Recently in OCLC Category
A while back, I made a joke on April 1 about Google buying OCLC. This was actually a well coordinated April Fool's Day attack between myself and the folks at ALA Techource (none of our bosses from back then want to know how much time actually went into this coordination). I guess one true test of a joke is its staying power, and this one has it, oddly enough (I suggest using Google to see the folks who took it seriously, and that way I can avoid embarrassing anyone). From time to time, I even find current links to the announcement treating it as real news.
So, either this joke was really funny, or the juxtaposition of two "big switch" players is intriguing to librarians. My money is on the latter. I'm pretty pleased that OCLC has embarked on record-sharing deals with Google because I have always thought that search companies with great algorithms generally undervalue the power of metadata. I'm convinced that they only way to prove the point is to show them, as libraries are starting to do with faceted browse catalogs.
I'm also insatiably curious as to what the first page of search results in Google Book search will look like when there are 100 million books in the database. What will Scholar look like with 100 million books and 100 million articles? The best answer I am able to get from Google is "highly relevant." Relevance ranking is hard, as we have learned in enhancing WorldCat with non-monograph metadata. Done well, however, it greatly enhances the discovery experience for patrons.
Other people are beginning to wonder out loud about the prowess of Google and WorldCat data. Another recent post had me wondering about the future of Google Books. CrossRef has created a new plagiarism screening service called CrossCheck (clever!). Another indicator of my love of data and what it empowers us to do and discover. It got me thinking (un-originally, apparently) about what Google could cook up in searching for plagiarism once it has millions and millions of books scanned. I understand that Google is doing duplicate checking in its scans to keep from scanning books twice, so I imagine that "plagiarism checking" would be rather simple for them too. Literary crime detection using Google could be a fun pastime.
So, either this joke was really funny, or the juxtaposition of two "big switch" players is intriguing to librarians. My money is on the latter. I'm pretty pleased that OCLC has embarked on record-sharing deals with Google because I have always thought that search companies with great algorithms generally undervalue the power of metadata. I'm convinced that they only way to prove the point is to show them, as libraries are starting to do with faceted browse catalogs.
I'm also insatiably curious as to what the first page of search results in Google Book search will look like when there are 100 million books in the database. What will Scholar look like with 100 million books and 100 million articles? The best answer I am able to get from Google is "highly relevant." Relevance ranking is hard, as we have learned in enhancing WorldCat with non-monograph metadata. Done well, however, it greatly enhances the discovery experience for patrons.
Other people are beginning to wonder out loud about the prowess of Google and WorldCat data. Another recent post had me wondering about the future of Google Books. CrossRef has created a new plagiarism screening service called CrossCheck (clever!). Another indicator of my love of data and what it empowers us to do and discover. It got me thinking (un-originally, apparently) about what Google could cook up in searching for plagiarism once it has millions and millions of books scanned. I understand that Google is doing duplicate checking in its scans to keep from scanning books twice, so I imagine that "plagiarism checking" would be rather simple for them too. Literary crime detection using Google could be a fun pastime.
Okay, maybe I'm a little strange, but I really like ALA conferences. Until I started writing for American Libraries and getting uber involved in LITA, I was an occasional attender, but my love for the conference goes back to the fact that I got my first job at an ALA, over a 7am breakfast with an Innovative Interfaces VP. When I started attending regularly, I would fill literally every minute of the day with activity, usually for the magazine, but mostly out of a desire to get as much as possible out of being there. You'd have to check with Leonard Kniffel, but I'm pretty sure this is where the idea for "Hectic Pace" actually came from.
I mistakenly thought that "retiring" from the column would amazingly free up half of my time at the next ALA, but I was wrong. Between LITA, OCLC events, and programming, I find myself completely booked again, and perhaps it's just as well. I will feel normal.
I have the great pleasure this year of kicking off my ALA by moderating the OCLC Symposium--"The Mashed -Up Library." I've been in on the planning for this and would encourage folks to register for this great event. Yesterday I got to speak to the keynoter, Michael Schrage, who has some wonderful writings and spot-on observations about innovation. I would say that any library that has worried about relevance, funding, and establishing persistence in the information space would be interested in hearing him speak. I'd be interested to meet the librarian who wasn't worried about any of those things!
Schrage will be joined by three fabulous librarians--Susan Gibbons, David Lee King, and Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran--on a panel that will share creative library mash-ups that are not the kind you've heard about over and over again. Insert an ice cream break in the middle of the event and I can't think of a better way to start ALA in Anaheim. I am certainly looking forward to it.
I mistakenly thought that "retiring" from the column would amazingly free up half of my time at the next ALA, but I was wrong. Between LITA, OCLC events, and programming, I find myself completely booked again, and perhaps it's just as well. I will feel normal.
I have the great pleasure this year of kicking off my ALA by moderating the OCLC Symposium--"The Mashed -Up Library." I've been in on the planning for this and would encourage folks to register for this great event. Yesterday I got to speak to the keynoter, Michael Schrage, who has some wonderful writings and spot-on observations about innovation. I would say that any library that has worried about relevance, funding, and establishing persistence in the information space would be interested in hearing him speak. I'd be interested to meet the librarian who wasn't worried about any of those things!
Schrage will be joined by three fabulous librarians--Susan Gibbons, David Lee King, and Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran--on a panel that will share creative library mash-ups that are not the kind you've heard about over and over again. Insert an ice cream break in the middle of the event and I can't think of a better way to start ALA in Anaheim. I am certainly looking forward to it.
My friend and colleague Chrystie Hill reminded me the other day that I was wrong about something. This was no revelation, this happens quite frequently. In a conversation about OCLC's various assets, I was going on again about leveraging the vast amounts of data in the WorldCat bibliographic database and all the potential of the WorldCat Registry.
Chrystie reminded me, as anyone working in the WebJunction group should, that it is the network of people that matters. They create the data in WorldCat. They are the institutions in the Registry.
This truism was made all the more poignant by a really great Members' Council meeting in Dublin last week. This was my second one, and this time, there was a lot about "the network." Having been heavily involved in several professional and personal groups where I have interacted with boards and members' groups, I can say that this board and members' group is among the best I've seen. And I'm not just saying that because the truth of it is seen in their determination to make difficult yet important decisions, like the one they made last week about OCLC Governance. Decisions like these are the teeth behind catch phrases like "Local, Group, Global." The network of members provides the focus for a vision statement like "The world's libraries. Connected."
Some people have teased me about my new title, Executive Director of Networked Library Services. And I'm the first to admit now that I was mistakenly approaching the "network" as piles of hardware and software--sitting there at my disposal to build something great, increase efficiency, and reduce costs for libraries. I'm still gonna try to do all that, but in the meantime, my colleagues and the membership reminded me to stay focused on the real network.
Chrystie reminded me, as anyone working in the WebJunction group should, that it is the network of people that matters. They create the data in WorldCat. They are the institutions in the Registry.
This truism was made all the more poignant by a really great Members' Council meeting in Dublin last week. This was my second one, and this time, there was a lot about "the network." Having been heavily involved in several professional and personal groups where I have interacted with boards and members' groups, I can say that this board and members' group is among the best I've seen. And I'm not just saying that because the truth of it is seen in their determination to make difficult yet important decisions, like the one they made last week about OCLC Governance. Decisions like these are the teeth behind catch phrases like "Local, Group, Global." The network of members provides the focus for a vision statement like "The world's libraries. Connected."
Some people have teased me about my new title, Executive Director of Networked Library Services. And I'm the first to admit now that I was mistakenly approaching the "network" as piles of hardware and software--sitting there at my disposal to build something great, increase efficiency, and reduce costs for libraries. I'm still gonna try to do all that, but in the meantime, my colleagues and the membership reminded me to stay focused on the real network.
In my previous life, I was infrequently lucky enough to have a speaking gig or work meeting that took me someplace new and exciting. Now, I've made my first trip to Sheffield, UK, where OCLC has an office, and it's been fantastic. Though the scenery and terrain is different (read more interesting), the weather has been a lot like Columbus in March...cold and cloudy, cold and sunny, cold and rainy, cold and snowy, in somewhat quick succession.
I've also had a fair number of cultural lessons. I know now that one should not suggest "tabling" a topic in a meeting because over here that means you want to talk about it. I figure out the money, that was pretty easy, except the dollar is in a declined position at the moment.
I've also had a fantastic time getting to know some of my European colleagues better. I've been busy enough not to meet as many people as I might have liked, but it's been a productive week despite the long travel back and forth. It's been a great week but I am also anxious to get home.
I've also had a fair number of cultural lessons. I know now that one should not suggest "tabling" a topic in a meeting because over here that means you want to talk about it. I figure out the money, that was pretty easy, except the dollar is in a declined position at the moment.
I've also had a fantastic time getting to know some of my European colleagues better. I've been busy enough not to meet as many people as I might have liked, but it's been a productive week despite the long travel back and forth. It's been a great week but I am also anxious to get home.
About the Author
