Open source, crowd source: harnessing the power of the people behind our libraries

Libraries in large number are moving away from the traditional, vendor-sourced library catalogue software in favor of open source software that can be tailored to meet the community’s needs by the people who are most familiar with those needs: library staff. Open source products and some vendor products outside the traditional ILS market allow libraries to pool data created by users– tags, reviews, comments–thus allowing the smallest libraries to harvest richer data than that of their own communities. Come hear how libraries can combine open source software with usergenerated content to create a richer discovery experience. -----------------------------------The state of automation Recent years have seen dramatic consolidation of companies offering integrated library systems (ILS). New sales of traditional catalog products have waned of late due to market saturation and due to customers' desire for modern web features such as faceted navigation and reviews, features available and in use by today's popular websites (Breeding, 2008). Traditionally, integrated library systems have focused on acquisition, cataloging, and circulation functions; the user interface to the traditional integrated library system served as more of an inventory tool than a discovery tool, and its development was driven by the librarians that used it. Prone to arcane search structures and inflexible web layouts, the legacy OPAC still requires much library instruction and library staff/patron intervention to use effectively. Conversely, information searching by contemporary library users frequently consists of three or four word keyword searches, does not use Boolean operators, and often "is a hesitant, iterative, often random process of discovery" (Schneider, 2007b). Today's users are not afraid of trial and error and will frequently try several searches and browse around before choosing an item. Library users also do not start at the library but may find an interesting item via Google or in Amazon, then think to check the local library's catalog. OCLC reported in 2005 that 84% of survey respondents reported that they start an information search with an internet search engine; only 1% start at a library website (p 1-17). For this 1% of users, the traditional, inventory-based function of the library catalog is useful, but traditional catalog interfaces have been difficult to use, even when an item is known; for example, they are typically not very forgiving of typographical and other small errors, where Google has had simple spellchecking and alternate-spelling suggestions for many years (Calishain, 2000). Integrated library systms were originally built around the MARC record, which was conceived to replace paper catalog cards (Spicher, 1996). The punctuation of a MARC record in a traditional OPAC even resembled a typed catalog card for many years (Cornell, n.d.). To create an original marc record for an item can take more than an hour, espeically if all the 2000+ tags and subfields are given full consideration (Levy, 1995). Even with time saved with copyand cooperative cataloging, is it in a library's best interest to devote so much intellectual overhead into creating description and assigning subject headings to items that will likely be discovered by keyor title word searches conducted outside the library system? MARC still constitutes good descriptive data, but libraries are "openly questioning the cost/value of local metadata enrichment" (Schneider, 2007b). Web 2.0, Library 2.0 The term "web 2.0" was originally coined by Tim O'Reilly to distinguish new and exciting websites from those of the "dot com bubble" era (2005, p 1). O'Reilly's vision of the next iteration of the web saw the web as platform--sites would evolve from destinations from which users gleaned information into a computing platform, providing access to any number of applications previously existing only as software installed on local computers or networks. Examples of web applications run from online word processors and spreadsheets to photo-sharing sites to internet radio and video and everything in between. As one twitter user recently lamented upon seeing a website dedicated