Knitting in the Library

I wrote a guest blog post recently for my LYS This Is Knit about a feature I noticed on Ravelry. If you’re browsing knitting books on Ravelry you can now search WorldCat, a library catalogue aggregator, to see if any libraries need you have the book. In case you didn’t know I qualified as a librarian about a year ago. So this link was very intriguing to me.

 

I’m not sure how many Irish public libraries have signed up to WorldCat, but Irish library users can search BorrowBooks.ie, and in some cases use inter-library loans to get a book sent from another library to their local library.

This is exactly why libraries exist – to give everyone equal access to information and education (and knitting patterns). […] If you are not a member of your local library then why not? You can find a full list on the Ask About Ireland website. Think of all the money you can save on knitting books that you can then spend on more yarn. See? Genius.

Now, off you go to read my original post on This Is Knit’s blog, then come back and let me know what you think.

In Dublin’s Fair City

I’m a metadata nerd and proud of it. I admit to the uninitiated (and let’s face it, the initiated) metadata and cataloguing might seem a bit – dull. It’s a strange feeling that you find something so boring very exciting. But here’s the thing, if you don’t describe a resource properly nobody will be able to find it, and what’s the point in that? And if you describe the resource using standardised tools then that’s even more useful again. I can see beauty in authority control and subject access. Yes, beauty. Everything is linked, and everything fits together. A catalogue is a bit like a giant brain, where one record connects to another related record.

For Organisation of Information, Cataloguing and Metadata (IS40520) we were tasked, in groups, to create a collection, real or hypothetical, together with a comprehensive consultation document to illustrate how we would manage our collection. Below are extracts from the final assignment my group submitted. I took charge of the metadata section (I’m a metadata nerd dontcha know) so will focus on that section for this post.

In Dublin’s Fair City: Images of Dublin through the ages

This consultation document will outline the various considerations in relation to the  management of metadata for a collection of digital images entitled, ‘In Dublin’s Fair City.’  For the most part this is a theoretical or proposed collection. With the anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising upcoming in 2016, there is huge interest in Dublin city from both historians and tourists. This is a collection of images of Dublin city through the ages. The collection is originally based on historical images of Dublin found on the National Library of Ireland’s Flickr site but other images of the city will be accepted into the collection and it will include born digital  images of Dublin up to the present day. The collection is a digital collection and only includes digitised images or born digital images; physical photographs are not part of the  collection. The collection is aimed at documenting the changing face of Dublin through the  years and the intended audience would be anyone with an interest in the evolution of the city, e.g. tourists, people with cultural interests, historians and perhaps those with an interest in the  changing architecture of the city.

Metadata Scheme

Good quality and robust metadata is essential both for efficiency within the library but also to enhance the findability of the item from the point of view of the user (Capell & Ginn, 2009, Jung-ran and Tosak, 2010). Jung-ran and Tosaka (2010) state that MARC is the most widely used metadata schema across digital repositories and collections, with Dublin Core being second most widely used metadata schema, followed by VRA Core among others. Wendler (2004) also explains that “images present a different descriptive challenge than mass-produced published works such as books and serials”. With these considerations in mind we evaluated three metadata standards for our collection; MARC, Dublin Core and VRA Core, deciding finally on Dublin Core.

Cole (2007) sets out his principles for good metadata. These include the appropriateness of the metadata to the materials and users, interoperability, standard controlled vocabularies and a clear statement on the conditions and terms of use. The controlled vocabularies used are discussed in Subject Access, below. We kept these principles in mind when considering which standard to use.

MARC

MARC is recognised as the most suitable metadata encoding format in the library world; however, there are often complaints about the number of data elements and their complexity (Liu, 2007). In fact the National Library have used MARC records to catalogue the original images that we have used in our collection.

Based on the principles above we declined to use MARC as our metadata standard as, although highly suitable for cataloguing more traditional library items, we felt it was not the most suitable standard for digital images. We also felt given that once the library is set up it may not be run by a trained librarian. It may be run by a lay person who may struggle with the complexity of MARC.

We also felt that MARC would struggle with interoperability. Hider (2012) explains that MARC was developed well before the internet was conceived; let alone the web in its current incarnation. Although MARC allows for rich resource description, it is not easily interpretable by modern computers.

Finally Zeng and Qin (2008) refer to MARC as highly structured and semantically rich metadata. However they note that MARC does not fare well with regards to management needs including intellectual property and preservation. As we would need to record the provenance of the digital images as well as any licenses for use associated with the images we again regarded MARC as not the most suitable metadata standard for our purposes.

VRA Core

If MARC was deemed unsuitable for our digital image collection perhaps VRA Core would better suit our needs. VRA Core was developed in response to the needs of visual resource collections and recognizes that most works of art do not include the title, creator, imprint and series information found in the bibliographic world (Zeng and Qin, 2008). Attig, Copeland and Pelikan (2004) explain succinctly “The VRA Core consists of a single element set, with elements that may be repeated as many times as necessary to describe works of visual culture as well as the images that document those works.” Miller (2012) explains that, while mostly used within the museum community VRA Core is sometimes used for visual resources outside of just museums.

Preservation efforts often lead to the creating of digital images depicting the item being preserved which lead to the development of VRA Core by the Visual Resource Association which can used to describe both the image and the content of the image (Liu, 2007).

The potential benefit of VRA Core in terms of our collection would be that ability to catalogue both the work, or actual scene, as well as cataloguing the digital image itself. However, as VRA Core is not as widely adopted as Dublin Core we felt that interoperability could be an issue. We also felt that for our collection VRA Core would be unnecessarily complicated for management of the collection after initial set-up. Finally, as we were choosing our LMS in conjunction with compatible metadata schemas, we felt the combination of Omeka together with Dublin Core would be more appropriate for our collection than VRA Core would be.

Dublin Core

Dublin Core is a generic metadata standard that was primarily developed for specifically for the web environment (Hider, 2012). It was designed to focus on describing a wide range of networked resources, specifically to address the difficulty in finding items on the web (Liu, 2007). The Dublin Core schema comprises a set of 15 elements and was established in the late 1990s and was designed to be applicable across various domains. These 15 ‘core’ elements are broad and generic enough to be suitable for describing a wide range of resources (Miller, 2012). While Dublin Core can’t describe objects in as rich a manner as MARC, it was designed to be a minimum that can be extended (Hider, 2012). It was also designed to be computer readable.

Zeng and Qin (2008) note that Dublin Core is the most well-known and widely used metadata element set for data structures. They also state that Dublin Core has the most mapped element sets among and across domain-specific and community orientated metadata standards. Weagley et al. (2010), Greenberg (2005), Tedd and Large (2005), Liu (2007) and Arms (2001) (as cited in Shirley & Liew, 2011) judge Dublin Core to be an ideal metadata scheme for accomplishing interoperability.

For these reasons we feel that Dublin Core is the most useful metadata standard for our collection; it is appropriate to the type of resource chosen for our collection, interoperable as well as giving us the opportunity to record rights management metadata.

Zeng and Qin (2008) divide the Dublin Core elements into three main categories: content, intellectual property and instantiation or manifestation. This is useful for the purposes of our collection as it allows us to catalogue the content of the image, for example the creator and description of the original physical image, the intellectual property for the image, for example who published it and the licensing rights and finally the manifestation of the digital image itself, for example the file name and the format of the digital image.

Metadata Fields

The fields we are using contain a combination of descriptive or content fields, administrative or intellectual property and instantiation metadata as described in Zeng and Qin (2008).

The descriptive or contents fields include Title, Creator , Description, Subject, Date Accepted, Coverage Temporal and Coverage Spatial. We recognize that for some older images not all of the information for each of these fields may not be available, however all fields should be recorded where possible. For each image within the collection a Title, Description, Subject and Date Accepted will be mandatory as the content for these fields can be created by the manager of the library as described below.

If the image is taken from an existing collection the existing formally assigned title should be used. In the case of images from the National Library of Ireland, the title can vary from the main catalogue and their Flickr account. In this case the title of the digital image as recorded on Flickr will be used, as we are cataloguing the digital image rather than the physical image. However, in the case that the image has no formally assigned title the librarian or manager will need to create one. The title should be distinctive and informative. The Creator represents the original photographer of the image. Subject is covered in more detail in Subject Access below, while Description is a free text description of the image, with the aim of encompassing as wide a range of information as possible.

In terms of the date we record the date the item was accepted into the library using the DC qualifier Date Accepted. Coverage is used to record both the temporal and spatial coverage of the item. Coverage with the refinement Temporal is used to record the time period when the photo was taken. This is because for some older images only a date range or approximate date may be available. This will also aid users looking for images covering a specific period in time. Coverage with the refinement Spatial is used to record the location the image was taken. This is recorded using geolocation to allow users to plot the exact location on a map. For older photos in the collection the location depicted in the image may have changed quite dramatically.

The intellectual property fields include Publisher, Identifier and Source, as well as Rights and Rights Holder. The Publisher of the item recognises the provenance of the item. For example, for images from the National Library of Ireland, the NLI is the publisher. The Identifier will be the file name which is assigned based on the criteria discussed in File Management. Similarly Source records the source of the original item, for example the call number for the original item in the original institution.

We, as humans, have been concerned with property and intellectual rights. Copyright serves to make clear who owns what works, however the issue of copyright and rights management is further complicated in the digital arena (Liu, 2007). Rights management metadata attempts to address rights management issues when dealing with digital resources, therefore it will be mandatory to record the rights for the images in our collection. We record both the Rights in the form of a copyright statement or a restriction on use statement, as well as the Rights Holder.

As well as describing the contents of the image and the intellectual property values associated with the image we also record the instantiation of the image. Type and Format are also recorded for the items in our collection.

Conclusion

In this metadata consultation document we have outlined our considerations and subsequent choices for the library management system, metadata schemas, content standard and subject access. Our theoretical collection will form part of the centenary celebrations for the 1916 rising and consists of a number of images of Dublin through the years, built by Fáilte Ireland. The initial stimulus for the collection came from the National Library of Ireland’s Flickr site and the collection contains a combination of digitised and born digital images.

In terms of the library management systems our selection criteria included a system that offered value for money, flexibility and adequate support as well as metadata viewing, editing tools, publishing tools, easy “ingest” tools, exporting/data sharing tools and geo-tagging tools. We considered Extensis Portfolio, a proprietary digital asset management system, VuFind, an open source resource discovery system and finally Omeka, an open source web publishing platform for the display of library, museum, archives and scholarly collections and exhibitions. Omeka was chosen as our LMS because it offers extensive metadata capturing tools, CSV importation of objects, facilitation of data harvesting and sharing through OAI compatibility, the possibility to use geo-tagging and social tagging.

Our metadata schema was chosen based on the appropriateness of the metadata to our materials and users, interoperability, standard controlled vocabularies and a clear statement on the conditions and terms of use. We evaluated three metadata schemas, MARC, Dublin Core and VRA Core, deciding finally on Dublin Core. DC was designed with the web in mind and the DC metadata elements are broad enough to describe a wide range of objects, including digital images. It is also considered to be highly interoperable and gives us the ability to record rights management metadata.

As a result of choosing Dublin Core as our metadata standard the need for a content standard was less essential. However, we chose to use content standards for a number of elements within the metadata, for example the format and date fields.

A number of different standards were also considered for subject access, including Getty thesauri, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the use of folksonomies. We finally decided on a combination of LCSH and LC Thesaurus of Graphic Images together with folksonomies or social tagging, which would encourage our users to engage with the collection.

We finally considered the file management and workflow for the library together with the cost implications of our choices.

We feel our choices, as outlined above, will present a polished and engaging user experience for our potential patrons, while also being manageable for a single librarian to run. The combination of Omeka together with Dublin Core allows us to present an aesthetically interesting collection to our users. The use of geo-tagging will also allow our users to trace the exact location of some of the older images from the collection. The combination of Omeka and Dublin Core will also be user friendly for the librarian to manage, while the use of selected content standards and LCSH controlled vocabularies will result in richly described images that are easily findable and interoperable with other library systems.

References

Arms, C.R. (2001), “Some observations on metadata and digital libraries”, Conference on Bibliographic Control New Millennium (Library of Congress), available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/arms_paper.html (accessed 30 April 2013).

Attig, J., Copeland, A., & Pelikan, M. (2004). Context and Meaning: The Challenges of Metadata for a Digital Image Library within the University. College & Research Libraries, 65(3), 251-261.

Capell, L., & Ginn, L. (2009). Digital Collections: Design and Practice. Mississippi Libraries, 73(1), 3-7.

Cole, T.W. (2007). Principles for good digital collections. In Kresh D. (Ed.) The whole digital library handbook (pp. 302- 304). Chicago: American Library Association.

Greenberg, J. (2005), “Understanding metadata and metadata schemes”, in Smiraglia, R.P. (Ed.), Metadata: A Cataloger’s Prime, Haworth Information Press, New York, pp. 17-56.

Hider, P. (2012).  Information resource description. London: Facet; Washington, DC: ALA Editions.

Jung-ran, P., & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and Collections: Schemata, Selection Criteria, and Interoperability. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(3), 104-116.

Liu, J. (2007). Metadata and It’s Applications in the Digital Library. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Miller, S. (2012). Metadata for Digital Collections. London, New York: Neal-Schuman

Shirley, L., & Liew, C. (2011). Metadata quality and interoperability of GLAM digital images. Aslib Proceedings, 63(5), 484-498.

Tedd, L.A. and Large, A. (2005), “Standards and interoperability”, in Tedd, L.A. and Large, A. (Eds), Digital Libraries, K.G. Saur Verlag GmbH, Munchen, pp. 85-107.

Weagley, J., Gelches, E. and Park, J.R. (2010), “Interoperability and metadata quality in digital video repositories: a study of Dublin Core”, Journal of Library Metadata, 10(1), pp. 37-57.

Wendler, R. (2004). The Eye of the beholder: challenges of image description and access at Harvard. In Hillman, D.I. & Westbrooks E.L. (Eds.) Metadata in Practice (pp. 51-69). Chicago: American Library Association.

Zeng, Marcia Lei & Jian Qin. 2008. Metadata. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.

A Digital Library Exhibit

In my previous post, I discussed the creation of my digital library, the development of a Collection and Content Policy and the issues I encountered when creating metadata for the collection. The final part of this assignment for our Digital Libraries (IS40560) class was to create a poster or exhibit about the collection, either as an online presentation in Omeka or as a paper-based poster. I created an exhibit called Cables and Lace. Below is the essay I submitted detailing the visual choices made as well as challenges and issues related to information presentation.

For my exhibition I decided to focus on two different knitting techniques that serve a similar function but in very different ways. I hope that my exhibition will inspire users to consider different knitting techniques and how that can enhance the overall knitted items well as motivating users to consider how these techniques can be used in non-traditional ways. The exhibition also serves as a marketing tool to draw in new users to the library by using strong visual elements. Items in the exhibition are taken from a range of collections within the digital library to encourage users to further explore the digital library as a whole rather than focusing on individual collections.

Exhibition inspiration

Cables and Lace, as explained in the introduction to the exhibition, are two means of adding texture and visual interest to a knitted item in very different ways. Cables use crossed stitches to add density to the knitted fabric while lace techniques open up the fabric by using various increase and decrease stitches.

The exhibition also aspires to inspiring users to consider non-traditional ways of using these techniques. For example, within the Cables section of the exhibition the example is given of a knitted necklace designed to give the illusion of a cable. Similarly, the girl’s dress in the lace section of the exhibition shows how use of lace techniques can add interesting detail to garments. A blanket is also featured in both sections of the exhibition, showing how lace and cables can be used together with interesting effect.

The exhibition also serves as a marketing tool for users who may still consider knitting as something their Granny does. I hope to dispel the myth that knitting is only for older ladies who knit Aran jumpers for their families. The examples used within the exhibition show that knitting can produce beautiful, modern and versatile pieces.

Exhibition Design

The design of the exhibition uses the same theme as the whole digital library. This should give impression that it fits seamlessly into the library, rather than feeling like a separate website. It is designed to give context to the wider collections and as such function as part of the library.

Adding two distinct sections – cables and lace – to the exhibition allows the user to compare and contrast the two techniques while the addition of the blanket to both sections serves as a link between them. Within each section I chose a highly visual layout that highlighted the images of the items. I hope that this is not only aesthetically pleasing to me but I hope this would also appeal to my users.

Challenges

Similar to challenges faced with Omeka, my main frustration was the limitation in control over how things display. For example Omkea asks the digital librarian to create an exhibition, then to create sections within that exhibition and finally to create pages within each section. While I can see the logic of this within a larger exhibition, for a smaller exhibition such as Cables and Lace this adds a lot of redundancy for the end user. I would have preferred the option to simply add my content directly to the different sections rather than having to create additional pages within each section.

From an aesthetic point of view I would have preferred the option to add a logo or selected images within the collection to the front page of the exhibition, however this is not possible. We live in a society with a limited attention span and the addition of visual interest to the front page of the exhibition would give the opportunity to entice users through our virtual doors.

Creating a Digital Library

For our Digital Libraries (IS40560) class we were asked to create create a small digital library using Omeka, a web-publishing platform that allows anyone to create a website to display collections and build digital exhibitions.

I created the Repository of Knitted Items to preserve and exhibit examples of hand knitted objects in a digital environment. As this was a student assignment it contains only examples of my own knitted items. The first part of the assignment required us to develop a collection and content policy. Then we had to populate our digital library, creating metadata, collections and generally play with Omeka to see what it could do. Below is the essay I wrote about my digital library creation experience.

Creating my Digital Library

Kucsma et al (2010) compare Omeka to WordPress in terms of its design, ease of use and high level of functionality. I consider myself to be very computer literate with a high level of technical skills. I have also previously used WordPress and so I expected creating a digital library in Omeka to be a relatively easy exercise. And it was, but it was not without its frustrations either.

For me, overall, I found Omeka to be too restrictive, with very little customisation options. I found it clunky to navigate compared to WordPress and was frustrated, for example, by the lack of a link on the public site to the dashboard when logged in. Even within the dashboard I didn’t find the navigation terribly intuitive. For example, to edit some of the visual settings the user must click on ‘settings’, ‘themes’ and the ‘configure’, rather than having some of these options part of the main settings.

I appreciate, however, that for a less techie person, this might be an ideal platform. I also appreciate that I was using the basic package and that upgrading to a paid-for package would give me greater design freedom. I took advantage of the plugins that are available on the basic package. These included Exhibit builder, Simple Pages and Library of Congress Suggest.

Populating my Digital Library

I used Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for the Subject element within Dublin Core metadata using the Library of Congress Suggest plugin. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible when adding metadata to my objects; however was again frustrated that the subject terms are not clickable within each item, as you might expect from a library catalogue.

In terms of Dublin Core itself, I found this quite restrictive too as there was no way to add qualifiers to elements, for example I wanted to add qualifiers to the date to explain what it referred to – in this case the date the knitted item was finished. Kucsma et al (2010) also refer to the ability to qualify Dublin Core elements, however I believe these options are only available with a paid-for account. I wanted to record the needle size, yarn and colour of the knitted item but had to resort to including these details in the free-text Description field, standardising within my digital library the way in which I coded this information. I also added the information to the tags for each item in the library to aid searching.

Gill et al. (2008) caution that quality metadata creation is essential and advocate “establishing and enforcing processes and procedures” within an institution. I also found this to be true. For a larger project it would certainly be necessary to spend more time considering the metadata elements in terms of the objects I was trying to catalogue. For example, I had to keep reminding myself that I was recording metadata about the object in the image, not the image itself as my digital library collects digital images of knitted items, rather than the physical items themselves.

The CSV Import plugin would help with importing metadata, allowing the librarian to catalogue large numbers of objects in a spreadsheet before upload this to Omeka. This would be particularly useful as there is no way to batch edit objects in Omeka, should you change your mind about how your objects should be described, as I did on a few occasions. It would have been much easier to make changes in a spreadsheet than it was to edit each item individually, and I only have 15 items. Palmer and Knutson (2004) also found that ‘the basic work of creating, reconciling, and updating item metadata is a huge undertaking even for resource-rich institutions’.

Items in my digital library are licenced under a Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license (Creative Commons (n.d.)). This allows users to share, copy, distribute and transmit the objects and images as long as the work is attributed to the digital library and is for non-commercial use. Derivatives of the work are not permitted under the licence. Omeka allows the digital librarian to add this information and display the licence information on the homepage. Dublin Core also allows this information to be recorded for each item, which would be very useful if different objects could be licenced under different conditions.

The Future of my Digital Library

The value of a repository of knitted items is to record our cultural heritage, to record the creative output for future generations and to record the evolution of knitting trends. To this end I would consider connecting my library to other cultural institutions, for example museums or other institutions dealing with the history of textiles or crafts. A joint exhibition could be created using examples of knitting through the centuries, creating a collaborative history of textiles. The Repository of Knitted Items would contribute modern examples of knitting to the historical context.

To keep libraries, digital or otherwise, vibrant it would be necessary to connect to the community, as recommended by Pomerantz & Marchionini (2007). To facilitate this, our library would solicit further submissions to the library from the wider knitting community. By crediting members of the community who submit their knitted items to the library, we hope that they will actively engage with the collections and feel a sense of participation within the library.

References

Creative Commons (n.d.) Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Gill, T., Gilliland, A.J., Whalen, M. and Woodley, M.S. (2008). Introduction to Metadata. Retrieved from http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intrometadata/index.html.

Kucsma, J., Reiss, K. & Sidman, A. (2010). Using Omeka to Build Digital Collections: The METRO Case Study. D-Lib Magazine, 16(3/4). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/kucsma/03kucsma.html

Palmer, Carole L. and Ellen M. Knutson. 2004. Metadata practices and implications for federated collections. In Proceedings of the 67^th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Edited by Linda Schamber & Carol L. Barry. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc: 456-462.

Pomerantz, J., & Marchionini, G. (2007). The Digital Library as Place. Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 505-533.

Social Media in Libraries

One of our assignments for Current Trends in Social Computing (IS30290) was a group presentation. My group chose to talk about social media use in libraries and I gave the 20 minute presentation in class on behalf of the group. Below is a edited version of the presentation, published with permission from the group members.

Library 2.0

‘Library 2.0’  is a term that provides focus to a number of ongoing conversations around the changing ways that libraries should make themselves and their services visible to end users. In the library domain, we are seeing trends to mirror those in the wider information space. Libraries 2.0 means implementing methods that make library content visible and relevant to those who might never have thought to turn to a library for anything more than a warm place to check their e-mail.

A library website is now only part of the online presence that a library now has to have. Web 2.0, the ever changing tide towards mobile internet and social and more on the go apps have shifted the sand even further and faster in the last 5 to 10 years then ever before. We as information professionals (or librarians) will be at the coalface of this information change. The real promise and hope of library 2.0 is in its ability to strengthen communities and enable discourse around information resources which works towards advancing human knowledge.

So why should libraries be using social media?

Community engagement: We hear over and over again how libraries need to engage with their users, go where their users are, particularly digital libraries need to bring their content to their users. Well the clue is in the name – social media.

It’s free: The second major reason to use social media is that it’s free. Ok, so it’s not totally free – you’re using spending money on time and human resources. But the platforms themselves are free to use, which is great news for libraries who generally have a pretty tight budget.

Tip #1: Look at what other libraries are doing and ‘borrow’ their ideas

We also looked at how we feel libraries can make the most out of social media by using examples of how Irish organisations are doing it well. So our first tip is look at what other libraries are doing and ‘borrow’ their ideas.

Tip #2: Have a clear social media policy

The Irish Cancer Society Cancer Information Service, while not a library, is a great example of how you can use social media to disseminate information. Their Cancer Information Service is using both Facebook and Twitter to provide cancer information.

They very kindly sent us a copy of their social media policy which sets out “how to comment and respond to comments on Facebook and Twitter, how to engage with followers and how to maximize security on these networks”. They also set out clear instructions in the event that their accounts get hacked as well as how to be proactive about security.

According to the social media policy cancer information services nurses compose messages promoting awareness of cancer, while also “taking every opportunity to link with the Irish Cancer Society’s website, promote the service, publications and campaigns.” They suggest posting corrections rather than removing comments that are innacurate, as removal of posts cause lack of trust and encourages backlash. They also include a stock response in their social media policy.

Tip #3: Don’t just broadcast – INTERACT

I’m sure we’ve all encountered an organisation that just uses social media to broadcast their message or links to their website but doesn’t actually interact with users. This is the easiest way to annoy your users. Libraries should be ready and willing to respond to comments and should set out how this is done in their Social Media Policy.

The Military Archives have taken interaction to another level. They are asking members of the public to help them identify the people in the photos in their archive. To do this they have made their archive available to the public via Flickr.

This is a great way to get the community to help them flesh out their archives but also to get the community engaged with the content that they have. The Defense Forces have also seen a rise in the demand for their physical archive since they have started interacting with their audience through social media.

Tip #4: Go beyond the metrics

Libraries need to constantly justify why the run programs and in some cases they need to justify their very existence. This is also true for social media.

The easiest way to look at ‘success’ with social media is to look at the metrics. This can mean looking at the usual metrics such as the google analytics and seeing how many people have viewed your website or blog.

But it also means looking at the number of likes on Facebook and the number of followers on Twitter or Flickr. Libraries can also look at the number of likes and retweets on a particular tweet, the number of likes, shares or comments on a Facebook post or blog post and the number of comments on Flickr.

But to get a real sense of whether their social media use is working Libraries should also go beyond the metrics and look at the comments and replies they are getting. By doing this they can see whether they are reaching their target audience.

In the example on screen we’re returning to the National Library of Ireland. They shared a photo on Facebook from their Wiltshire Collection. As well as 63 likes and 21 shares we can see the comments on the post. One commenter said they could spend months browsing the collection, where another comments that they had just started to learn about holy wells that are also found in the collection and that they were delighted to find some photos of them. This proves that the NLI are reaching their intended audience and helping new users to discover their collections.

Why should digital libraries use linked data?

This is the first in a series of posts documenting some of the assignments I submitted as part of my Masters in Library and Information Studies (MLIS). I’ve decided to rework and publish extracts here for a number of reasons. I’m very proud of a lot of the work that I’ve done this year and I think this is a great way of demonstrating my interests and competencies within the field.

An edited version of an environmental scan submitted for IS40560 Digital Libraries.

In his Ted Talk from 2009 on the next generation web, web 3.0 or the semantic web, Tim Berners-Lee (2009) said:

“You do your bit, everybody else does their bit, and the data all connect, creating a power that is simply not available from hyperlinking documents.”

The area of linked data is fascinating to me and I was intrigued to read and learn more about this area of digital libraries. There is a lot of literature available about what linked data are and how they should be used but not much of it addresses why libraries should embrace linked data. I have some understanding of what linked data are from a technical point of view, however, I am interested to learn why digital libraries should use it, what are the benefits to the library?

I began by reading a blog post titled Linked Data 101 (Shotton, 2013a), in order to get an overview of the topic. In this post the author lays out his basic argument for publishing library catalogues in linked data and over a series of posts explains how this can be achieved. In another post Shotton (2013b) argues that we are at the mid-point in the digital revolution, somewhere between the print world and the online world, with the print world still exerting a lot of power over how things are done in the online world. He feels that libraries have still not fully committed to being online.

According to Bowen & Schreur (2012) linked data has the potential “to transform every aspect of how we create, acquire, and discover information.” The authors feel that linked data will make library resources available to users through new means such as search engines, mobile apps, and social media.

Bowen & Schreur (2012) also suggest that libraries “as primary purveyors of information” should be at the centre of this transformation. Breeding (2013) seems to agree with this point of view. In his column in Computers in Libraries he suggests that librarians “resonate” with the idea of the semantic web and linked data because we are strive to make content as open and available as possible. Similarly Byrne & Goddard (2010) agree with this point of view saying that “librarians should actually be well positioned to understand and implement linked data.”

To explain the power of the semantic web and linked data Byrne & Goddard (2010) give the example of a search engine that could distinguish between a resource that is written about someone rather than a resource that is written by someone. Shotton (2013b) makes the case that access to linked data permits their use in ways that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. He offers the example of a researcher being able to plot on a map records from different libraries or institutions relating to Mesopotamia. However the exciting thing about linked data is the creative things that other might do with it (Shotton 2013a, 2013b).

Söderbäck (2009) argues that a library catalogue should be designed within the larger context of the web and that we should not just accept a library catalogue as it is, but rather consider what it could become. He feels that the catalogues should be part of the wider network and weave itself into the web. Alemu et al. (2012) describe their five benefits of linked library metadata for digital libraries including openness and sharing of metadata, identifying resource usage patterns, facilitating serendipitous discovery of information resources, facet-based navigation and enriching metadata with links.

In accord with this Breeding (2013) sees linked data as reshaping library technologies and that the benefits to libraries include better discovery services initially but also better means of managing library collections into the future. Byrne & Goddard (2010) also describe linked data and the semantic web as offering solutions to precise web search, authority control, classification, data portability, and disambiguation. The benefits to digital libraries according to Fox (2011) are in the area of discovery services, with users being able to surf from one catalogue seamlessly to another, as no institution will hold all the relevant data on a specific area. This is described by Byrne & Goddard (2010) as “smart federated search” reducing some of the current problems with federated search such as “lack of granularity, inability to support sophisticated queries, poor relevancy ranking, inaccurate de-duping, and slowness.”

In response to the semantic web and linked data the Library of Congress launched Bibliographic Framework Initiative in May 2011, the aim of which is to transition from MARC metadata standard into a new bibliographic environment with interconnectedness and the network at its core. Library of Congress (2012) explain that with MARC libraries were at the coalface of change in the 60s with the goal of making information available in an electronic form. It seems to me that we find ourselves again in a similar situation when it comes to the next generation – linked data.

Despite all these positive and stimulating arguments there are those warning of the pitfalls of linked data. Sanderson (2013) begins his presentation on the topic by suggesting that the semantic web was a “great idea in 2003” yet “still a great idea in 2013” [emphasis in original]. He argues that already there are too many ontologies to choose from, leaving room for competing models or syntaxes.  Metadata Quality in a Linked Data Context (2013) also cautions that in order for publishers of linked data to know what is expected of them and for users to understand their search results well understood metadata policies and operational practices are needed within the digital library. This suggests that there will need for education both on the librarian and users end of the equation

For me, the most important point that Bowen & Schreur (2012) make in relation to this shift to linked data is that as people move more of their lives to the web, libraries need to be represented. From the research and reading I have done I feel that transforming library catalogues into linked data is essential in keeping the library relevant in the digital era. The default information seeking strategy for most people is an online search engine. If our content is not being presented to potential users then it will not be discovered. I firmly believe that as librarians or curators of information we should be leading the way, applying our skills and showing the wider information world how it’s done.

References

Alemu, G., Stevens, B., Ross, P., & Chandler, J. (2012). Linked data for libraries: Benefits of a conceptual shift from library-specific record structures to RDF-based data models. New Library World, 113(11-12), 549-570.

Berners-Lee, T. (2009, February). Tim Berners-Lee on the next Web [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html

Bowen, J. and Schreur, P. E. (2012). Linked Data for Libraries: Why Should We Care? Where Should We Start? Retrieved from http://www.cni.org/topics/information-access-retrieval/linked-data-for-libraries/

Breedin, M. (2013, April). Linked Data: The Next Big Wave or Another Tech Fad? Computers in Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/apr13/Breeding–Linked-Data–The%20Next-Big-Wave-or-Another-Tech-Fad.shtml

Byrne, G., & Goddard, L. (2010). The strongest link: Libraries and linked data. D-Lib Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november10/byrne/11byrne.html

Fox, R. (2011). Avoiding the weak link. OCLC Systems and Services. 27(3), 163-169.

Library of Congress. (2012). Bibliographic Framework as a Web of Data: Linked Data Model and Supporting Services. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf

Metadata Quality in a Linked Data Context. (2013, January 24). Legal Information Institute [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2013/01/24/metadata-quality-in-a-linked-data-context/

Shotton, D. (2013, March 1). Linked Data 101 [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://semanticpublishing.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/linked-data-101/

Shotton, D. (2013, March 1). Libraries and linked data #6: Why publish library catalogues as open linked data? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://semanticpublishing.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/lld6-catalogues-and-linked-data/

Söderbäck, A. (2009). Why libraries should embrace Linked Data [Presentation]. National Library of Sweden. Retrieved from http://code4lib.org/files/LIBRIS_code4lib.pdf

Sanderson, R. (2013). RDF: Resource Description Failures and Linked Data Letdowns [Presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.cni.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CNI_RDF_Sanderson.pdf

A library weekend

Last weekend I had the opportunity to attend two library related seminars. The first was the Academic and Special Libraries Annual Seminar, while the second was the New Professionals Day inaugural event. Both were fantastic events and other bloggers have written great accounts of both days. Rather than go through the days in chronological order I want to discuss some of the recurring themes of not only these two seminars, but many of my classes at UCD.

Engage

Every time I hear the word “engage” I hear Jean Luke Picard of the Starship Enterprise saying the word in my head. But we keep coming back to this idea again and again. Libraries, be they public, academic, specialist, digital, whatever, need to engage with their users. Libraries need to go to where their users are, we need to use the same services their users use and we need to make their content available wherever the users want it. This was an idea strongly advocated for by Simon Tanner.

This can mean aggregating content across services (for example Europeanna) or engaging with users on social media platforms. For example the Military Archives uses Flickr to publicise their digital archive because this allows them to go to their audience. This means that users are in turn engaging with the content as well as raising awareness that the content is available.

Crowd sourcing

This is a topic that I hope to tackle in an assignment for Current Trends in Social Computing. Many libraries and cultural institutions are now using crowd sourcing to help with various projects. Using the above example again, the Military Archives are using Flickr to ask members of the public to help them to identify people in their image library.

Simon Tanner also spoke about some interesting crowd sourcing projects including Old Weather and Transcribe Bentham. With this kind of crowd sourcing of information there is always an opportunity for online abuse, however anecdotal evidence suggests that in general communities involved in these types of projects are passionate about the project and will also help monitor abuse. Redundancy also means that people are essentially ‘voting’ for the best answer.

To me this is a really exciting way for libraries and other cultural institution to engage with their users, while gathering valuable information about their collections.

Places & people

People want to know about themselves and where they live. This is why the genealogy market is so popular. People want to know more about themselves, their families and their history. They also want to know more about where they live.  Julia Barrett from the UCD Digital Library explained that some of their most popular collections were related to people and places.

The interesting affect of making these digital records available to a wider audience online was that it actually creates a demand for the original record, encourages people to visit the physical space.

Open source & open standards

One of the most exciting things to me about libraries is that they democratise knowledge and learning. Knowledge and information isn’t just for the elite or those that can afford it. They are, and should be, for everyone. To me open source software and open standards is an extension of this.

There are of course issues with open source software, the main one being the lack of technical support. However John Duffy of the Bar Council or Ireland Law Library, Commandant Padraic Kennedy of the Military Archives and David Hughes of DBS extolled the virtues of open source software and open standards and cautioned against using proprietary software.

The use of open standards goes hand in hand with open source. If we use open standards rather then bespoke solutions data can be inter-operable and libraries and repositories can talk to each other. It also makes things easier when transferring data or content from one system to another.

Social media

I’m a huge advocate of social media and have regular discussions with my mum who feels that social media can be dangerous. However, you can’t get away from social media anymore. It’s not going anywhere. And it’s free, which makes it an ideal means of engaging with users (there’s that word again) for cash strapped libraries.

Karen Skelly spoke about how the Irish Cancer Society is using social media to provide cancer information. While there was skepticism at first they are now using Facebook and Twitter as a means of disseminating information. Michelle Dalton also spoke passionately about the use of Twitter for sharing information and for keeping in touch with other information professionals.

The main take-aways from the two days was that social media is not about broadcasting, but interacting with your users. Libraries also need to have clear goals and a clear social media policy. Karen Skelly suggested looking at how other similar organisations use social media and their social media policies if they are available online.

Metrics give quantitative data – the number of likes, follows, RTs etc. but figures only give one side of the story. What was really interesting to me was that Karen explained that comments give qualitative feedback, comments show that you are reaching your audience.

And we’re right back to the beginning – engage with users and go where they are.