The Future of Library Systems

MJ SuhonosJanuary 30, 2014

①

The Problem

The industry is broken

• The market is increasingly

oligopolistic

• Next-generation systems (LSP/URM)

are still monolithic, multi-purpose

silos

Who owns your data?

APIs are a lie

Who owns your systems?

The Cloud is a lie

Who Owns YOU?

Who Owns YOU?

OCLC record use policy

• Trying to protect their business model by

preventing sharing

• Deliberately exploited uncertainty of

legality

• Librarians argued vocally for public domain

• Policy retracted and changed

http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/OCLC_Policy_Change

We don’t just need better systems.

We need better vendors.

②

Our Demands

We want our systems to be:

• Driven by our evolving requirements,

not vendor-led “features”

• Modified on our schedule, on our

terms

• Driven by technology librarians, not

library technology

Make things simpler

• Reduce duplication & reliance on

legacy technology

• Leverage modern technology, less

“enterprise” dependencies

• Harmonize services across multiple

platforms

Improve choice

• Promote specialization of many

systems

• Control / choice over which data

providers to integrate

• Use open standards throughout,

including within APIs

Move libraries forward

• Use multiple concurrent metadata

standards, including non-library ones

• Share library data openly on the web

• Facilitate transition to post-library (ie.

Web) technology

How do we get there?

Openness Movements

• Open Access: 1997 (SPARC)

• Open Source: 1998 (Open Source

Summit)

③

Openness Outward

Open Data

“freely usable, reusable and

redistributable, subject, at most, to

the requirements to attribute and

share-alike”

http://opendefinition.org/okd/

Open Data

• Legal and policy framework for data

interoperability

• Clarifies the terms and purposes of data

use

• Allows for a spectrum of licensing options

– see Creative Commons

Why Open Data?

• Data is only useful when someone

does something with it

• No data = zero possibilities

• Unrealized potential due to siloing

Bring library datato the web

2010: TPL Open Data

• Submit ted the entire catalogue to

the Internet Archive

• 2.5 million MARC records, about 2GB

http://archive.org/details/

marc_toronto_public_library

2012: Dentographs

Visualizing Library Holdings

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/6300

“The coolest thing to do to your data will be thought of by

someone else.”

Implementing Open Data

• Consider the impact of usage

restrictions when negotiating

contracts

• Establish institutional policies for

data sharing and licensing

④

Openness Inward

Linked Data

• Technical framework for data

interoperability

• A common language for sharing data

and relations online

• Unrealized potential due to

incompatibility

A new way of thinking

• Fundamentally differs from data

concepts of the 20th century

• From concept of "records" as

bounded sets, to an unbounded set

of "statements”

Based on new technology

• Same technology as WWW

– URIs for names, HTTP for retrieval, plus

RDF

– Decentralized, open standards

• Still organized facts about things, but

infinitely more flexible structure

2011: Library Linked Data

• W3C Library Linked Data incubator group

• Panel of invited librarians, academics,

experts

• “to help increase global interoperability

of library data on the Semantic Web”

• Final report produced October 2011

Why Linked Data?

• Break data out of silos by linking to data

within & between multiple organizations

• Anyone can contribute unique data;

allow local experts to curate their own

• Integrate using a universal non-library

framework

Bring web technologyto libraries

2011-2013: LODLAM

LODLAM

• Informal, grassroots group working

with LOD pertaining to libraries,

archives, museums

• Pair of small 2-day summits, #LODLAM

• “Radially Open Cultural Heritage Data

on the [Semantic] Web”

2012: BIBFRAME

BIBFRAME

• LC initiative to implement

bibliographic description using Linked

Data

• Experimental new approach to

modeling library data relations

• A long-term replacement for MARC

Implementing Linked Data• Participate in LODLAM, BIBFRAME

• Start using web-based (W3C)

standards

• Stop using proprietary vendor

technology

• Choose vendors who embrace

openness

⑤

Finale

Linked Open Data

Linked

Data

Open Data

Semantic Web

Benefits of Linked Open Data

• Will be able to use mainstream

solutions

• Can give libraries a wider choice of

vendors and developers to recruit

from and interact with

Benefits of Linked Open Data

• Much larger community to provide

support, development, sharing

• Smaller institutions can make

themselves more visible and

connected

Major goals for libraries

1. Foster discussion about Open Data and

rights management issues

2. Develop library standards that are

compatible with Linked Data

3. Apply library experience in curation and

long-term preservation to Linked Open

Data

Take the Power Back

Let’s Talk.