[CODE4LIB] New England code4lib gathering
(resending - original was rejected by listserv for being too similar to a completely dissimilar message I sent about a week ago) Hi gang, code4libbers in the New England area are cordially invited to express their interest in and opinions on a regional gathering, shape and size TBD. So far our motives are vague and our means are humble (a single wiki page), but you gotta start somewhere, right? If you live in the Northeast and don't want to wait until the real thing in Providence, Feb 2009, make yourself known at http://ne.code4lib.org/wiki/. --jay
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
I think that one advantage of browsing a physical shelf is that the shelf is linear, so it's very easy to methodically browse from the left end of the shelf to the right, and have a sense that you haven't accidentally missed anything. (Ignore, for the moment, all the books that happen to be checked out and not on the shelf...) Online, linearity is no longer a constraint, which is a very good thing, but it does have some drawbacks as well. There is usually no clear way to follow a series of "more like this" links and get a sense that you have seen all the books that the library has on a given subject. Yes, you might get lucky and discover some great things, but it usually involves a lot of aimless wandering, coming back to the same highly-related items again and again, while missing some slightly-more-distantly-related items. Ideally, the user should be able to run a query, retrieve a set of items, sort them however he wants (by author, date, call number, some kind of dynamic clustering algorithm, whatever), and be able to methodically browse from one end of that sort order to the other without any fear of missing something. Keith On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Stephens, Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we need to understand the > way people use browse to navigate resources if we are to successfully bring > the concept of collection browsing to our navigation tools. David suggests > that we should think of a shelf browse as a type of 'show me more like this' > which is definitely one reason to browse - but is it the only reason?
Re: [CODE4LIB] LOC Authority Data
If only we knew someone who worked in the LOC that we could tell this information to From: Code for Libraries [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:02 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LOC Authority Data On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought I remembered something about Casey Bisson doing exactly that with > a grant/award he received? I forget what happened to it. A snapshot would > just be a snapshot of course, it wouldn't include records created or > modified after the snapshot. That was the bibliographic records which he purchased and donated to the Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org/details/marc_records_scriblio_net They are also available via a torrent: http://torrents.code4lib.org/ It definitely would be nice to do the same thing for the authority data. It's kind of absurd to me that this data isn't already in the public domain, since it's uh in the public domain. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer. //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] New England regional code4lib gathering
Likewise, we've set up a site to gauge interest in the Appalachian region (or around there) for a local code4lib gathering. Jason Griffey has volunteered to host it at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga if we get enough interest. There isn't much there on the site now but if you're interested in attending a local code4lib camp in that area make yourself known at http://appalachia.code4lib.org Kevin On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Jay Luker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi gang, > > code4libbers in the New England area are cordially invited to express > their interest in and opinions on a regional gathering, shape and size > TBD. So far our motives are vague and our means are humble (a single > wiki page), but you gotta start somewhere, right? > > If you live in the Northeast and don't want to wait until the real > thing in Providence, Feb 2009, make yourself known at > http://ne.code4lib.org/wiki/. > > --Jay > -- There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who know better.
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
In very few libraries are all items on the same shelf. An on-line environment has the advantage of seeing everything in one call number run. It can be much more complete. Oversized Videos Microfiche Latest Arrivals Youth Juvenile Maps Special Collections Etc Sincerely, David Bigwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://catalogablog.blogspot.com Twitter LPI_Library -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Jenkins Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:22 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse I think that one advantage of browsing a physical shelf is that the shelf is linear, so it's very easy to methodically browse from the left end of the shelf to the right, and have a sense that you haven't accidentally missed anything. (Ignore, for the moment, all the books that happen to be checked out and not on the shelf...) Keith
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
this was also a big part of why i think a virtual stack browse has something to offer. our campus has over 40 libraries ranging from the largest library in the state to departmental reading rooms w/ items in our catalog. a virtual stack browse has the benefit of leveraging the benefits of call number enabled serendipitous discovery across multiple physical locations even if they are all books. -steve Bigwood, David wrote: In very few libraries are all items on the same shelf. An on-line environment has the advantage of seeing everything in one call number run. It can be much more complete. Oversized Videos Microfiche Latest Arrivals Youth Juvenile Maps Special Collections Etc Sincerely, David Bigwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://catalogablog.blogspot.com Twitter LPI_Library -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Jenkins Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:22 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse I think that one advantage of browsing a physical shelf is that the shelf is linear, so it's very easy to methodically browse from the left end of the shelf to the right, and have a sense that you haven't accidentally missed anything. (Ignore, for the moment, all the books that happen to be checked out and not on the shelf...) Keith -- Stephen Meyer Library Application Developer UW-Madison Libraries 312F Memorial Library 728 State St. Madison, WI 53706 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 608-265-2844 (ph) "Just don't let the human factor fail to be a factor at all." - Andrew Bird, "Tables and Chairs"
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Keith Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that one advantage of browsing a physical shelf is that the > shelf is linear, so it's very easy to methodically browse from the > left end of the shelf to the right, and have a sense that you haven't > accidentally missed anything. (Ignore, for the moment, all the books > that happen to be checked out and not on the shelf...) Also ignore the fact that in a lot of cases, the subject authority's decision of what a book is about may not correspond to what I think a book is about. This is especially true in the case where I'm doing research on a topic that's not the primary subject of many books, but is covered in books about other things. I'd hypothesize that maybe stack browsing is satisfying largely because it gives you the opportunity to look into each work, see its format and level of depth and treatment of your topic of interest. You get a whole lot of information (information that isn't contained in the catalog records) really fast. Stack browsing may make people happy, but I'm far from convinced that providing a linear browse in shelf order will provide the same satisfaction. Cheers, -Nate
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
Nate Vack wrote: ... Stack browsing may make people happy, but I'm far from convinced that providing a linear browse in shelf order will provide the same satisfaction. Cheers, -Nate No, I'm pretty sure it won't, as currently designed. But a linear, shelf-order browse /online/ with covers, and with quick, one-click access to jacket blurbs, Amazon or Google peeks inside, reviews, etc., I think might make people even happier. Larry
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
I agree with this in general - and this was my point about the 'Coverflow' in iTunes, that it allows a variety of sorting methods - although it is still limited. I think there are perhaps some other factors as well. Shelf-browsing allows users to wander into 'their' part of the library and look at stuff - but I don't think most OPACs have the equivalent. With a bookstore (physically and virtually) we might see genre sections we can browse. This might also work for public libraries? In research libraries we tend to just present the classification without further glossing I think - perhaps this is something we ought to consider online? The other thing that occurs to me about browsing by class mark is that it presents a 'spectrum' view of a kind. This could be easily lost in the type of 'search and sort' system you suggest (although I still think this is a good idea btw). At the same time I'm a bit reluctant to stop at providing a classification browse, as it seems inherently limited. I agree with the point about browsing the shelves and exploring the material in more depth are related - which suggests integration with other content-rich services are needed (Google Books, e-books, other providers) Owen Stephens Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources Central Library Imperial College London South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Keith Jenkins > Sent: 01 October 2008 13:22 > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse > > I think that one advantage of browsing a physical shelf is that the > shelf is linear, so it's very easy to methodically browse from the > left end of the shelf to the right, and have a sense that you haven't > accidentally missed anything. (Ignore, for the moment, all the books > that happen to be checked out and not on the shelf...) > > Online, linearity is no longer a constraint, which is a very good > thing, but it does have some drawbacks as well. There is usually no > clear way to follow a series of "more like this" links and get a sense > that you have seen all the books that the library has on a given > subject. Yes, you might get lucky and discover some great things, but > it usually involves a lot of aimless wandering, coming back to the > same highly-related items again and again, while missing some > slightly-more-distantly-related items. > > Ideally, the user should be able to run a query, retrieve a set of > items, sort them however he wants (by author, date, call number, some > kind of dynamic clustering algorithm, whatever), and be able to > methodically browse from one end of that sort order to the other > without any fear of missing something. > > Keith > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Stephens, Owen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think we need to understand the > > way people use browse to navigate resources if we are to successfully > bring > > the concept of collection browsing to our navigation tools. David > suggests > > that we should think of a shelf browse as a type of 'show me more > like this' > > which is definitely one reason to browse - but is it the only reason?
Re: [CODE4LIB] New England code4lib gathering
In general, do members think it's best—most popular but also most productive— to meet at a *hub* or somewhere off the beaten path? If the former, it's Boston all the way, right? If the latter, Portland, Maine is a really nice place to meet, and I can put a bunch of you up at the LibraryThing house. :) T On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Jay Luker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (resending - original was rejected by listserv for being too similar > to a completely dissimilar message I sent about a week ago) > > Hi gang, > > code4libbers in the New England area are cordially invited to express > their interest in and opinions on a regional gathering, shape and size > TBD. So far our motives are vague and our means are humble (a single > wiki page), but you gotta start somewhere, right? > > If you live in the Northeast and don't want to wait until the real > thing in Providence, Feb 2009, make yourself known at > http://ne.code4lib.org/wiki/. > > --jay > -- Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
Re: [CODE4LIB] New England code4lib gathering
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Tim Spalding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In general, do members think it's best—most popular but also most > productive— to meet at a *hub* or somewhere off the beaten path? > > If the former, it's Boston all the way, right? If the latter, > Portland, Maine is a really nice place to meet, and I can put a bunch > of you up at the LibraryThing house. :) Boston works well for me. Portland too. The reasons I threw the Northampton/Amherst area out there are a) it's central to a lot of NE and is on or near the major highways (91 and 90), b) has a lot of campuses that might be able to lend us a space or two, c) those spaces might already have projectors and such, d) it has a large number of bars and cafes. Of course you can say most of those things about Boston as well. Being located in Boston myself, it's all pretty easy for me. As per code4lib custom, we should probably end up putting it to a vote once folks have had a chance to chime in with offers/suggestions. Location ideas that come attached to actual, arranged hosting offers will be most welcome. --jay
Re: [CODE4LIB] New England code4lib gathering
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Jay Luker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reasons I threw the Northampton/Amherst area out there are a) it's > central to a lot of NE and is on or near the major highways (91 and > 90) ...and if you are willing to bend the interpretation of "NE" to mean not just New England, but North East, there might be a few of us across the border in New York state who might be tempted to join in the fun. In which case the Northampton/Amherst locale would have extra appeal. Keith
Re: [CODE4LIB] New England code4lib gathering
The Forbes Library in Northampton is the only library in the country still using Cutter's original system. We could have a field trip Tim On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Keith Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Jay Luker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The reasons I threw the Northampton/Amherst area out there are a) it's >> central to a lot of NE and is on or near the major highways (91 and >> 90) > > ...and if you are willing to bend the interpretation of "NE" to mean > not just New England, but North East, there might be a few of us > across the border in New York state who might be tempted to join in > the fun. In which case the Northampton/Amherst locale would have > extra appeal. > > Keith > -- Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
I know I'm coming late to this discussion, but here are a few thoughts: I also would LOVE to have what Emily asks for: given an item, show me co-located items ... virtually. Improve on the physical world limitations, if we can. Present the information well: familiar / easy to learn / usefully. I'm not in love with call numbers, per se ... but the "colocation by subject" is useful. Bookstores don't use call numbers, but they still shelve books by subject, and then by author within subject, generally. I did some thinking about this 5 years ago: both the meaning of call numbers and how to present things visually. I don't pretend to have any answers, but I think I might have touched on a few of the key questions: http://infoviz.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?VizChallenges Why Bibliographic Metadata poses Visualization Challenges * there are large quantities of textual information * it is hard to represent all the information in a full bookcase onto a single monitor screen. o bookspine info o organizational info (binned and linear sorts from classifications ...) * single items can be associated with multiple parts of a hierarchy. * tree hierarchies can have vastly uneven leaf levels * trees can be sparsely populated o there may be incomplete or missing information to associate metadata records with hierarchies * controlled vocabulary problems o hierarchies associated with bibliographic metadata values more or less implicity refer to controlled vocabularies. o Controlled vocabularies are often too limited or too broad for the task at hand 1. The user is not broken. Our faculty are very vocal in desiring a "virtual shelf list" that will allow them to, given a specific item, look for "closely located" items. Call numbers have facilitated co- location of (some) related physical materials, which facilitates a browsing experience that users enjoy. Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's something else ... but they enjoy it and find it useful. They are used to call numbers, and by god, they want call numbers. Who are we to naysay? This has been implemented already in some systems. My local public library catalog has this, but Stanford does not: go to: http://plsiii.plsinfo.org do a search select a record click on the call number link It's not beautiful, but it's there ... more than I can say about our ILS or about our OSS discovery interface. 2. Call numbers must be unique for circulation purposes. For a virtual shelf list, we do not need to display multiple copies on the shelf. http://infoviz.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CallNumbers Call numbers 3. Giving the user a new paradigm is a good thing, but it may not alleviate the need for the familiar. Plus, the new paradigm has to be sufficiently useful / familiar / easy to learn. Have you seen Aquabrowser? The graph thingy on the left is neat looking ... but is it used? Perhaps it is - I don't know. I like the concept of a coverflow ... but how much can you see at a glance? Do users want to see more at a glance, or want to see covers? I have no idea - let's get a usability expert out there with some prototypes (thanks for the prototypes everyone!) Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water: information on book spines has had decades to evolve into what is considered useful. In a bookstore. In a home library. Do we "know better"? Let's experiment knowledgeably, get user feedback and iterate! 4. call numbers use classifications that define a (subject) hierarchy that is not a strict tree structure. There has always been a tension between the linear shelving and the hierarchy of classification schemes. http://infoviz.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ClassVizReq Can we resolve this successfully with a virtual browse? 5. items often fit more than one classification (more than one subject). There is no reason why we can't have MULTIPLE linear orderings, based on various subjects / fictitious call numbers. I'd love to get away from linear, but I haven't yet found a replacement that is familiar enough and easy enough to learn. See http://infoviz.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?VizChallenges . 6. can we combine subject searching (text searches, even) with these virtual shelves? Imagine a treemap of resources, and as you type your search strings, matching areas of the tree map are highlighted. As it gets down to a single area, the UI zooms in ... For the record, we have at least THREE distinct call number systems here: LC, Dewey, and SUDOC. It's ugly ... and it's our reality. What should be combined? How should the software facilitate this? Count me in for working on a solution. - Naomi On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Stephens, Owen wrote: I agree with this in general - and this was my point about the 'Coverflow' in iTunes, tha
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
Actually, I don't think this is ideal for a lot of people who prefer browsing to searching. The whole premise that you have to come up with a query in the first place is the showstopper for some folks. There are browsers and there are searchers. If your system starts with a search box, the browse-oriented will put in a highly generic term like History. Faceted search can help them from there, as could LCSH lists for that matter. But if these same browse-oriented users constantly go to the library and head straight for QA76.9 H85, well then, that's the closest they really have to a "search" term. Shelf browsing interfaces, as well as browseable image libraries organized by collection, make sense to me for this reason. I would always like to see a search box available for the search-oriented, but to me, one of the failings of the OPAC today is the absence of support for the browse-oriented. Genny Engel Sonoma County Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] 707 545-0831 x581 www.sonomalibrary.org >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/08 05:21AM >>> Ideally, the user should be able to run a query, retrieve a set of items, sort them however he wants (by author, date, call number, some kind of dynamic clustering algorithm, whatever), and be able to methodically browse from one end of that sort order to the other without any fear of missing something. Keith On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Stephens, Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we need to understand the > way people use browse to navigate resources if we are to successfully bring > the concept of collection browsing to our navigation tools. David suggests > that we should think of a shelf browse as a type of 'show me more like this' > which is definitely one reason to browse - but is it the only reason?
Re: [CODE4LIB] creating call number browse
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Naomi Dushay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. The user is not broken. Our faculty are very vocal in desiring a > "virtual shelf list" that will allow them to, given a specific item, look > for "closely located" items. Call numbers have facilitated co-location of > (some) related physical materials, which facilitates a browsing experience > that users enjoy. Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's something else ... but > they enjoy it and find it useful. They are used to call numbers, and by god, > they want call numbers. Who are we to naysay? I don't mean to naysay -- I just suspect that what what people think of when shelf browsing -- namely, the big set of books arranged in LC order -- may not be the part of the experience that makes shelf browsing so special. I like browsing stacks; there's some kind of Special Sauce in that process I've never experienced online, though I've seen a few stack-browse-like interfaces. Google Books comes closest even though it's not a stack browser, which suggests to me that perhaps that magical stack browse flavor is actually a smack of content. However! This can perhaps be tested in a rather straightforward way without solving the Somewhat Hard Problem of efficiently ordering millions of bib records and creating an interface to navigate The Whole World Of Materials. I imagine one cold start small -- the experience should certainly scale *down*. You could sorting a small(!) set of books (100? 1,000?) and do some targeted testing of searching for books on a topic contained within. Then you could test the experience of online stack browsing with users -- without needing to build a big scalable database and answer big questions about different call number schemas and media types and clean up lots of borked catalog records. $0.02 from someone who's not building one ;-) Cheers, -Nate
