Lori Ayre's blog

I just got back from attending my first NCIP Standing Committee meeting at OCLC headquarters in Dublin, Ohio.  It turned out to be a far better experience than I could have imagined. The people working on this committee are dedicated to making NCIP the "go-to" protocol for communications with the ILS/LMS. My objective going there was to possibly challenge that idea insofar as my intention was to introduce them to the Library Communcation Framework (LCF) - a protocol being developed in the U.K. by people who aspire to make LCF the library "go-to" protocol.

Discovery to Delivery: Rethinking Resource Sharing

Preconference– June 28, 2013 in Chicago 

ASCLA’s Physical Delivery Interest Group and RUSA’s Rethinking Resource Sharing Steering Committee have teamed up to plan an important preconference on June 28, 2013 at the ALA Annual Conference in Chicago, “Discovery to Delivery: Rethinking Resource Sharing.” Please join us for this important discussion.

This event will provide valuable insight for academic, public, and consortia librarians/staff who manage or work in the areas of interlibrary loan, physical delivery, systems (ILS/discovery), circulation, and ebooks/ejournals on the challenges and opportunities libraries face in the future of discovery and resource sharing.

Resource sharing is approaching a crossroads. Our current models may not be effective in the coming years. The circulation and physical delivery of traditional library materials is flattening after years of double-digit growth.

Copyright laws are not the same as a library license agreement for access to an ebook or ejournal article. Many academic libraries are expending 75% or more of acquisitions budgets on econtent and public libraries are spending 5% and this proportion is rising. How will we lend and borrow with our resource-sharing partners as content becomes more and more virtual?

Library vendors and the open source community are developing and improving discovery tools. Are they library patron centric? Which features of our discovery tools hold promise for the future? How can libraries develop the most effective tools?

The speaker lineup includes, Anya Arnold of the Orbis Cascade Alliance, where resource sharing is a primary goal. Anya will deliver the keynote address on the latest trends in discovery to delivery. The program also includes three panels on the topics: State of the art in discovery; Costs and innovation for ILL and eBooks; and Innovations and trends in physical delivery. Jamie LaRue, an ebook pioneer from the Douglas County Colorado Library will discuss the economics and innovations of ebook access. Lars Leon, University of Kansas, will speak on recent cost analysis for ILL. Marshall Breeding, library consultant, will discuss his recent findings on discovery as part of a panel of librarians from shared ILS systems in the public and academic environments.

Lori Ayre, library consultant, will discuss the state-of-the-art and a vision for the future of delivery.

Evergreen (the Open Source ILS) is in the process of transitioning from a technology heavy on the Javascript (JSPAC) to one utilizing the Template Toolkit (TPAC).  Right now, some of the JSPAC features are absent from TPAC.  But since the developers want to phase out JSPAC entirely, they need to be sure to get all the critical functionality that users rely upon from JSPAC into the new TPAC.

Thanks to Michael Peters you can provide this critical feedback to the developers.  What JSPAC features do you think are most important?  Which features should the developers make sure get into TPAC before JSPAC is end-of-lifed?

How to do it?  Respond to this informal survey and make your voice heard.

Go To Survey Now!

On June 6, 2012 Library Journal announced that 3M would be donating the copyright for SIP to NISO which would mean that NISO "will now have responsibility for future development and ongoing maintenance of SIP." 

The article also correctly points out that 

SIP is the de facto standard for communication between library self-service devices and the wide variety of integrated library systems (ILS) that libraries use. It provides the crucial common language that makes possible such widespread functions as self checkouts, automated materials handling systems, PC management systems, or fine and fee payment transactions.

In other words, SIP is really important when we try to integrate ANYTHING with our ILSs.  So, given its importance you'd think that there might be something in the works for 2013 at NISO but alas SIP is not the subject of discussion at any of the scheduled 2013 NISO Events.

 I have just returned from the UK, where I spoke at the RFID in Libraries Conference.  While there, I met with representatives from the Book Industry Communications (BIC) and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) as well as RFID vendors. BIC and CILIP are two UK entities roughly equivalent (very roughly) to the BISG (Book Industry Study Group) and ALA.

The American Association of School Libraries just reported on the use of filters in schools based on the results of the School Libraries Count! survey conducted January-March, 2012. The results are the predictable mix of good and bad. On the good side (per this report), the filters reduce student distractions and decrease the need for direct supervision.  The filters may even result in "more appropriate" search results.

CHICAGO - The following open letter was released by American Library Association (ALA)

President Maureen Sullivan regarding Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Penguin refusal to provide access to their ebooks in U.S. libraries.

The open letter states:

A new website has popped up as a result of a research project undertaken at the University of Tennessee School of Information Sciences. The project was funded from an IMLS grant.  I don't know if there is any expectation of keeping up the site but there are some useful things there and some not-so-useful things there.  Several of us have attempted to contact the lead research, Vandana Singh, so she could correct the misrepresentations. But no one has received a response.  Too bad.

Now that we have a national data model, namely ISO 28560-2, it is incumbent on libraries to figure out what to do with it.  Given that there are 24 data elements defined in the data model, only two of which are mandatory (Primary Item ID aka barcode and Tag Content Key), how does the library decide which of those optional 22 it will use?