse is why copyright is now 70 years after the authors death.  No difference between journal article authors and Walt Disney, this has unhelpful implications.
Enclosure of intellectual property – extension of term of copyright, European database directive, DRM systems, denial of copyright exceptions (digital is different).  Locking up things that shouldn’t be locked and making it illegal to unlock them – even if copyright exceptions should apply.
Orphan works – calculating the safe period, may infringe copyright if not published earlier than 1870, which has implications for digitisation projects.  IFLA/IPA have issued a joint statement – if libraries have done a diligent search and can’t find the copyright owner and then digitise, they will not subsequently be penalised if the the copyright owner surfaces.  International measures to protect owners of IP taken by developed countries, rather than developing countries, as this is where most IP owners are. Trying to apply standards to developing countries which were not applied to them when they were developing.  International measures used includes TRIPS Plus, Free trade agreements, and reproduction rights organisations.

Counter trends – altriusm, culture of sharing, open source, open access movement, IFLA Statement on Open Access to Scholarly Research.

IFLA – 3 main themes: freedom, equity, inclusion. Global voice of librarians and libraries.  Freedom of access to information and expression – FAIFE; networking, monitoring and intervention, research, publication and education. Equity – fair and sustainable legal and economic relationships between creators, intermediaries and users of informatin.  Inclusion: library as agency of social inclusion, inclusion of the library in the information society, “Libraries on the agenda” – IFLA Presidential them.  Responding to the profession’s concerns – established an advocacy unit, to raise awareness, preparing ammunition, empowering professionals, coordinating.   However, its an important role of all IFLA members.

World is more interconnected that ever before.  Distant decisions can no have implications ie. affordability of school books in developing countries, protecting Mickey Mouse and the extension of copyright.

Kete – telling our stories together.
Their community comes in to help catalogue images in their digital collection, using their own specialist knowledge, enriching the content.

Kete is the maori word for a basket – anyone can weave one, making a useful object from raw materials.

Kete Horowhenua is a digital library of images, audio and video files and documents and even websites which are collected and catalogued by the community.
Uses a web server, internet access, start using it – either as an administrator or user.  Multiple formats are brought together are brought together under topics.
Multiple access points including feature topics, keyword search, random image slideshow, new additions, browse or content by item type.  Search results are returned with latest item first.

Topics are built using a template to help build the data – creating web pages.  Advertised in the local paper for volunteers and were overwhelmed by the response.  People came in or worked from home on digitisation, transcribing and more.  Many worked from home, but regular working bees help create a social network which all the volunteers appreciate.

12,000 images, 1300 documents and other assorted audio, video, website etc, to a total of 14,000 items under 800 topics.

Success: community – local “ours”, contribution – people like to help, valuable – real work being done, non-threatening – teaching IT virgins, pride – “you girls”, personal – can save “my stuff”, easy to find stuff about people and places, addictive.

NZ Strategy – building digital foundations, unlocking content: Kete meets these.  It is a virtual community as well as a collective memory.

Kete code is Open Source – GNU (GPL). Content is under a Creative Commons licence. Won a 3M Award for Innovation in Libraries. WSA Special Mention for excellent e-content.

Other Kete – Taranaki o Te Reo Chartiable Trust, Chinese Association of NZ – Auckland Branch and Auckland City Libraries, Kete project, Orange County (US), Mental Health Commission (NZ), Atearoa People’s Network (NZ).

How to get a Kete – contract it out, DIY or DIY with help.  Developers – Katipo Communications (www.katipo.com.nz)
Source code – download Kete Version 1.0 (www.kete.nz)
DIY then consult Katipo

Koha and Kete both use Z39.50.

Debb Stumm and Christine Sayer – State Library of Queensland
“Queensland stories: community, collections and digital technology at the SLQ (2006 VALA award)

www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au

3 strategic priorities in their “Enriching the lives of Queenslanders” strategy – key one here is Queensland Memory – today for tomorrow.
Developing a digital history and storytelling collection.  Review resulted in the directions of single program incorporating oral history and digital storytelling, multimedia focus, online directory, digial presevervation and formatting, user generated content.

Digital storytelling – individual films which can be streamed onto the web, telling a story.  Berkeley Center is the key organisation in this form with many projects around the world.  Memory Grid at ACMI is a local example.

Major components – website – including info on how to contribute content, standards and access, mobile multimedia laboratory, digital story creation.

Digital standards: Metadata – MODS
Digital capture and format: Video – AVI, RealVideo, Window Media Video. Stills – Tiff, jpeg. Audio – Broadcast wave, mp3, real audio, windows media.

Launched in 2004 – challenges arisen.
Copyright and intellectual property – storytellers are advised to use images and sound that they own, can get permission for or is copyright free.  Looking at creative commons licensing.
Cultural and privacy protocols – especially of concern with A&TSI, multicultural and children. Release forms are used.
Resources and distance – limited to how far they can deliver training, bypassed this issue by training the trainer in digital storytelling, who ontrain members of their community in regional centres.

Training is on how to create the story – using the computer, developing a script, etc.  Digital stories is a first person story, not formal interview.

Anne Beaumont, Kelly Gardiner and Stuart Flanagan – State Library of Victoria
“Conversations or evidence – an analysis of responses from members of the public to an invitation to submit their comments about State Library of Victoria images available over the Web”

SLV images are embedded in a HTML page.  Links to info about the image, more search options etc.  Included a link under each image seeking more info.  Linked to a web form which was populated with some info from the image already.  Sent via Lotus Notes to SLV staff.  Have had 4000 comments over a year.  Comments ranged but included corrections – although the comments were not published or added to the record, any alleged corrections were followed through and acted on if found to be valid.
Additional info was also offered on images, often providing a lot of background to the photographer or subject. Comments also came requesting more information – not uncommon  – these were dealt with by the reference staff, rather than the picture staff.  Many comments incorporated several of these types.  Small proportion of comments included non-useful info ie. cool.

Commenters from all over the world.  Majority from Australia, but far from exclusively so.  Most traffic comes from outside the SLV domain, mainly Google, Picture Australi and Yahoo as well as niche sites such as Vintage Caterpillar (old tractor site) etc. Get outside your own domain and people will find you.

Most popular images were ships, places and people. Comments are not yet public, but as they are not published, the conversation is one-sided.

Libraries are using Flickr, Photobucket and other sites are allowing images to get out and invite comments and tags. These sites don’t necessarily allow data back in, to be able to use tags or comments to enhance records or content.  Be interesting to see if there would be any difference in the comments between SLV hosted and Flickr type hosted content, where one is focussing on the heritage, the other is on the photos.

Issues: Management – what do we do with the data and who does the work
Publishing – do we moderate or trust users to be responsible
Interaction – allow one comment or a thread/discussion – interacting with each other as well as the library
Adding value – what data can we use to complement our online offering – can we link them to passenger lists, shipping info, newspaper articles etc
Critical mass – there’s nothing lonelier that an empty comments trail

Findings: People like the chance to respond and interact with our collections
Can provide corrections – benefit to the library,not just the users
If published, comments can provide useful info for other researchers but not part of catalogue record
Have policies in place and a spam filter

Next: Looking at different wasy to publish comments and allowing other user interaction (rating) as part of website redevelopment
Developed new gadgets and distribution techniques to provide interaction
Unexpected response from suers emboldens us to provide more opportunities and better functionality.

Issues of privacy means that the comments have not been able to be published – could be very discouraging for commenters with their contributions just disappearing.
Didn’t seek permission to publish comments so didn’t feel they could.  Only responded to comments where there was a reference question involved. Corrections that were acted upon were not answered back to the original commenter.  What is a trusted source of information and how do you ensure it remains trusted?

Its about encouraging participation, cultivating communities, collaboration, being in their space, shifting the focus, letting go (Helene Blowers: SLV presentation 2007)
The hardest thing is letting go, letting other people contribute.

Challenge for staff: constantly changing environment
new technologies are readily available to us
staff need to keep up with technology

YRPL – blogs, Library Thing, playaways, wikis, mp3s podcasting, google tools, webpage, federated searching all being introduced
Changing the way we do things in the physical library – changes to reference service deliver (tablet, phone using wireless), RFID.
Learning 2.0 introduced to help staff achieve this.  Gives staff a taste of what Web 2.0 is about (too many applications available to cover them all, more coming out all the time).  Staff resulted in confidence, self motivation, new skills, new technology, pride and enthusiasm to continue.

Learning 2.0 continued into Library Worker 2.0 which has now continued with an Unconference, networking, community spaces and more.  Library Worker 2.0  is abougt finding info – online ref, databases, rss feeds, enabling learning – how to teach small groups, creating content – wikis, celebrating culture, leading the organisation. Running for 2nd year with new content.

Blogs – CEO – new things in the library, genealogy, local history, summer reading club kids,
Wikis – YP books enouraging reading and literacy- author podcasts are added, booklists, participatory; staff training wiki – internal only, can share resources and notes, voluntary but with manager approval
Library Thing for Libraries
Web 2.0 classes
Unconference
Flickr, Facebook, You Tube profiles given a global presence – not about being cool

Networking and Partnerships:
SLV – Victorian Public Libraries Learning 2.0 – to every public library in Victoria, 45 library services, 1000 participants
WikiNorthia – Darebin, Moreland wiki to showcase life in the northern suburbs – history, clubs, events etc

Media coverage – ALJ, Wired, Incite, Sirsi Dynix webinar, conferences etc

Road Ahead – library is everywhere, has no barriers, invites participation, uses flexible best of breed systems
(Do Libraries Matter the rise of Library 2.0 – Chad and Miller 2005)

Libraries will be left behind if we don’t keep up with technology, if we don’t change as our communities change.
Kathryn Greenhill – Murdoch University
“Do we remove all the walls? Second Life Librarianship”

MUVE- multi user virtual environment.  Its real time, client server based, multiple user, each user’s own point of view, 3D rendering, graphics sound and networking which creates an immersive environment.
Webkinz under 12s.

Second Life is overhyped. Gartner – 80% of active internet users will have a second life in the virtual world by 2011.  Also highlighted by the Educause Horizon Report 2008.

Growth is levelling off.  1.4% of user of Second Life are Australian.  Not where our users are,not Library 2.0.

After 3 months of joining up – 90% don’t come back – not usually high for online games.

It is free, full of librarians, has critical mass and is available right now.  It is worth investigating and can only be learnt by doing.

Avatars can talk – via IM one on one or general broadcast, now audio is available, can be modified, can move – run, walk, fly, teleport, dance
Objects – can build them, upload them, buy sell and trade them, animate and script them
Environment – streamed media, join groups and networks, events

Libraries in Second Life – reference, outreach programs (discussions), collections, classes and seminars

Slideshare has Kathryn’s slides – sirexkat

Australian Libraries Building – first social, met people, VLINT, second did things with objects

Advantages for librarians in Second Life: learn new interface, understand users who game, break down professional isolation, increase coding skills, fun creative expression, join collaborative learning community, network about real life library topics, find expert professional support, nimble thinking and adaptable

After 18 months – what have they learned from MUVE
- its a social network
- if you build something you still have to be there

What works – events, reference desk, casual get togethers, outdoor settings, friending, collaboration around subject matter not geography, dance meetings, volunteers working on their own interests.

What doesn’t work – static collections with no people, closed off buildings, clickable object without a how to, solo exploration, buildings without identity

Challenge – create “willing suspension of disbelief”
- immersion vs the possiblities of the interface

Still, its been a great first day – so here goes with the delayed live blogging!

Andy Powell – Eduserv Foundation – UK
“Repositories through the looking glass”

Repositories are very firmly on the agenda of libraries in the 21st century.  Repositories are a microcosm of the library space.

Repositories need to be considered in terms of Web 2.0 and open access, both which will and are happening.

Issue 1: Have we go our terminology right?
Need to be surfacing the content on the web.  What is the difference between a content management system and a repository – its a fine line.

Focus on content management would change the emphasis – talking about tagging, information architecture, search engine optimization etc.

Issue 2: Service oriented vs resource oriented
Web is resource oriented – digital libraries are service oriented.

Issue 3: National vs global
Focus has been on institutional repositories.  Web 2.0 is global – impact? prosumer, remote apps, social, API, diffusion and concentration (Lorcan Dempsey)
arXiv.org the first repository – started before the Web but has a lot of Web 2.0 features, is global in scale. Depositories have moved away from this.

Thinking about the future:
1. What would a Web 2.0 repository look like
Look a bit like slideshare – deposit powerpoint/pdf presentations – embed, tag etc.
- high quality web based document viewer
- tagging
- persistent URLs
- form social groups
- embed in other web sites
- high visibility to Goolge
- offer RSS as a primary API
- Amazon S3 for accessibility

Would be a global resource.

But they don’t do preservation, handle complex workflows, expose rich metadata.  How do we meet the requirements of the web to make these repositories more accessible.

What do we do?
Use the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Resources (FRBR)
Simple Dublin Core doesn’t give enough information.

Repositories can learn a lot from Web 2.0.  Simple Dublin Core(DC) is too simple and too complex. Richer DC application profiles such as SWAP may be the way forward. But need to ensure that their use does not over complicate user interfaces and workflows.

Open Access should be focussed on making content available on the web, rather than putting stuff into a repository.  Should be resource oriented, learning about and using REST, semantic web, web architecture.