Thread: RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Open Source Software and Libraries
Brought to you by:
dchud
From: Frumkin, J. <frumkinj@u.library.arizona.edu> - 2001-05-21 16:18:08
|
David Dorman proclaimed: > What we need today is small group of libraries and and another > visionary leader to launch an open source library network--an OSLN > that could manage and form the core of a growing open source movement > within libraries world wide. The need for leadership than will turn > heads, change minds and harness open source library programming > resources is so palpable we can all feel it. An OSLN could > eventually transform the library landscape even more thoroughly than > OCLC has done. I have no doubt that in the long run libraries will > embrase the open source model, because it makes sense and because of > the many dedicated liberary-related programmers who are already > engaged in making it happen. But in the long run we are all dead, > and time's a wasting. > AMEN! David makes excellent points, including one about the lack of leadership. I also agree that in the long run, libraries will embrace the OSS model. But why not sooner than later? David's statement of need for an Open Source Library Network, or OSLN, is right on the mark. Right now, we have a number of quite useful OSS projects and tools available (YAZ, MyLibrary, Jake, Prospero, OSCR, Avanti, XMLMARC come immediately to mind). But we don't have anything or anyone really trying to tie them together. Why do we need to bring these projects together? Well, the best way I can think of to explain this is to look at Linux and GNU software. Richard Stallman and the GNU Project have given us emacs, GCC, and a host of other tools. But I doubt that, without the Linux kernel, we would find these tools as useful or as widely used as we do today. And vice-versa: Linux would not have taken off if the GNU tools weren't available. I think we're at the point where we've got a lot of the "GNU tools", but we're waiting for a kernel to carry us forward. If we don't get that "kernel", it's always going to be later than sooner. I see an OSLN being able to provide that kernel. We might do it without an OSLN (i.e. later), but it will be much more difficult and much less focused. -- Jeremy --------------------------------- Jeremy Frumkin Metadata / Digital Development Librarian University of Arizona Libraries frumkinj@u.library.arizona.edu +1 520 621 2916 --------------------------------- "What we have here, is a failure to communicate" - Cool Hand Luke |
From: Peter S. <sch...@ns...> - 2001-05-22 04:57:48
|
This discussion is quite interesting. very thoughtful remarks by everyone. David makes excellent observations. In response to his remarks about the dearth of programmers in libraries and the lack of leadership for successful adoption of in libraries, I would say that we have a lot of bootstrapping work to do, especially in light of the fact that libraries are, as organisations, conservative. Right now OSS for libraries is in a very formative, nascent stage. A few projects here, good compelling ideas there, mostly found in academic libraries... a motley collection of efforts that is very similar to the hobbyists and their microcomputers back in 1976, too small for the radar screens of the likes of IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation. Consider what has happened since. Like the hobbyists and their microcomputers in the 1970s, we are basically creating a disruptive technology (and methodology). Disruptive technologies generally take root and develop slowly at first, on the periphery of the marketplace, their true significance often misunderstood or go unnoticed altogether, even scorned, by the leaders until one day we find these technologies have profoundly changed how we do things. In the mean time, those of us creating and using this disruptive technology, OSS in and for libraries, will have to take upon ourselves the leadership role. We will have to set the example and show what is possible, one project at a time. If we are sufficiently motivated it is definitely possible for us to change the order of things. Peter Schlumpf North Suburban Library System 200 West Dundee Road Wheeling, IL, 60090 Phone: 847-459-1300 x 7155 e-mail: sch...@ns... www.nslsilus.org -----Original Message----- From: David Dorman To: oss...@li... Sent: 5/21/01 10:17 AM Subject: [oss4lib-discuss] Open Source Software and Libraries Eric, You've posed some very ambitious questions for Monday morning. I think we all recognize that there are many similarities between the ethics and culture of the open source software movement and libraries: libraries have been cooperating and networking for years and have structures for the "care and feeding" of many library activities, most notably cataloging. Libraries would already have enthusiastically and successfully embrased open source software, except for three critical barriers. The first barrier is that there are fewer and fewer programmers working for libraries because. by and large, only large academic libraries, large library systems, and very large public libraries can afford to hire programmers. The second barrier is that this country does not have a national libray that takes a leadership role in coordinating national initiatives. The third barrier is that most libraries as organizations are very conservative. Let me elaborate on this second barrier. We can all envision how open source library application software could be developed and maintained, but we also see that at present there are only a small scattering of people working to make it happen--far short of the critical mass there needs to be. Where are the library leaders calling for institutional and funding mechanisms to make open source happen in libraries? The Library of Congress cannot give us this leadership--they have neither the mandate nor the resources to do so. CLR could take a leadership role among academic libraries but has not chosen to do so. ALA initiatives have always been more general and political in nature. OCLC, which has in the past few years acted more like a national library than LC, and has initiated many far reaching and innovative programs and services, seems too caught up in generating revenue from its own propriety software to embrase the open source model. So how can we break down the barriers? Looking at the history of cooperative cataloging is instructive. Between 1905 and 1968 LC provided the only shared cataloging available. In the mid 1960's it provided the leadership, through Henriette Abrams, in developing a Machine Readable Cataloging standard. What really made shared machine readable cataloging successful, however, was a group of libraries in Ohio that began the Ohio College Library Cooperative in 1967 under the leadership of Fred Kilgour. What we need today is small group of libraries and and another visionary leader to launch an open source library network--an OSLN that could manage and form the core of a growing open source movement within libraries world wide. The need for leadership than will turn heads, change minds and harness open source library programming resources is so palpable we can all feel it. An OSLN could eventually transform the library landscape even more thoroughly than OCLC has done. I have no doubt that in the long run libraries will embrase the open source model, because it makes sense and because of the many dedicated liberary-related programmers who are already engaged in making it happen. But in the long run we are all dead, and time's a wasting. >What do you think the current state of open source software is in libraries >(OSSNLibraries)? > >I have been given the opportunity to talk about open source software in >libraries at ALA this year. The specific topic is a bit wide open and >consequently I plan to do three things. One, I plan to revisit an essay I >wrote quite a number of months ago comparing and contrasting open source >software to libraries and gift cultures: > > http://www.infomotions.com/musings/gift-cultures.shtml > >Two, I plan to share my experiences with one particular open source software >project, MyLibrary@NCState: > > http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/development/mylibrary/ > >Three, I plan to give a brief overview of the state of open source software >in libraries. To do this I plan to look at some of the open source software >available for libraries: > > http://www.oss4lib.org/ > >I believe open source software definitely provides many opportunities for >libraries. There is no doubt about it, but these opportunities come at a >cost. Open source software is as "free" as a free kitten. In other words, >open source software requires "care and feeding". It requires a "good home" >in order to "grow up big and strong", and sometimes I wonder whether or not >the library profession has enough "good homes." Are there enough people in >libraries who know how to install and configure open source software to >allow the software to mature? Are there enough people with the necessary >skills to enhance the software when necessary? The success of open source >software requires lots o' communication, and based on my experiences with >mylib-dev, I wonder whether or not people are talking the time to explicitly >record their discoveries and share them on mailing lists. > >So, some of my questions are: Do you think the professional ethics of >librarianship are similar to the ethics of open sources software? Why or why >not. What do you think the future of open source software is in libraries, >and what can we, as developers and people of this forum, do to create a more >synergistic whole of the software that is currently available? > >-- >Eric "How's That For A Monday Morning?" Morgan > > >_______________________________________________ >oss...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss >see also http://oss4lib.org -- David Dorman Lincoln Trail Libraries System 1704 West Interstate Drive Champaign, IL 61822-1068 Phone: 217-352-0047 Fax: 217-352-7153 E-mail: dd...@lt... Web Site: http://www.ltls.org _______________________________________________ oss...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss see also http://oss4lib.org |
From: Karen C. <kar...@uc...> - 2001-05-22 17:07:41
|
At 11:51 PM 5/21/01 -0500, Peter Schlumpf wrote: > I would say that we have a lot of >bootstrapping work to do, especially in light of the fact that libraries >are, as organisations, conservative. That libraries are conservative as institutions is not in itself a bad thing. I have great admiration for the fact that libraries make long-range choices. It is because of those choices that the world has access to works hundreds of years old as well as some of the latest and greatest electronic materials. For open source to succeed in libraries it has to acknowledge that the mission of libraries will outlive any technology that we come up with today. Libraries have to be cautious of techno-fads that will threaten their ability to provide access in the future (aren't you glad we didn't put everything on microfiche in the '70's, when technologists were telling us that was the way to go?). What this mean to me, in relation to open source, is: standards, standards, standards. The more we support standards, the more useful the software will be. And the standards that we develop need to be "transformative" -- that means that they must support current and future technologies. In a sense, I see an inherent tension between libraries and technology, but it's a legitimate and useful tension. ********* Karen Coyle California Digital Library 510-987-0567 ********* |
From: Frumkin, J. <frumkinj@u.library.arizona.edu> - 2001-05-22 17:36:51
|
Kren Coyle wrote: For open source to succeed in libraries it has to acknowledge that the mission of libraries will outlive any technology that we come up with today. Libraries have to be cautious of techno-fads that will threaten their ability to provide access in the future (aren't you glad we didn't put everything on microfiche in the '70's, when technologists were telling us that was the way to go?). What this mean to me, in relation to open source, is: standards, standards, standards. The more we support standards, the more useful the software will be. And the standards that we develop need to be "transformative" -- that means that they must support current and future technologies. Karen's point about the mission of libraries being greater than any technology is well taken. The technology of today is never the technology of tomorrow. And I believe that Open Source Software's mission promotes many of the same values and attributes that the library does; OSS and its mission will outlive any technology that is there today or tomorrow - it is not bound in a single program or Operating System (although it sometimes seems that way, because of the huge success of certain OSS projects). So, I think that, in addition to what Karen states, in order for OSS to succeed in libraries, libraries have to acknowledge that OSS is not a fad, and that OSS is not tied to a particular technology; instead, OSS is to technology what libraries are to information. And libraries need to recognize that. -- Jeremy In a sense, I see an inherent tension between libraries and technology, but it's a legitimate and useful tension. ********* Karen Coyle California Digital Library 510-987-0567 ********* |
From: Nathan W. <na...@ni...> - 2001-05-22 17:47:01
|
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Schlumpf [mailto:sch...@ns...] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 11:52 PM To: 'David Dorman '; 'oss...@li... ' Subject: RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Open Source Software and Libraries <snip> Like the hobbyists and their microcomputers in the 1970s, we are basically creating a disruptive technology (and methodology). Disruptive technologies generally take root and develop slowly at first, on the periphery of the marketplace, their true significance often misunderstood or go unnoticed altogether, even scorned, by the leaders until one day we find these technologies have profoundly changed how we do things. In the mean time, those of us creating and using this disruptive technology, OSS in and for libraries, will have to take upon ourselves the leadership role. We will have to set the example and show what is possible, one project at a time. If we are sufficiently motivated it is definitely possible for us to change the order of things. </snip> I definitely agree with these thoughts, Peter. Per Karen's example though, for OSS not to become a "techno-fad", will take some doing. Obviously, many people still view OSS in libraries as a fad, no matter how many organizations endorse its use. In a way, I think its wrong though, to address OSS in libraries as a technology just awaiting acceptance. I don't believe there is a "mean time". The time is very much now, or never. Of course, I'm not suggesting you don't know this already Peter, since you do more than most for OSS in libraries In terms of leadership though, I think it's important to not just address leadership individually at our respective institutions but also create a platform for others to see what we're doing. oss4lib and others are great for giving us a forum, but it isn't an adequate forum for showing non-geek librarians what's great about OSS and why they should jump in. Sorry for howling into the night. I know I'm just rehashing a lot of these thoughts, but it seemed important to bring them up. nathan |
From: Erkens, C. (LIB) <ce...@om...> - 2001-05-22 18:32:20
|
It seems to me, then, the place to start showing libraries that OSS is a way to help all libraries is to start with the library organizations. Do we have booths? Showing the wonders and joys as well as letting librarians and administrators know these things are ongoing developments may go far in "selling" the idea. Money people come to the conventions. The only reason I found this list and even thought about looking was, my husband introduced me to Linux. I installed it on one of my HDs at home and it got me thinking about things I could do at work to make life easier. I did a web search and found oos4lib, but I wonder how many other people are like me, no clue that there's a group working on OSS for & in libraries. We need to SHOW people what OSS can do. We have to SHOW them why it makes more sense to go OSS rather than buying into a package deal that very well may not be supported in 1, 2, or 3 years, which will require a costly upgrade. Once those people are convinced, they will be able to sell their moneymakers/moneyraisers on the idea. Publicity, exposure, articles written in library journals and electronic journals for libraries (I know some articles have been written because I found Daniel's name that way) but we need to go more mainstream. Open source hasn't had too many "leaders" that I've seen as most of the people doing the programming/coding are very independent. But the OSS movement does have spokespersons. Perhaps an official oss4lib Spokesperson is what is needed. Carol Erkens, Webmaster Omaha Public Library -----Original Message----- From: Peter Schlumpf [mailto:sch...@ns...] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 11:52 PM To: 'David Dorman '; 'oss...@li... ' Subject: RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Open Source Software and Libraries <snip> Like the hobbyists and their microcomputers in the 1970s, we are basically creating a disruptive technology (and methodology). Disruptive technologies generally take root and develop slowly at first, on the periphery of the marketplace, their true significance often misunderstood or go unnoticed altogether, even scorned, by the leaders until one day we find these technologies have profoundly changed how we do things. In the mean time, those of us creating and using this disruptive technology, OSS in and for libraries, will have to take upon ourselves the leadership role. We will have to set the example and show what is possible, one project at a time. If we are sufficiently motivated it is definitely possible for us to change the order of things. </snip> I definitely agree with these thoughts, Peter. Per Karen's example though, for OSS not to become a "techno-fad", will take some doing. Obviously, many people still view OSS in libraries as a fad, no matter how many organizations endorse its use. In a way, I think its wrong though, to address OSS in libraries as a technology just awaiting acceptance. I don't believe there is a "mean time". The time is very much now, or never. Of course, I'm not suggesting you don't know this already Peter, since you do more than most for OSS in libraries In terms of leadership though, I think it's important to not just address leadership individually at our respective institutions but also create a platform for others to see what we're doing. oss4lib and others are great for giving us a forum, but it isn't an adequate forum for showing non-geek librarians what's great about OSS and why they should jump in. Sorry for howling into the night. I know I'm just rehashing a lot of these thoughts, but it seemed important to bring them up. nathan |
From: Peter S. <sch...@ns...> - 2001-05-22 20:31:53
|
At the North Suburban Library System here just outside of Chicago we are planning on hosting an Open Source Symposium this Fall. We plan this to be a one day event where we can bring in speakers and demo projects and software. It's intended to create an awareness of open source software in libraries, be an opportunity for librarians to meet developers and to be able to actually *see* and demo the software and show then what it can do. In order to create awareness we're directing this toward non-technical librarians and we're hoping to attract as many of them as possible, *especially* library administrators. I'll post an announcement on the list as the details of the event come together. Peter Schlumpf North Suburban Library System -----Original Message----- From: Erkens, Carol (LIB) [mailto:ce...@om...] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:32 PM To: 'oss...@li... ' Subject: RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Open Source Software and Libraries It seems to me, then, the place to start showing libraries that OSS is a way to help all libraries is to start with the library organizations. Do we have booths? Showing the wonders and joys as well as letting librarians and administrators know these things are ongoing developments may go far in "selling" the idea. Money people come to the conventions. The only reason I found this list and even thought about looking was, my husband introduced me to Linux. I installed it on one of my HDs at home and it got me thinking about things I could do at work to make life easier. I did a web search and found oos4lib, but I wonder how many other people are like me, no clue that there's a group working on OSS for & in libraries. We need to SHOW people what OSS can do. We have to SHOW them why it makes more sense to go OSS rather than buying into a package deal that very well may not be supported in 1, 2, or 3 years, which will require a costly upgrade. Once those people are convinced, they will be able to sell their moneymakers/moneyraisers on the idea. Publicity, exposure, articles written in library journals and electronic journals for libraries (I know some articles have been written because I found Daniel's name that way) but we need to go more mainstream. Open source hasn't had too many "leaders" that I've seen as most of the people doing the programming/coding are very independent. But the OSS movement does have spokespersons. Perhaps an official oss4lib Spokesperson is what is needed. |
From: Rachel C. <jc...@ma...> - 2001-05-24 21:53:04
|
>We need to SHOW people what OSS can do. We have to SHOW them why it makes >more sense to go OSS rather than buying into a package deal that very well >may not be supported in 1, 2, or 3 years, which will require a costly upgrade. Beyond SHOWING people what OSS can do, we need to find ways to make it easier for people to adopt these programs. Let's not forget we are talking among a group of people who are relatively comfortable with the OSS environment . However, to move OSS out to the mainstream, we need to remember that most of the people in the library views Unix, Perl, etc. with trepidation. They either don't have IT people in the library, don't know how to communicate their need to their IT people in their institution or need some ways to gain some hands-on experience and confidence before jumping in. We tend to think that writing programs is the difficult part. The reality is that for people who has no prior experience, adopting an OSS program is harder. The hands-on NERCOMP workshop I organized in April to give people a chance to walk through the process of adopting Prospero and MyLibrary was a good example. In theory, this was supposed to be easy. However, plenty of things can go wrong when you actually sit down to do it. Until you are comfortable with the environment, you need all the help you can get. If our purpose is to widen the acceptance of OSS in the libraries, we need to find ways provide hands-on trainings. Ideally, we need a one week hands-on workshop to give people a chance to get comfortable with OSS environment, covering Unix, Perl, etc. Give them the opportunity to install an OSS application. If we are lucky and can get the creator of the application to participate in the workshop, we might want to set the roomful of people into enhancing the application they just install. We probably should run this kind of week-long workshop at least once a year for a few years to create a critical mass. This is very doable if we have a group of people who are willing to lead the training sessions. If the workshop is held during the summer, we shouldn't have problem finding a good facilities I will be happy to work on this if there is enough interest. **************************************** Rachel Cheng Associate University Librarian Olin Library Wesleyan University Middletown, CT 06459 Email: jc...@we... Fax: 860-685-3910 Tel: 860-685-3887 |
From: David D. <dd...@lt...> - 2001-05-25 14:51:55
|
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 } --></style><title>RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Open Source Software and Librari</title></head><body> <div><font face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#000000">A major reason why open source software appeals to many of us is because of the combination of ideals it represents: cooperation, creativity, and good works. But the reason it has spread as fast as it has in the business world is that it also represents an economic opportunity to gain on the competition. There is money to be made by adopting the open source approach.<br> <br> The success of open source library management software in the library world will, I believe, require a partnership between libraries and vendors. Let's be realistic about complex software: it requires sales and support regardless of how it is maintained and developed. And these sales and support roles are best played by companies that try to maximize their net income--whether or not they pay taxes on that income.<br> <br> I predict it will not be long before library technology vendors will begin to market open source library application software, and that this initial step will gradually lead to more and more vendors using open source add-ons as value added componants to their proprietary LMS software. The next big step will come when one vendor, either existing or new, decides to market a complete open source LMS solution. This will drive the market to further embrace open source. Then we will have open source LMS solutions competing with proprietary solutions, just as we have in the broader technology arena.<br> <br> If any vendor folks are lurking on this list, consider being the first to take the plunge--you will find yourself riding the crest of a profitable wave.<br> <br> </font>David</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000080">We need to SHOW people what OSS can do. We have to SHOW them why it makes more sense to go OSS rather than buying into a package deal that very well may not be supported in 1, 2, or 3 years, which will require a costly upgrade.</font><br> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br> <font size="-1">Beyond SHOWING people what OSS can do, we need to find ways to make it easier for people to adopt these programs. Let's not forget we are talking among a group of people who are relatively comfortable with the OSS environment . However, to move OSS out to the mainstream, we need to remember that most of the people in the library views Unix, Perl, etc. with trepidation. They either don't have IT people in the library, don't know how to communicate their need to their IT people in their institution or need some ways to gain some hands-on experience and confidence before jumping in.</font> We tend to think that writing programs is the difficult part. The reality is that for people who has no prior experience, adopting an OSS program is harder.<br> <br> The hands-on NERCOMP workshop I organized in April to give people a chance to walk through the process of adopting Prospero and MyLibrary was a good example. In theory, this was supposed to be easy. However, plenty of things can go wrong when you actually sit down to do it. Until you are comfortable with the environment, you need all the help you can get. If our purpose is to widen the acceptance of OSS in the libraries, we need to find ways provide hands-on trainings.<br> <br> Ideally, we need a one week hands-on workshop to give people a chance to get comfortable with OSS environment, covering Unix, Perl, etc. Give them the opportunity to install an OSS application. If we are lucky and can get the creator of the application to participate in the workshop, we might want to set the roomful of people into enhancing the application they just install. We probably should run this kind of week-long workshop at least once a year for a few years to create a critical mass.<br> <br> This is very doable if we have a group of people who are willing to lead the training sessions. If the workshop is held during the summer, we shouldn't have problem finding a good facilities I will be happy to work on this if there is enough interest.</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>****************************************</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Rachel Cheng</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Associate University Librarian</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Olin Library</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Wesleyan University</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Middletown, CT 06459</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Email: jc...@we...</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Fax: 860-685-3910</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Tel: 860-685-3887</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div>David Dorman<br> Lincoln Trail Libraries System<br> 1704 West Interstate Drive<br> Champaign, IL 61822-1068<br> Phone: 217-352-0047<br> Fax: 217-352-7153<br> E-mail: dd...@lt...<br> Web Site: http://www.ltls.org</div> </body> </html> |
From: charles G. <cha...@ya...> - 2001-05-25 16:05:19
|
Hi, On the point made by Rachel, a historical correlate for changing the direction and mindset of medical education toward Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) was established though a a institutional pioneer (McMaster University) sponsoring a weeklong (or longer) immersion workshops for physician teachers, usually residency directors. Knowing how busy physicians are, it took the commitment of a week of immersion for small numbers of medical educators to become engaged, convinced, and eventually evangelists. And it did take a nearly a decade for the critical mass we see today of nearly every medical school and residency program adopting the best evidence philosophy either wholesale or in meaningful components, despite the tenacity of traditional conservatism in medical teaching. IMHO, the key for an OSS immersion workshop for library systems staff would be to continue to have a visible movement that grabs the attention of library administrators that are willing to support workshop attendance. Unlike physicians, not much individual discretionary income among the library professional community. Charlie At 05:54 PM 05/24/2001 -0400, Rachel Cheng wrote: >.....Ideally, we need a one week hands-on workshop to give people a chance >to get comfortable with OSS environment, covering Unix, Perl, etc. Give >them the opportunity to install an OSS application. If we are lucky and >can get the creator of the application to participate in the workshop, we >might want to set the roomful of people into enhancing the application >they just install. We probably should run this kind of week-long workshop >at least once a year for a few years to create a critical mass. > >This is very doable if we have a group of people who are willing to lead >the training sessions. If the workshop is held during the summer, we >shouldn't have problem finding a good facilities I will be happy to work >on this if there is enough interest. > >**************************************** >Rachel Cheng Charles J. Greenberg cha...@ya... Head of Reference Services Tel: 203-737-2960 Cushing/Whitney Medical Library FAX: 203-785-4369 eFax: 508-448-8513 Yale University http://info.med.yale.edu/library/ |
From: Karen C. <kar...@uc...> - 2001-05-25 19:56:30
|
At 12:11 PM 5/25/01 -0400, charles Greenberg wrote: >IMHO, the key for an OSS immersion workshop for library systems staff >would be to continue to have a visible movement that grabs the attention >of library administrators that are willing to support workshop >attendance. Unlike physicians, not much individual discretionary income >among the library professional community. It would help if these workshops had the imprimatur of a respectable library organization. They would also benefit from the structural support that such an organization could give. Has anyone approached LITA about doing OSS_related institutes or workshops? Although those are usually only one day, it would be a beginning, and LITA does much of the organizational work. Getting back to the documentation/training area, LITA is also a logical place to publish the documentation and training guides for any OSS products that are ready for prime time. As O'Reilly has proven, there is a market and a need for good, printed documentation for software that is free. It's part of the overall support package that makes that software viable. ---------------------------------------------- Karen Coyle kar...@uc... University of California Digital Library http://www.kcoyle.net 510/987-0567 ---------------------------------------------- |
From: Peter S. <sch...@ns...> - 2001-05-25 07:19:31
|
Beyond SHOWING people what OSS can do, we need to find ways to make it easier for people to adopt these programs. Let's not forget we are talking among a group of people who are relatively comfortable with the OSS environment . However, to move OSS out to the mainstream, we need to remember that most of the people in the library views Unix, Perl, etc. with trepidation. They either don't have IT people in the library, don't know how to communicate their need to their IT people in their institution or need some ways to gain some hands-on experience and confidence before jumping in. We tend to think that writing programs is the difficult part. The reality is that for people who has no prior experience, adopting an OSS program is harder. Rachel makes an excellent point here. The hands-on NERCOMP workshop I organized in April to give people a chance to walk through the process of adopting Prospero and MyLibrary was a good example. In theory, this was supposed to be easy. However, plenty of things can go wrong when you actually sit down to do it. Until you are comfortable with the environment, you need all the help you can get. If our purpose is to widen the acceptance of OSS in the libraries, we need to find ways provide hands-on trainings. I was one of the speakers at the NERCOMP workshop, and one of the messages I had tried to express (were it not for my painfully discovered limitations as an extemporaneous speaker) is the importance of packaging. In a way we're preaching to the choir. Almost all OSS software assumes so many things about not only the competence of the user in installing the stuff, but also the operating environment. All too often it assumes one has a Unix box with MySQL, Apache, &ct. available and installed in a particular odd way, and that the user is competent to integrate the software into that environment.. Although it may be an indication of the relative immaturity of OSS in libraries, this does absolutely no good for perhaps 90 per cent of libraries out there that might be able to benefit from OSS for libraries, especially the small ones with no IT staff that are priced out of the commercial automation marketplace. This is one of my eventual goals for the Avanti project, as primitive as it may be at present. I want it to be a platform independent product that assumes as little as possible about the operating environment, and the user. I may go as far as to develop a complete hardware/software solution... a library automation server appliance, if you will. User training is important. But good software design, including the installation process, is critical and must meet the user part-way in ease of installation and use, if it is to be successful at all. Peter Schlumpf North Suburban Library System sch...@ns... |
From: Gordon P. <pa...@cs...> - 2001-05-25 22:01:58
|
> From: Rachel Cheng <jc...@ma...> > The hands-on NERCOMP workshop I organized in April to give people > a chance to walk through the process of adopting Prospero and > MyLibrary was a good example. Here's another: Ian Witten is doing a Greenstone workshop at JCDL next month. > From: Peter Schlumpf <sch...@ns...> > Beyond SHOWING people what OSS can do, we need to find ways to > make it easier for people to adopt these programs. Let's not > forget we are talking among a group of people who are relatively > comfortable with the OSS environment . It's not so much the OSS environment that is the problem, it is the user interface (i.e. librarians shouldn't have to use perl or set up web servers, open source or otherwise). Greenstone is currently popular because we have 1) created a point-and-click web interface that can be used inplace of the command-line interface; 2) created an easy-to-install Windows binary version; and 3) written manuals. This is obviously a lot more accessable than the earlier versions (which required perl and unix knowledge), but it required a lot of hard work and enthusiasm from a lot of people. Greenstone 2.35 is out, by the way; oss4lib announcement to follow. Gordon |
From: Eric L. M. <eri...@nc...> - 2001-05-21 20:13:09
|
Frumkin, Jeremy <frumkinj@u.library.arizona.edu>: > David Dorman proclaimed: > >> What we need today is small group of libraries and and another >> visionary leader to launch an open source library network--an OSLN >> that could manage and form the core of a growing open source movement >> within libraries world wide.... > > David's statement of need for an Open Source Library Network, or OSLN, is > right on the mark. Right now, we have a number of quite useful OSS projects > and tools available (YAZ, MyLibrary, Jake, Prospero, OSCR, Avanti, XMLMARC > come immediately to mind). But we don't have anything or anyone really > trying to tie them together. Why do we need to bring these projects > together? Well, the best way I can think of to explain this is to look at > Linux and GNU software. Richard Stallman and the GNU Project have given us > emacs, GCC, and a host of other tools. But I doubt that, without the Linux > kernel, we would find these tools as useful or as widely used as we do > today. And vice-versa: Linux would not have taken off if the GNU tools > weren't available. I think we're at the point where we've got a lot of the > "GNU tools", but we're waiting for a kernel to carry us forward. If we don't > get that "kernel", it's always going to be later than sooner. I see an OSLN > being able to provide that kernel. We might do it without an OSLN (i.e. > later), but it will be much more difficult and much less focused. I would like to echo Jeremy's comments. Many of the open source software tools/programs available for libraries address specific library functions. If we were to find a way to integrate these functions into some sort of coherent whole, then the result might be greater than the sum of the parts. How could we do this? What are the common elements among the various projects that could tie them together as a synergistic whole? Similarly, maybe we could use the available library-related open source software to redefine the term "integrated library system." Our present ILS's are mainly giant and specialized book databases, but libraries are so much more than books. Libraries also facilitate bibliographic searches, document delivery, the maintenance of other types of lists (journals, Internet resources, etc.), federated indexes, citation verification, etc. What's worse is none of these services really take into account the existence of the other services. Using existing open source software maybe we could build a new ILS taking into account the wider range of services libraries provide -- beyond books. -- Eric Lease Morgan |
From: Karen C. <kar...@uc...> - 2001-05-21 20:34:55
|
At 04:13 PM 5/21/01 -0400, Eric Lease Morgan wrote: >Similarly, maybe we could use the available library-related open source >software to redefine the term "integrated library system." Our present ILS's >are mainly giant and specialized book databases, but libraries are so much >more than books. Actually, the main function of the ILS is management of the library -- purchasing, serials check-in, circulation. I think we ought to leave those alone -- they are devilishly hard because of the great variety of needs of different libraries, and any vendor will tell you that this is where they spend most of their time. What would be useful, IMHO, would be services that can work off of the basic bibliographic database as well as integrate other resources. For instance, I would like a better way to keep track of what I've already retrieved so I don't keep looking at the same bib records over and over again. Why can't I have a personal database that my current searches are filtered against so I can see items that are "new" to me first, and then ones that I probably have seen before. Or how about software that helps me take a set of 400 retrieved items and breaks them down into categories so I can make sense of what I've retrieved? I think that the "MyLibrary" and "Metalib" concepts are good ones. Rather than having to re-invent the whole library database, we could build on top of them, creating user functions that are flexible and personalizable. Well, Eric, maybe this is what you meant: that the "integrated" library system needs to be integrated from the user point of view, integrating searching and bibliography manipulation; whereas the tradition "integration" is an integration of the library management functions and very little attention is paid to the side of the system that the user sees. ---------------------------------------------- Karen Coyle kar...@uc... University of California Digital Library http://www.kcoyle.net 510/987-0567 ---------------------------------------------- |
From: Eric L. M. <eri...@nc...> - 2001-05-21 21:04:12
|
Karen Coyle <kar...@uc...>: > What would be useful, IMHO, would be services that can work off of the > basic bibliographic database as well as integrate other resources. For > instance, I would like a better way to keep track of what I've already > retrieved so I don't keep looking at the same bib records over and over > again. Why can't I have a personal database that my current searches are > filtered against so I can see items that are "new" to me first, and then > ones that I probably have seen before. Or how about software that helps me > take a set of 400 retrieved items and breaks them down into categories so I > can make sense of what I've retrieved? > > I think that the "MyLibrary" and "Metalib" concepts are good ones. Rather > than having to re-invent the whole library database, we could build on top > of them, creating user functions that are flexible and personalizable. > > Well, Eric, maybe this is what you meant: that the "integrated" library > system needs to be integrated from the user point of view, integrating > searching and bibliography manipulation; whereas the tradition > "integration" is an integration of the library management functions and > very little attention is paid to the side of the system that the user sees. Yes, I was thinking more along the lines of integration from the user's point of view, but I was also thinking along the lines of various services provided by the libraries. Library services should be more aware of each other, and the common element of each service should be the user. I imagine it working like a fancy department store where a shopper goes to a particular department to buy a suit. After getting the suit the shopper goes to buy a tie and the salesman goes with him (or her). Sooner or later the salesman and shopper have gone all over store. In a library each of the services should know where the user has been in order to provide the best services. Maybe the existing open source software can be "integrated" to create this sort of view of library services. -- Eric Lease Morgan |