Sunday, March 13th, 2011

LC AuthoritiesThing: Permanent links to LC Authority records

Library catalogs are notorious for their URL structure. More than a decade after the rest of the web decided on solid, permanent links, most library systems continue to generate ephemeral, usually session-based ones. Sometimes catalogs have a syntax for permanent links, but they’re a special, added feature.

The problem is at its worst with the Library of Congress Authorities system, used by catalogers and librarians the world over. The core of authority control is a stable identifier, in this case the LCCN, but the LC Authorities catalog can neither be searched by nor linked to by that identifier. No matter what URL you find, it dies when the session dies. You can’t even link to searches. What ought to be a rock is a puff of smoke.

The problem was been solved for Subject Authority files when the Library of Congress released the Authorities and Vocabularies website, which allows linking to subjects by their LCCN (eg., sh85026719). But name-authority files (ie., authors) have received no similar treatment.

LC AuthoritiesThing is a partial and tentative solution to that problem, a window into the Library of Congress Authorities catalog that allows permanent linking. Search for a name (or subject) and, when you find it, the page will have a tiny link icon () which serves as the permalink for the page.

Example: http://www.librarything.com/LCAT/LCCN=no2010139263

It took a little magic to get it to work, but it does.* For now at least, you can’t link to records you haven’t found. If there’s interest, I will inject Simon Spero’s ingenious screen-scrape dump of LC Authority files, which will give me the necessary link between 001 and 035 fields.

For now, it’s just an experiment. Will anyone find it useful? Is it worth putting on its own domain? What would make it better? I know, anyway, that it can be of some use to LibraryThing. In the near future I plan to bolt it to LibraryThing itself, so members can link authors to their LC Authority number, when the link will help clarify things.

If you have any thought, discuss them here.

Update: It’s been objected that LC Authorities has or will be superseded by VIAF, the Virtual International Authority File, an aggregate of authority files from libraries around the world. Unfortunately, VIAF is another OCLC project, studded on every side by copyright assertions, EULAs, use restrictions and licensing terms. As with most everything else OCLC does, the core information was created at taxpayer expense, and is legally impossible to copyright. The rest was created by libraries with no intention of creating a proprietary resource. And the result is another proprietary, restricted and nigh-inescapable data monopoly.


*Behind the scenes it’s doing both proxied requests and stepping through pages as if it were. If anyone can come up with a better way, I’m all ears.

Labels: cataloging

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

LTFL new grid display option

We’ve added a new and attractive way to display LTFL enhancements within your library catalog—we call it grid display. Basically, it lets you set a number of rows and columns, and display the data in a grid format. You can also try using  just one row and several columns to create a horizontal look. Ah, the possibilities are endless!

To turn it on: In the LTFL admin pages, click to the Configure page for one of the enhancements (Grid display works for Similar books and for Other editions and translations). Then just click yes to turn it on, and set the number of rows and columns you want. That’s it!

Screenshots: For contrast, below is the same set of similar books, shown in our original classic list view and in list view with covers (Turn covers on!).

Labels: librarything for libraries, ltfl

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

LibraryThing and FRBR?

Jeremy and I just finished writing a long post, LibraryThing dives into editions and expressions, laying out our plans to move LibraryThing to a new structure reminiscent in some ways of the FRBR system familiar to many librarians. Anyone interested in FRBR and cataloging might be interested in checking it out.

LibraryThing has long had a FRBR-like system, with three rather than four “levels,” and some differences in how the levels are conceived. The system is managed by members, and has achieved remarkable results. We believe, for example, that our ThingISBN service, produces better other-edition data for a book than OCLC’s xISBN service, which lacks user input. (Also, ours is free; they charge—but I digress.)

It’s time, however, to move to a more complex system, which can do everything members want to do. Go ahead and check out the discussion.

I posted here because I think the question should engage the larger library world. LibraryThing is a unique test-bed for ideas, and a potential source of both inspiration and actual organization for libraries.

Some questions for librarians:

1. How do you see the system agreeing with or differing from FRBR?
2. What FRBR-related ideas should we take a look at?
3. Which will happen first, RDA or LibraryThing’s new system? (joke)

Labels: cataloging, frbr

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

Library Anywhere – more than just keyword search

When we first launched, Library Anywhere let you quickly and easily search your catalog using just the general keyword search. To a degree I still think this is the right default, especially for mobile when you want quick and dirty browsing. But for many OPACs, just the general keyword search wasn’t great, wasn’t enough, or wasn’t giving the best results.

We’ve now added the ability for a library to choose to include their “search type” dropdown menu in Library Anywhere. It uses the exact same search type menu as your OPAC, so you’ll have those same options—e.g. search by author, title, subject, etc.

As you can see in the pictures below, to save screen space, the dropdown menu doesn’t appear until you click in the search box.

We hope this makes searching Library Anywhere all the better.

Labels: library anywhere, librarything for libraries, mobile, mobile catalog

Monday, January 24th, 2011

The downward spiral of ownership and value

This is one in a series of posts on the challenges of ebooks. Conversation about the topic is hosted by the Books in 2025 group. See the discussion topic there.



opinion by Tim

A recent blog post at Dear Author raised the issue of ebooks and ownership rights. Ebooks are redefining ownership toward access rights. New models are emerging, like advertisements in books. Jane concludes:

“I’m sure that there are other possibilities but with the amelioration of ownership and comparable media prices, digital books will come down from their current position and this, in turn, will create new business models and new pricing models. Could publishers resist the downward pressure of ebook pricing by coming up with a business model which would result in increased sense of ownership and thus value to the consumer? Is cloud access that model? What other ways could publishers and authors increase the value of ebooks to consumers?”

I suspect the answer is nothing. The loss of ownership creates a downward spiral in value, and erodes the very notion of paying for books at all.

Defining ownership down. We used to own our books. With most ebooks we own them in name, but effectively we lease them. As Jane documents, the slide toward more and more attenuated concepts of ownership continues.

The process is gradual. Mental models change slower than technology. If the Kindle had debuted with an access-based “faucet” model, it would have failed. Consumers would not have traded true ownership for a tethered, metered and monitored product. But we’ll get there soon enough, as each step away from ownership makes the next step more acceptable. Once you realize your Kindle book is not fully yours, you’ll accept it being mostly not yours. Google Ebooks are a further step away from ownership. Eventually you get to a faucet model, as music has done, either low-price (Netflix) or free (Pandora, YouTube).

By itself, such changes might be culturally and economically neutral. Ownership of paper books wasn’t so much a consumer preference as a side effect of their physical nature, and law followed and solemnized that state of affairs. Maybe the faucet model will produce more readers, more reading, more good books, more paid authors, etc. Or maybe it will produce less. Who knows?

The role of piracy. I think we know. And the trends are negative, for both readers and authors.

Unfortunately, digitization and the faucet model tends to encourage a third option–piracy. Digitization makes it possible, but the faucet model encourages it. This happens in two ways.

First, people who love autonomy and personal freedom rebel against metered and monitored access to reading. They don’t want inconvenient DRM, monstrous and opaque licenses, transfer limitations, constant access requirements or icky, opaque monitoring. These people will turn to piracy to avoid it. (Or at least that’s what they’ll say they’re doing.)

Second, the more ownership is devalued, the less people care about the rights of the seller. When someone sells you something they made, or through a small number of simple intermediaries, it’s easy to see what’s wrong about cheating them. When authors’ work is reduced to a limitless soup, available through shiny digital spigots at cheap, but limited, rates, it’s hard to see where problem with piracy really lies, and easier to rationalize cheating authors.

As devalued ownership feeds piracy, rising piracy in turn devalues ownership. Anyone with an internet connection can rapidly assemble a “library” of books it would have once taken years to build–so why bother building one?

As the logic churns, content sellers will increasingly seek other ways of “monetizing.” Authors will charge for readings, or merchandise. They’ll try advertisements. They’ll start leveraging all the user data they’re collecting to create even better ads. None of this will replace more than a fraction of the book economy, but they will definitely send a message to consumers: You’re being screwed enough to pay for the privilege.


from “Music’s lost decade by David Goldman, CNN Money

Look elsewhere. Does impaired, devalued digital access encourage piracy? Many ebook pundits dismiss ebook piracy. “New models” will emerge. Piracy is better than obscurity. People will pay once everything is available for a “fair” price. The arguments are familiar, and have an air of ritual now. Hip conferences urge publishers to do a swan dive into an empty swimming pool.

Don’t need to take my word for it. Just look at all the other industries that have gone digital. Take music. Physical music sales have been declining steadily for more than a decade, and while digital sales rise, they make up only a fraction of the loss. (They’re not even rising much anymore either.) Revenue from Pandora, Spotify, YouTube ads and the like are loose change next to CD sales declines.

What’s the shortfall? All told, the United States recorded music industry is worth less than half of what it was a decade ago, and the downward slope is only getting steeper. Outside of the big markets, the declines are greater. The Spanish music industry fell 55% in the last five years alone. In China rampant CD copying and file sharing have left a nation of 1.3 billion people with a $75 million recorded-music industry. As a recent Economist report put it, the “worst-case scenario has already come to pass.”

Music has it easy compared to writing. Musicians have always relied on other revenue sources. Performance is the big one, but merchandise and licensing matter too. Authors don’t have the same options. Dickens engineered a profitable reading tour of the United States, as new-model enthusiasts always point out. But how many authors could do that today? How many could fund themselves on t-shirt sales. And will anyone pay authors to read sentences from their novels over an Audi advertisement? The ringtone market holds limited prospects.

The unashamed future. As William Gibson said, “The future is already here; it’s just not very evenly distributed.” I saw that future at a recent technology conference, hosted by NYU. Of course, the participants were all well down the digital road. All read digital books, and many had given up paper entirely. (In certain circles announcing that you haven’t read a physical book in X months is a boast, and people compete to have the highest number.)

But one individual stood out. In a mixed crowd of peers and professors this brave futurist shared her decision to stop buying book altogether. She loved books. She read a lot. But she could find everything she wanted to read on BitTorrent. Nobody objected. It may have been my imagination, but I thought I saw a mystical crown settle squarely on her head. She was the coolest person in the room. She was the future.

Publishers and authors, meet that future. And know that with every move away from ownership you are hastening its arrival.

Labels: ebooks

Friday, January 7th, 2011

ALA Midwinter 2011

Jeremy and I are headed to San Diego today (yes we were both awake by 3am) for ALA Midwinter! I’ll be demoing LibraryThing for Libraries and Jeremy will be helping out when he’s not running around talking to publishers. If you’re at ALAMW, come by and say hi—booth 2823.

I have a slew of new and notable LibraryThing for Libraries enhancements to show off:

Labels: ALAMW11, librarything for libraries, ltfl

Friday, January 7th, 2011

LTFL Improvement-Material Type in Other editions

Another new LibraryThing for Libraries improvement! At the request of one library, we added the ability to replace the ISBN displayed with each “other edition and translation” with the media type for it.

So instead of this: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Clarke, Susanna. (ISBN 1593977417)
You’ll see something like this: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Clarke, Susanna. [Book On CD]

See it in action at Ventura County Library, here

A big caveat—this feature is currently only available for libraries that subscribe to the Shelf Browse enhancement, or for libraries that can export their data as full MARC records. I know, seemingly unrelated, but it has to do with the way and the amount of data we index. For the curious, we’re using media types from the leader and 008 of the MARC record.

Want it?
Just email me! (abby@librarything.com)

Labels: librarything for libraries, ltfl

Tuesday, January 4th, 2011

Add covers to your LTFL enhancements

We’ve added a little cover image eye-candy to the LTFL Catalog Enhancements. You can now choose to display cover images along with the title/author text. You can turn on cover images for Similar books, Other editions and translations, and in tag browser. In the tag browser, you can also choose to display a mini tag cloud for each book in the list, to give it a little context.

Because a picture is worth a thousand words (click to see larger images):

Without covers With covers

If you already have Catalog Enhancements in your catalog, here’s how to turn it on:
1. In the LTFL admin pages, go to your Global Configuration page and fill in the cover image URL line. It uses whatever covers your library already uses in your OPAC (Syndetics, Content Cafe, etc.)

2. Go to each enhancement’s configure page and click the “Show Covers” box, or the “Show Mini Tag Cloud in Tags Browser” box.

Labels: covers, librarything for libraries, ltfl

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Library Anywhere prices

Update 6/22/11: When we first launched Library Anywhere, we were eager to have public pricing. It’s certainly a novelty in the library world, where wiggly pricing and negotiation are the norm. And we’ve used public pricing for the past year, keyed off of how many physical buildings/branches the library has. What we’ve found, unfortunately, is that while it pleased many people, it made just as many people unhappy.  We’ve decided that we’re going to reevaluate our pricing metrics, and to take down this public list. And, of course, we’ll maintain pricing that’s far less then similar products!

Labels: library anywhere, librarything for libraries, mobile, mobile catalog

Friday, December 17th, 2010

Romeo and Juliet, with—Get your mind out the gutter!

Today Google released its Books Ngram Viewer, a remarkable statistical snapshot of the books in Google. The New York Times did an nice piece on it.

So I went to work on it. My guess was that, like much else with Google books, the data was ratty. It didn’t have to look far. At first glance this chart appears to show that “fuck” had a remarkable early history—being more popular in 1725 than even today! (link)

Don’t get too excited. A quick search on the phrase in books between 1700 and 1800 treed the cause:

Yes, Google can’t tell between an f and an ſ, the “s without a bar” more properly known as a long, descending or medial s. To the disappointment of many, Shakespeare wrote “suck’d.” The effect pops up all over. Here’s a graph of “crimſon” vs. “crimson.” If nothing else we can now follow the demise of the ſ with precision.

There’s no question this is a cool tool. But given Google’s grand ambitions and how common s is in English, it’s a pretty startling lapse.

Labels: google, google book search, humor