As Rob said, there are not any plans to discontinue the work/development of MyLibrary. MyLibrary is alive and well.

We here at Notre Dame we use MyLibrary to drive much of our website. [1, 2, 3] It works. It does what it is suppose to do. We also use it to manage a couple of other digital library thingees. For example, it drives a FAQ for our reference department [4], and we expect to expand this beyond the reference department. We also use it to drive much of the fledgling “Catholic Portal” [5].

MyLibrary is getting tweaked

MyLibrary is getting tweaked. For example, more granular recommendations against information resources will be implemented in order to satisfy a need for our upcoming website redesign. I believe librarians will be able to prioritize recommended resources in the form of a numbered list. “This is the most important resource. This is the second most important resource. Etc.” Work is also being done in regards to a statistics module. Count how many times a resources has been used and by what type of person. This will enable us to answer questions such as, “What resources is most popular?” and “What resources are used by people like you?” I hope these enhancements will be finished by the end of the summer. (Famous last words.)

MyLibrary is not a turn-key application

MyLibrary 3.x is a long way from MyLibrary 2.x. The later version is not a turn-key application; it is a true object-oriented module. I think this scared many would-be MyLibrary adopters away. To use MyLibrary 3.x there needs to be true co-operation between librarian and developer. This gap is sometimes difficult to bridge. Moreover, the implementation of facet/term combinations (which just so happened to pre-date the current fascination with “faceted browsing” in our “next-generation” library catalogs) is really rather foreign to many people. Most of us are used to LCSH and the like. I allude to many of these ideas in an upcoming article that will be appearing in Information Technology & Libraries (ITAL) sometime in September. I will also elaborate on these ideas at the Access Conference in October.

MyLibrary vs Primo

Finally, MyLibrary provides complementary services when compared to “next-generation” library catalog things such as Primo, VUFind, and AquaBrowser. Technically speaking, MyLibrary is a Perl-based API allowing the librarian and developer to read/write to a specifically shaped database. This this sense, MyLibrary is digital library framework and toolbox. Librarians and developers are expected to fill the MyLibrary database with content, write reports against the database, and thus facilitate digital library collections and services. As they are being touted and implemented, “next-generation” library catalog applications are essentially indexes with enhanced services applied against them. Aggregate content. Index it. Provide access to the index (search), and provide additional services against the index (Did you mean?, faceted browse, relevancy ranked output, tagging, etc.). As a database application, MyLibrary purposely does not support search very well. To support search librarians and developers are expected to pipe their content to an indexer like swish-e, Kinosearch, or Lucene — the indexers supporting most “next-generation” library catalog systems. On the other hand, “next-generation” library catalogs do not support the finely grained data creation and maintenance operations a database can support, nor can they have the flexibility to create the myriad of reports that MyLibrary can generate. MyLibrary and things like Primo each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Neither one is a silver bullet for implementing the sorts of information services our patrons increasingly expect.

In short, MyLibrary is more like a database application. “Next-generation” library catalog systems are more like indexes. Databases and indexes are two sides of the same information retrieval coin.

Links

[1] Subject page - http://www.library.nd.edu/subjects/
[2] Formats page - http://www.library.nd.edu/formats/
[3] Tools page - http://www.library.nd.edu/research_tools/
[4] FAQ - http://www.library.nd.edu/reference/faq/
[5] Catholic Portal - http://www.catholicresearch.net/

The Portal is expected to ingest both EAD and MARC records. As these files are submitted I have been stuffing their entire contents into a MyLibrary::Resource object. After all, I know a lot of metadata about the file(s): name/title, date, creator, etc. As for the contents of the file itself I use the Resource object’s note method.

Unfortunately, and by default, the underlying database note field is defined as text. This means my data values can be no longer than 64K in size. Alas, some of my EAD and MARC records are larger than that.

No problem. Dump the database schema. Change the definition  of the text field to mediuimtext (16MB). Reinitialize the database. Begin again. No fuss. No muss. The MyLibrary API continues without a hitch. Alternatively, I could have used an SQL ALTER TABLE command to edit thing inline.

Actually, I used this hack once before, specifically, in my Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts. There too I wanted to stuff the entirety of  an electronic text into a MyLibrary::Resource. In this case I upped the value to longtext (4GB) because, believe it or not, some of those electronic texts were huge!

The fun and power of open source software! 

This distribution includes a set of terminal-based scripts to
manage a MyLibrary instance. Its primary purpose is to
demonstrate how to use some of the MyLibrary modules.

As such, the scripts allow you to manage facets, terms,
locations, resources. When it comes to the first three, they
allow you to create, find, edit, and delete them.

When it comes to resources, the scripts allow not only creating,
finding, editing, and deleting, but it also allows you to import
data via OAI from the Directory of Open Access Journals as well
as the Infomotions Image Gallery. They also support exporting
content as RDF, indexing the content with swish-e, and searching
the swish-e index.

Hackers will want to also take a look at the file named
subroutines.pl because it contains a number of things used in
just about every script.

Finally, remember, MyLibrary is not really about resources.
Instead, it is about creating relationships between people
(patrons and librarians) and resources. Morover, it can also be
about creating relationships between people and people, or
resources and resources. All of this is done by: 1) creating a
set of facet/term combinations, 2) assigning the combinations to
things (people or resources), and finally, 3) creating reports
from the database against those things. A traditionan library
subject page is just one example of a report. Sets of RDF files
are another. Content to be indexed is a third. This list is only
as long as your imagination combined with the principles of
librarianship.

Here’s what you will find in this distribution, and most of them
can be run from the command line without the need of the menu
program:

• main-menu.pl - a rudimentary menu
• manage-facets.pl - create, find, edit, and delete facets
• manage-terms.pl - create, find, edit, and delete terms
• manage-locations.pl - create, find, edit, and delete locations
• manage-resources.pl - create, find, edit, and delete resources as well as report on them
• doaj2mylibrary.pl - import DOAJ content into MyLibrary
• images2mylibrary.pl - import Infomotions Image Gallery into MyLibrary
• index-resources.cfg - a swish-e configuration file
• resources2swish.pl - read resources and export for swish-e
• index-resources.pl - index resources with swish-e
• search.pl - query a swish-e index and display results
• resources2rdf.pl - dump resources as simple RDF/XML
• subroutines.pl - commonly used functions throughout the system
• README - this file
• LICENSE - the GNU Public License

Enjoy, and happy hacking.

Open Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange (OAI-ORE) posits a thing called a Resource Map (ReM). These ReMs are used to bundle together sets of Internet resources. Once created these bundles are expected to be discoverable through ATOM, RSS, RDF, and/or microformats embedded in things like HTML files. Once discovered the ReMs can be harvested and used to create value-added services. For example, an ReM could be created for an issue of a journal article. Create the ReM. Make it accessible. Download it. Parse it. Harvest the actual data (not just the metdata). Index it. Repeat for other ReMs. Other ReMs might be bundles for TEI files and associated images. A person could bundle up a whole library website or special collection exhibit.

ReMs look a whole lot like ATOM feeds. As alluded to previously, reports written against a MyLibrary database could be in the form of ATOM feeds. This leads me to believe MyLibrary content could (easily) support OAI-ORE. Implement MyLibrary. Fill it up with content either manually or automatically. Make its content available in any number of Web Services: RSS, ATOM, REST, and now OAI-ORE.

Food for thought.

…Today, MyLibrary is now much more than simply a subject guide portal. While creating dynamic Web pages, such as subject guides, is still one of the major features of MyLibrary, it is now a full-fledged digital library framework and toolbox. Librarians have various options to import content into the system. Aside from accepting manual data-entry, MyLibrary can import MARC data and OASI-accessible data. Content from the system can be syndicated into institutional-wide portals and other systems, and users can also personalize pages in “my library” that are akin to MyYahoo, iGoogle, etc. MyLibrary is well documented, as evidenced by a 200+ page, two-volume manual. MyLibrary is written in Perl and requires MySQL. It is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 2.

Lot’s of good stuff there at Code4Lib Journal, but hey, I’m biased; I’m on the editorial board. Check it out anyway?

http://mylibrary.library.nd.edu/demos/your-page/   

There you will be presented with a list of famous intellectuals who you can impersonate. Once logging in using their credentials you are presented with:

1. a set of recommended resources based on their course of study
2. the names and email addresses of their subject-specific librarian
3. a list of the courses they are enrolled in and some recommended resources for each course
4. a list of the books they have checked out

The process of creating such a page is not difficult:

1. Create sets of information resources and “catalog” them in MyLibrary.
2. Acquire the names of students and “catalog” them in MyLibrary.
3. Acquire the classes give across the University and “catalog” them in MyLibrary.
4. Query MyLibrary and “join” students, classes, and information resources through their shared facet/term combinations.
5. Display the result.
6. Go to Step #4 for each person who logs in.

The source code for this demonstration is online. I created a very similar application – Sonne of Your Page – except it contains real data. Real people and real class rosters. This is not a production service, and you will not be able to access it unless you are a member of the University of Notre Dame community. The resulting pages look a lot like this:

 Fun with MyLibrary.

Attached somewhere in this posting should be a Perl script called mylibrary2atom. The script is bare-bones. It takes 1 or 2 inputs and outputs a stream of Atom-based XML. The first input is the word facets, terms, or resources. The second, optional input, is an integer representing the ID of a facet, term, or resource. The result sent to STDOUT is a valid Atom feed readable and tranformable by any Atom feed reader or XSLT processor. Through the use of an additional Perl module (Google::Data::JSON) and about two additional lines of code, the script should be able to output the data in JSON format as well.

If mylibrary2atom were made into a Web Service, I think the URLs accessing the data might look something like this:

• http://example.org/mylibrary/ - list MyLibrary resource object names (facets, terms, resources, patrons, librarians) with links specific objects
• http://example.org/mylibrary/facets - list all facets with links to specific facets
• http://example.org/mylibrarya/facets/3 - list facet ID #3 and links to child terms
• http://example.org/mylibrary/terms - list all terms with links to specfic terms
• http://example.org/mylibrary/terms/4 - list term ID #4 with links to related resources
• http://example.org/mylibrary/resources - list all resources with links to specific resources
• http://example.org/mylibrary/resources/2 - list resource ID #2
• http://example.org/mylibrary/librarians - list all librarians with links to specific librarians
• http://example.org/mylibrary/librarians/7 - list library ID #7
• http://example.org/mylibrary/patrons - list all patrons
• http://example.org/mylibrary/patrons/9 - list patron ID #9

In a Web Services-based interface, each one of these URLs would return either an Atom feed or a JSON object. Given this, what sorts of new and different ways might MyLibrary data used? To answer my own question, the connent could be accessed using a client written in something other than Perl — no need to know the Perl MyLibrary API. Other than that how can the content be inserted and used to provide alternative services?

Library websites

The first article, by Liu, surveyed about 100 ARL library websites for Web 2.0 characteristics. Typical content and navigation includes resources organized by title & format & subjects, library services, news & announcements, and contact us links. In short, they were (still) organized according to library functions and services.

Web 2.0 is characterized as harnessing the collective intelligence of users through coupled application programmer interfaces (API). “Think syndication, not coordination.” Along those same lines the article included a quote from Karen Coombs stating that the virtual library presence of 2010 will enable users “to come to the site not only to search for information but also to collaborate and share ideas.”

Some of the surveyed sites from the article included Web 2.0-esque features such as blogs, wiki’s, and RSS feeds, but I don’t they included the features to the degree intended by the definition of Web 2.0. In the end, and through some rather unscientific means, Liu advocates the “my library” concept and provides a few wire-frame documents illustrating how it could be employed. Ironically, these wire-frames look a whole lot like the layout of MyLibrary 2.0 pages. What is new is old again.

Library catalogs

The article by Lankes, Silverstein, and Nicholson posit that knowledge is created through conversation, and by way of extension, library catalogs — as knowledge tools — should facilitate conversation.

The first half of the article justifies why knowledge is created through conversation as well as provides definitions of Web 2.0 principles and “participatory networks”. Web 2.0 has been alluded to previously. Participatory networks “encompass the concept of Web 2.0 principles and technologies to implement a conversational model within a community (a library, a peer group, the general public, and so on).”

The second half of the article is the most interesting. It elaborates on the definition of participatory networks. It describes how libraries do this already though physical community spaces and lecture series. It outlines how a library catalog can be increasingly participatory through things like:

• initiating conversations when no resources are found,
• initiating conversations between users and books that they’ve read
• changing the relevancy ranking algorithm to weigh things differently
• including a great variety of content (blogs, wikis, digital repository, etc.)

Web pages, catalogs, and MyLibrary

It is difficult for me not to like the Liu article, even though the process used to come up with the conclusion escaped me. The second article is also near and dear to my heart because it describes the catalog as thing providing services beyond search.

I like both articles because they emphasis people and communities. People are the real sources of data and information, not books and journals. Our information systems need to figure out how to integrate individuals into them. This was always a necessity, but with traditional library transaction happening over a computer network, the face-to-face meetings have gotten lost in the shuffle. Considering the fact that MyLibrary provides a means to making relationships between information resources and people and other people, I wonder to what degree MyLibrary can be used to address some of the issues outlined in the articles.

References

[1] Engaging Users: The Future of Academic Library Web Sites by Shu Liu. College & Research Libraries 69(1):6-27 January 2008

[2] Participatory Networks: The Library as Converstaion by R. David Lankes, Joanne Silverstein, and Scott Nicholson. Information Technology & Libraries 26(4): 17-33 December 2007