TechEssence.info

Neil Godfrey recently posted an "INFORMAL Comparison of some institutional repository solutions" that anyone trying to make a platform decision may find useful. You will no doubt need to go much deeper before making a final decision, but at least this may serve as a good summary introduction to what each platform provides.

Also keep in mind that the landscape can be slightly more complicated than depicted here. For example, with the Digital Commons solution from bepress.com, you can easily add a full-featured peer review publication system to your institutional repository. This is something you cannot do with many other IR solutions, including the popular DSpace platform. This distinction is not covered in Godfrey's informal review. But overall it isn't a bad place to start in getting to know the various solutions.

I saw a note come through recently about a server that the University of Cincinnati Libraries had set up to be a "sandbox". What this means is that it is a place where new software (particularly open source software) can be installed for staff to investigate.

The sole admonition is to "Play nice together" and it currently has such applications as Drupal, Joomla, Mambo, WordPress, phpWiki, Tiki, and Moodle installed, among others.

I think this ia a wonderful idea and I'm glad to see that the University of Cincinnati Libraries takes their responsibility to help its staff learn new technologies seriously. I wish that more of our institutions did so.

Should you focus your efforts on a smaller number of really big technology projects, or a larger number of smaller projects? Of course there is no one right answer for all institutions, and it’s likely no institution would rely on one approach to the exclusion of the other. But it can be difficult to find the right balance between the large-scale, high-impact initiatives and those that are more nimble and quick to appear.

I was at a meeting of librarians and library staff recently in which the topic of how to involve more individuals in technology projects was raised. One individual made a particularly salient point – that librarians and library staff be given opportunities and encouraged to participate in technology projects, rather than being given a timed ultimatum to do so.

In a soon-to-appear Library Journal column, I discuss strategies for an uncertain future. One of those strategies is the topic of this blog posting, since I wanted to both throw this out there for discussion as well as to discuss it more thoroughly than I can in an 800-word column.

Many libraries employ usability testing to assess new or updated online services, such as database listings, catalogs, and digital collections. A popular model is observing a small number of potential users perform prescribed tasks using the service, and noting where those users encounter problems. This model, when used as the sole method for gaining user data, requires that the service be relatively well-developed before testing is done, increasing the risk that the fundamental design of the service does not meet user needs.

Grants offer attractive opportunities for carrying out technology initiatives that might not otherwise be possible for libraries. But grant money isn’t truly free money. The additional opportunities for libraries afforded by grants require time, effort, and commitment. In most respects, planning and implementing technology grants are no different than any other type of grant a library may seek and receive.

Executive Summary

Tagging refers to the process by which users assign terms meaningful to them to a resource in the online environment. The rise of social bookmarking Web sites have skyrocketed tagging systems into the mainstream.

Executive Summary

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe outlined in a 1998 report from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The report uses entity-relationship analysis to “provide a clearly defined, structured framework for relating the data that are recorded in bibliographic records to the needs of the users of those records.” (FRBR Report, p. 7) The most influential parts of the FRBR report are the definitions of user tasks and bibliographic entities.

As anticipated, earlier this week the International Standards Organization approved the OpenDocument Format for retrieving and exchanging documents. The impetus to move to an open standard has come from governments, archivists, and librarians concerned about the storage and use of longtime proprietary document file formats such as MS Office documents and pdf files.