I’ll be taking part in this CILIP/OCLC Executive Briefing Day on 15th September 2009 at CILIP HQ, London, alongside Roy Clare of MLA and Nick Poole of Collections Trust as part of the roundtable panel. So what’s this event all about?

Libraries, Archives and Museums (LAMs) all collect, manage and share information and materials. By integrating and working together, their users can access dispersed materials from within a single search environment. This one-day event will look at what makes LAM collaborations work and consider the potential for future joint ventures. The programme will feature presentations on the OCLC Research and RLG Partnership workshop series and case studies demonstrating varying forms of collaboration, followed by a panel roundtable and discussion forum. Speakers come from diverse organizations, including the Smithsonian Institution; V&A; University of Calgary; Libraries and Heritage, City of York Council; MLA; UKOLN; Collections Trust; University of Aberdeen, JISC and Culture24.

Places are still available and the full programme, speaker profiles and online booking are available at www.cilip.org.uk/lams.

Now that’s not my question but one posed by Margaret Adolphus in a recent issue of the CILIP Gazette (31 July – 13 August 2009 issue). Margaret writes:

I am a journalist specialising in librarianship, the knowledge industry and higher education, and I am researching an article on the following theme: why is it that public library websites are so often so dull compared with their American counterparts, and why do they make so little use of social media, inviting comment and participation from their publics?

There are some notable exceptions, for example:
The Idea Store
Bedfordshire
Manchester

But generally speaking few libraries do much to entice the user into the world of imagination, entertainment, information and ideas to which books and other resources are the key. They are merely service points for opening hours, online renewals, etc.

I want to look at good practice in the article and also at why public libraries do not do more in this area. My suspicion is that many are restricted in what they can do by having to conform to the ethos or design of the local authority website they are part of.

I would love to hear your views (I am happy to omit names if that is preferred). You can contact me on margaret@adolphus.me.uk or on 01525 229487.
Margaret Adolphus

So, why not just take a few minutes to look at your library website – is it dull and uninviting? Are you frustrated – you want to do more but are restricted? Are there any more innovative sites out there apart from those Margaret mentions? Or do you have plans underway – but you haven’t launched the new look site yet? Then get in touch with Margaret and let her know what you think about this.

Earlier this week Professor Bruce Royan, Trustee of CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) informed interested parties that a report from the Communications Task and Finish Group had been posted on the Council blog to allow comments. The report comprises of a set of conclusions on CILIP’s Use of Web 2.0. These statement offer CILIP’s commitment to Web 2.0 and the importance of their being seen to “try things out“.

The report has received primarily positive feedback from the community. As one “humble CILIP member” puts it: “I have had more meaningful engagement with CILIP through social networking sites in the last 2 months than in the last 20 years!”

Phil Bradley, who has made calls for CILIP to embrace Web 2.0 in the past, commented on the report:

“This is a really positive and forward looking set of statements which should not only put CILIP onto a good footing for future development and use of Web 2.0 technologies, but should also help professional colleagues push the case for the use of these within their own organisations.“

In response to concerns that the move towards Web 2.0 technologies will disenfranchised some less knowledgeable members chrisinwales commented

“By embracing the new, CILIP is trying to demonstrate good practice and support its members in a variety of ways (old and new) so that each can select the best current awareness tool for his or her own needs. By NOT embracing them CILIP would be disenfranchising those members who prefer to receive updates by Web 2.0.“

The discussion on the report continues but one thing it does do is highlight the need for further Web 2.0 training my many library and information professionals.

First things first – just what are QR codes?

Wikipedia defines a QR Code as: “a matrix code (or two-dimensional bar code) created by Japanese corporation Denso-Wave in 1994. The “QR” is derived from “Quick Response”, as the creator intended the code to allow its contents to be decoded at high speed.” The QR Codes can be read by some mobile phones with a camera or in Seb Chan’s words “QR codes are probably best seen just as mobile-readable URLs“.

So how might QR codes be used in cultural heritage services? I’ve found a couple of places that are currently using these codes to help users.

The University of Bath Library is adding QR codes to the details you see in the results of a catalogue search. The code contains title, author and shelf location. Their blog post notes “I simply find the resource I want, scan the code and save it on my phone. I can then use this to find the item on the shelf. In fact, I can save this on my phone (I’d probably take a little more time and cut and paste into a mobile word document) and start to build up my own reference collection.”

The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney is also trying out QR codes. In their case they’ve been trialling using the codes beside exhibits in a display to take the visitor to the catalogue entry for the item. The technical aspects are described in some detail in the post on March 5th 2009 with a follow-up post on April 8th 2009.

This follows an earlier experiment in which the QR code appeared in a festival catalogue and redirected readers to a ‘hidden’ web page which gave access to a discount voucher for the festival and free entry to the museum during the event. Further posts on October 16th 2008 and October 23rd 2008 reviewed the experiment and discussed some issues that arose.

Has anyone reading this tried using QR codes? It would be good to know if anyone else has experimented with using these codes and for what for what purpose, and how successful you think it’s been.

It’s not long now till one of the biggest library events of the year: Umbrella 2009. The event, held over 2 days (14 – 15 July) and organised by CILIP, will see over 600 delegates descend on the University of Hertfordshire to hear about the important issues in the library world.

This year Web 2.0 tools feature significantly. There is a conference blog, delegates can access a wireless connection in the conference rooms and two exhibition halls and people are strongly encouraged to tweet using the event hashtag: #cilipumbrella.

There are also a number of sessions dealing with the Web 2.0 effect on libraries including:

• Using Web 2.0 and mobile learning to support the curriculum – Anthony Beal, West Cheshire College

• Personal services: how information services can support the university’s marketing strategy through Web 2.0 and beyond – Elizabeth Malone, Kingston University

• Podcasting in education – Alan Carr, Mid-Cheshire College

• Building a successful library Web 2.0 service in 7 steps – James Smith, Sunderland Libraries and Nick Stopforth, Newcastle Libraries

And posters including:

• Creating a library blog – Kirsty Thomson

• Learning 2.0 @LJMU – technology enhanced staff development – Leo Appleton

This year the Libraries Change Lives Award ceremony will takes place at Umbrella 2009 instead of at the Library & Information Show (LIS). Andrew Motion, previously Poet Laureate and now Chair of MLA, will present the award on Wednesday 15th.

If you are interested in attending there are still places available.

SABIP (the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy) has just released its commissioned report Copycats? Digital consumers in the online age (PDF format). The report, undertaken by UCL’s Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (CIBER), is a hefty 81 page document that offers some amazing insights into the many paradoxes of digital copyright and consumerism.

The backdrop to the research indicates that “at least seven million British citizens have downloaded unauthorised content, many on a regular basis, and many also without ethical consideration“. In monetary terms this is seen as around 8% of British GDP, a truly shocking figure.

The introduction to the report is set very much in our current times and placed in a period (January – May 2009) during which the Digital Britain report was published indicating the intention to bring broadband Internet access to every home (no doubt increasing the ability to download illegal material). Yet also suggesting consideration of the creation of a Rights Agency and the passing of anti-file sharing legislation. During the same period high-profile legal action was taken against the Pirate Bay Web site and a new law was passed in Sweden allowing copyright holders to force ISPs to reveal details of those sharing files. Alongside these activities and Open Rights Group claimed that rigid copyright was stifling innovation and hurting citizens.

The key CIBER findings were that:

• The scale of the `problem’ is huge and growing
• There are myriad choices when consuming content and consumers are confused
  about what is legal and not legal
• Attitudes and behaviours towards property in the online and physical worlds are very
  different
• It has never, ever been easier to break the law
• There are fewer cues to guide behaviour in the online world
• Education isn’t working, yet
• There is a powerful idea that there is “no victim”, and so “no crime”
• Internet service providers and the consumer electronics industry: two elephants in the
  room

It seems that there are now two cultures: the digital one and the physical. They have evolved differently (despite not always being the case digital is often seen as free while physical has a cost) and now need to be analysed and dealt with in completely different ways. Seven million downloading unauthorised comment means seven million criminals, a situation that is ridiculous and unworkable.

The report recommends many future areas for research. For example to date almost all research on file sharing has been carried out on young people and students, research should be opened out to cover the four demographics used in recent research into digital convergence. These are: ‘kids’ (teenagers); the ‘tech vanguard’, (those with high ‘self efficacy’ who are early to adopt new technologies); the ‘mainstream’ (adults); and ‘laggards’ (those who do not yet have internet access, or certainly do not engage with e-commerce).

The report also suggests “It would also be possible to undertake a parallel (or alternative) study based on British Library users or site visitors, as this would help to inform policy in terms of the academy, the library and their relationship to intellectual property.”

The SABIP report has a huge amount in it and is essential reading for those dealing with copyright issues. Lets hope its pragmatic approach sparks some sort of turning point in the copyright chaos that currently exists.

“The fundamental question is not how or why the downloading, copying and dissemination of unauthorised content takes place (this report seeks to answer those questions) but who does it, (and therefore, who doesn’t), and can this behaviour be changed? And if it cannot be ‘changed’ what does need to change: the law, the business models, or the relationship between the creative industries and the public domain?“

Whether current copyright law is correct or not seems to be out of scope for the report. Glyn Moody argues in his blog post Why the “Copycats?” Report has a Copycat Problem that “one reason why people have few qualms about downloading copyrighted material – that lack of “ethical consideration” the report refers to above – is that there is growing realisation that copyright law as currently construed is totally tilted in favour of businesses“. Glyn provides some interesting figures that demonstrate that this is the case.

It seems the copyright war is one that will continue to be fought with fervent supporters for both sides. This report does not provide an answer to that fight but it does illustrate that while the problem is not realistically addressed casualties are inevitable.

Background

API stands for ‘application programming interface’ and is the interface that a computer system, library or application provides in order to allow requests for service to be made of it by other computer programs, and/or to allow data to be exchanged between them. A Web API is the Web version of this interface. It comprises of documented code and is effectively a way to plug one Web site or Web service into another.

Recently many Web sites have exposed APIs and made them available to external developers. The term Open API is often used to describe the technologies that allow this interaction.

Why?

There are many potential benefits of provision of APIs. The key one is that others will reuse your data and possibly create mash-ups with it. This in turn means your data will reach a much wider audience. As it would be tricky to find a cultural heritage institution that didn’t have reaching wider audiences listed on its wish list, providing APIs makes a lot of sense.

So What’s Happening in the Cultural Heritage Sector?

Recently there has been a lot of API activity in the museums sector with many big museums like the Science Museum (London, UK), the Powerhouse Museum (Sydney, Australia) and the Brooklyn Museum (New York, US) releasing their APIs.

Libraries have long been at the forefront when it comes to mashing up data. From John Udell’s library look up tool, to the days of the Talis Mashed up Library competition and on to the Mashed Library events, held last year on the 27th November 2008 at Birkbeck College, London and taking place later this year at the University of Huddersfield. (There is an article written by Paul Miller entitled What Happens When We Mash The Library? on earlier activities.) Many libraries have released APIs and a useful list of library-related APIs is available from the Mashed Library Web site.

How do we Start?

There is a now a lot of literature available on writing APIs, releasing APIs and supporting them. One useful place to start might be UKOLN’s recently released Introbyte document: An Introduction To APIs.

API developers and users may find the deliverables of the UKOLN Good APIs project useful. The Good APIs project has recently been carried out to look at what makes a good API. Although the project focussed on activity in the UK Higher Education arena many of the results and outcomes are transferable to the cultural heritage sector. One such outcome is the list of good practice techniques for API creation and consumption. The techniques are currently open for comments.

A news item in the April 2009 issue of Library & Information Update (“Call for MLA to focus more on the ‘L’“, page 5) reports that Andrew Motion, the new Chair of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is ‘insisting’ that MLA focus ‘more equal attention’ on libraries than in the past. In a speech at the London Libraries conference in St Albans he spoke about his new role and how he feels that ‘we need to encourage government to think more strategically about libraries in general’.

It is good to see this focus on libraries and it will be interesting to see what concrete initiatives emerge. UKOLN has previously contributed to a range of projects in collaborations with the public library sector – Internet provision in public libraries, Stories from the Web, NOF-digitise and the People’s Network Discovery Service, People Flows, Cornucopia and the Public Library Web Managers Workshops – and we’re looking forward to further work in this area, such as the national library card that Andrew Motion mentions.

What are your customers saying about your organisation? How would you find out? Gathering such market intelligence is likely to be in the remit, I would imagine, of information professionals. The type of person who might be a member of CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals.

So I would hope that those who actually work for CILIP have been keeping an eye on the ‘twitterverse’ over the past few days, after a blog post by Phil Bradley, in response to a post by CILIP CEO Bob Mackee, generated much discussions and airing of views, not only on the topic of the blog posts (whether CILIP should make use of services such as Twitter), but also on the relevance of CILIP itself.  Such a lively debate has been taking place that it was picked up by the Social Reporter.

Yesterday Bob MacKee responded to the furore in a post entitled “Yes, let’s try that!” in which he explained that his inital post was “was intended to provoke debate, not to dismiss the value of social media“. If that was the intention, then he clearly succeeded! And in citing the comments “You’re “angry” with CILIP, “ashamed” of CILIP, “embarrassed” by CILIP, “disillusioned” with CILIP”  it would appear that he has picked up on the feedback – although whether these are just the comments left on the original blog post by the CILIP members who are permitted to leave comments on the CILIP blog or reflect the comments made outside “officially-sanctioned CILIP spaces” is unclear.

How CILIP as an organisation will respond to the debate is a matter for CILIP and members of CILIP. And how, and indeed whether, CILIP as an organisation makes use of social media is another interesting question. But let’s not forget that social media can (and indeed is) be used by organisations to listened to what there users are saying about them. I personally have had a couple of positive experiences when providers of Web services have spotted my blog posts and responded (such as a comment from Dipity’s Product Manager following a blog post on problems I’d experienced with the Dipity timeline service. I am also please that Bath’s bus station now use Twitter and have a blog, which proved particularly useful during the recent heavy snowfalls around Bath. But when, I wonder, does listening to one’s customers turn into eavesdropping?  An interesting ethical debate – which I would hope that CILIP’s information professionals will engage in.