Next Generation Library Interfaces: The intersection of new library interfaces, Web 2.0, and Web Services

1. Next Generation Library Interfaces:The intersection of new library interfaces, Web 2.0, and Web Services Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding Sno-Isle Regional Library System Lynnwood Convention Center October 8, 2007

2. Abstract • Marshall Breeding will give a look at some of the major trends at play in library automation that stand to spark major changes. He will talk about some of the features, technologies and architectures that underlie the next-generation library interfaces that have sprung onto the scene in the last couple of years. These new systems are flavored with Web 2.0 technologies and aim to provide a more satisfying experience for today's more Web-savvy library user.

3. The best Library OPAC?

4. Troubling statistic Where do you typically begin your search for information on a particular topic? College Students Response: • 89% Search engines (Google 62%) • 2% Library Web Site (total respondents -> 1%) • 2% Online Database • 1% E-mail • 1% Online News • 1% Online bookstores • 0% Instant Messaging / Online Chat OCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (2005) p. 1-17.

5. Toward compelling library interfaces • Urgent need for libraries to offer interfaces their users will like to use • Move out of the 1990’s • Powerful search capabilities in tune with how the Web works today • User expectations set by other Web destination

6. Common tools for access to local collections • Library OPAC (ILS module) • Links to aggregators, publishers • Cross linking via OpenURL • Journal finding aids (Often managed by link resolver) • Metasearch engines • All loosely coupled

7. Metasearch • Distributed query model inherently problematic • Not Immediate • Relevancy ranking extremely difficult • Lack of deep results • Interim solution

8. Change underway • Widespread dissatisfaction with most of the current OPACs. Many efforts toward next-generation catalogs and interfaces. • Movement among libraries to break out of the current mold of library catalogs and offer new interfaces better suited to the expectations of library users. • Decoupling of the front-end interface from the back-end library automation system.

9. Working toward next generation library interfaces • Redefinition of the library catalog • More comprehensive information discovery environments • Better information delivery tools • More powerful search capabilities • More elegant presentation

10. Comprehensive Search Service • More like OAI • Open Archives Initiative • Consolidated search services based on metadata and data gathered in advance • Problems of scale diminished • Problems of cooperation persist

11. Web 2.0 a good start • A more social and collaborative approach • Web Tools and technology that foster collaboration • Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking, user rating, user reviews

12. Web 2.0 supporting technologies • Web services • XML APIs • AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) • Microformats • OpenSearch vs SRU/SRW

13. Redefinition of library catalogs • Traditional notions of the library catalog are being questioned • It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to print resources • Digital resources cannot be an afterthought • Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenable • Libraries working toward consolidated search environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources

14. The holy grail • A single point of entry into all the content and services offered by the library • Print + Electronic • Local + Remote • Locally created Content

15. Interface expectations • Millennial gen library users are well acclimated to the Web and like it. • Used to relevancy ranking • The “good stuff” should be listed first • Users tend not to delve deep into a result list • Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach, including objective matching criteria supplemented by popularity and relatedness factors.

16. Interface expectations (cont…) • Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for slow systems • Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc. • Let users drill down through the result set incrementally narrowing the field • Faceted Browsing • Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search” • gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic. • Navigational Bread crumbs • Ratings and rankings

17. Appropriate organizational structures • LCSH vs FAST • Full MARC vs Dublin Core or MODS • Discipline-specific thesauri or ontologies • “tags”

18. Current Next-Gen catalog products

19. Common characteristics • Decoupled interfaceMass export of catalog dataAlternative search engineAlternative interface

20. Endeca Guided Navigation • North Carolina State University http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/ • McMaster University http://libcat.mcmaster.ca/ • Phoenix Public Library http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/ • Florida Center for Library Automation http://catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp

21. AquaBrowser Library • Queens Borough Public Library • http://aqua.queenslibrary.org/

22. Ex Libris Primo • Vanderbilt University http://alphasearch.library.vanderbilt.edu • University of Minnesota http://prime2.oit.umn.edu:1701/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=TWINCITIES • University of Iowa http://smartsearch.uiowa.edu/

23. Encore from Innovative Interfaces • Nashville Public Library http://nplencore.library.nashville.org/iii/encore/app • Scottsdale Public Library http://encore.scottsdaleaz.gov/iii/encore/app • Yale University Lillian Goldman Law Library http://encore.law.yale.edu/iii/encore/app

24. VUFind – Villanova University Based on Apache Solr search toolkit http://www.vufind.org/

25. OCLC Worldcat Local • OCLC Worldcat customized for local library catalog • Relies on hooks into ILS for local services • University of Washington Libraries http://uwashington.worldcat.org/ • University of California Melvyl Catalog

26. Library-developed solutions • eXtensible Catalog • University of Rochester – River Campus Libraries • Financial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/

27. Library Automation Trends

28. Business Landscape • Library Journal Automated System Marketplace: • An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007) • An increasingly consolidated industry • VC and Private Equity playing a stronger role then ever before • Moving out of a previous phase of fragmentation where many companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited marketplace • Narrowing of product options • Open Source opportunities rise to challenge stranglehold of traditional commercial model

29. Other Business Factors • Level of innovation falls below expectations • Companies struggle to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations. • Pressure within companies to reduce costs, increase revenue • Pressure from libraries for more innovative products

30. Technology Landscape • Most ILS products from commercial vendors mature • None less than a decade old • Approaching end of life cycle? • Evolved systems • No success in launching new systems • Horizon 8.0 • Taos

31. Current Vintage • ALEPH 500 1996 • Voyager 1995 • Carl 1982 • Unicorn 1982 • Polaris 1997 • Virtua 1995 • Koha 1999 • Library.Solution 1997 • Evergreen 2004

32. Library Automation M&A History

33. Why worry about who owns the Industry? • Some of the most important decisions that affect the options available to libraries are made in the corporate board room. • Increased control by financial interests of private equity and venture capital firms • Recent industry events driven by external corporate decisions; • Market success and technological advantages don’t necessarily drive business decisions

35. Business Cycle • Founder start-up • Venture capital support -> board level representation • Private equity ownership -> strategic control • IPO == mature company

36. Investor owned companies • SirsiDynix -> Vista Equity Partners (Recently bought out Seaport Capital + Hicks Muse/HM Capital) • Ex Libris -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out VC’s) • Endeavor -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out Elsevier) • Infor (was Extensity, was Geac) -> Golden Gate • Polaris -> Croydon Company • formerly part of Gaylord Bros (acquired by Demco)

37. Founder / Family owned companies • Innovative Interfaces • 100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve Silberstien • The Library Corporation • Owned by Annette Murphy family • VTLS – tech spin-off from Virgina Tech, wholly owned by Vinod Chachra • These companies not under the control of external financial interests

38. Impact of Ownership • Long term vs short tem interests • Decision makers in tune with the needs of the customer base? • Ability to understand libraries as business customers • Serving non-profit organizations quite different • It’s possible to operate a profitable company and stay true to the interest of library as customer

39. Revenue sources • New ILS sales • Maintenance support • 15% purchase cost annually with inflation adjustments • Non-ILS software • Library Services

40. Libraries Demand choice • Current market narrowing options • Consolidation working toward monopoly? • Many companies currently prosper in the library automation industry • Room for niche players • Domination by a large monopoly unlikely to be accepted by library community • Monopoly would be subverted by Open Source or other cooperative movement

41. The Chopping Block • Horizon 8.0 (Mar 2007) • Horizon 7.x (Mar 2007) • ENCompass (Jan 2006) • LinkFinderPlus (Jan 2006) • Taos (Dec 2001) • NOTIS Horizon (Jun 1994)

42. Legacy Phase out • DRA Classic • Dynix Classic • MultiLIS • INLEX/3000 • Advance • PLUS • VTLS Classic • NOTIS • PC Systems: Winnebago Spectrum, Follett Circ Plus, Athena, Concourse

43. Key Business Perspective • Given the relative parity of library automation systems, choosing the right automation partner is more important than splitting hairs over functionality. • Understanding of library issues • Vision and forward-looking development • Find a company you trust • It’s important to choose a company that will survive • Vendor decisions can have major consequences: • SirsiDynix announces demise of Horizon 7.x, 8.x

44. Product and Technology Trends

45. Current state of library automation functionality • The core ILS focused mostly on print resources and traditional library workflow processes. • Add-ons available for dealing with electronic content: • Link resolvers • Metasearch environments • Electronic Resource Management • A loosely integrated environment • Labor-intensive implementation and maintenance • Most are “must have” products for academic libraries with significant collections of e-content

46. The ILS is not dead • Rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated • A well-functioning automation system is essential to the operation of the library • Libraries have never needed automationmore than today

47. Comprehensive Automation • The goal of the Integrated Library Systems involves the automation of all aspects of the library’s internal operations and to provide key services to library users. • We need to catch up to regain comprehensive automation for increasingly complex hybrid libraries with collections equally comprised of digital and print content and more complex and varied services

48. Why such fragmented automation? • Maintenance alone not adequate to fund development of new products • Libraries not willing to accept higher maintenance and support payments • Business requirement to spin off new products • Can be counter to the need for more seamless, integrated, and comprehensive automation

49. Problems with current slate of automation components • Development cycle behind current needs • Very loosely coupled • Diverse interfaces • Not seamless to library users • Multiple points of management for library staff • Long and complex cycles of implementation and integration

50. The path forward? • Development and redevelopment of library automation products needed • Libraries will need to work with commercial partners indefinitely • More sustainable development models needed • Realistic level of spending for automation relative to assets managed • Find ways for libraries to be less vulnerable to business decisions made by companies • Libraries must assert their interests relative to the commercial companies