No, I’m not talking about the interface our users see in the web browser — there’s enough argument about that — I’m talking about web services, the technologies that form much of the infrastructure for Web 2.0.
Once upon a time, the technology that displayed a set of data, let’s say catalog records, was inextricably linked to the technology that stored that set of data. As we started to fill our data repositories, we found it usefull to import (and export) the data so that we could benefit from the work others had done and share our contributions with others. These processes were manual, or at least actively managed, and they depended on the notion that we had to have that information in our servers to be used by and displayed for our users.
Then technology evolved. Many applications now separate the components that store and manage the information from the components that display and manipulate it, and a few applications open up their data stores to the public via web services-based APIs. This is the concept that makes HousingMaps, ChicagoCrime, and Flickr Colr Pickr, among so many others, work.
Think about this for a moment: Our ILSs are inventory management systems, but our OPACs are (supposed to be) search and retrieval systems. The difference is obvious from here, but our vendors continue to operate as though you can’t have one without the other.
It might be easier to illustrate this point with an example or two.
Amazon Light is one of hundreds of applications based on Amazon’s web services. It connects Amazon’s inventory system with a custom built search and retrieval system, and it works. The Amazon Lite developers at Kokogiak didn’t need to build the inventory system, they only needed to think about ways to make the Amazon inventory more useful to you. Try it out, you might like the ability to search your local library (via some real hacks) or bookmark things via del.icio.us.
Or, you might not. Because Amazon allows anybody to access their catalog data, everybody has the opportunity to build a better, more usable catalog — or any other application that can benefit from the bibliographic details in it.
Take LibraryThing for example. It’s hard to explain what it is about people who read books that makes them want to list the books they own or have read or are interested in reading, but LibraryThing doesn’t worry about the why. It just answers the need. And because listing books, at least making a detailed list of books, can be time consuming, LibraryThing makes it easier by fetching the full details and book jacket from Amazon’s catalog. LibraryThing doesn’t need to ?own? that info, it just needs access to it.
And what’s interesting is that LibraryThing is only one of a number of similar applications. Take a look at AllConsuming, Technorati’s popular books, and listal. These services connect Amazon’s catalog data with other data gathered from users or from web crawls, then they share the results. Here’s Ryan Eby’s lists of owned and wanted books, and here they are in RSS. Why RSS? Take a look at how he’s using the listal feed for his current reading list in his blog (lower-right column).
These are not technology demos. These are real applications. They are examples of how the world changes when you open up access to your catalog data. It’s what happens when we realize that the tools that store and manage our information are separate from the tools that display and manipulate that information.
Obviously, I’m about to make the (now-old) argument that we need to open our OPACs like this, but we also need take the lesson that easy and loose is winning over detailed and difficult — even in XML representations of our catalog data. And after looking at all that’s been done so far, I want to ask: why not adopt Amazon’s web services XML schema?
Is it so bad that it was invented elsewhere? Is it a bad thing that there are perhaps hundreds of applications that are already using data in that format?
Maybe the answer to those questions is yes, but here’s where technology can serve us again: we don’t have to choose. We don’t need to bet on one technology while we watch others progress faster. Our systems can output the same catalog data in any number of different ways. RSS, OpenSearch, MARC-XML, ATOM, EAD, or DC are all possible, easy in fact — if the inventory server architecture is open enough to allow it.
What do I really mean when I say library web services should be like Amazon web services? I mean they should be that accessible, that usable, that hackable. I mean libraries will benefit when people we’ve never met are spending their evenings building new applications to use our data. People are wondering how to get more programmers in libraries (example one, two), but I’m wondering how to make library systems more programmer friendly.
Fired up? Read more with my library catalogs should be like WordPress post, John Blyberg’s ILS customer bill of rights, and Ryan Eby’s open vs. turnkey discussion.
tags: amazon, amazon api, amazon web services, api, dublin core, ead, libraries, library, library catalog, marc, marc-xml, opac data, opensearch, web 2.0, web service, web services, web20, webservice, webservices, xml, xml server
2 Comments
I would point out that OpenSearch and RSS are not different formats. A valid OpenSearch Response *is* RSS (well, unless it is Atom).
I agree with the sentiment, but not the terminology. ILS / OPAC / WebOPAC / database terms are widely used and misued by librarians. There are a few components: your inventory system, your interface for librarians and your interface for the public. The problem has been that libraries have tried to do all three things with the exact same system. I argued long ago (well, in Internet time, i.e. February 2005) that a key step is first perceiving that the ILS is primarily an inventory system, so it seems that progress is being made in that area
http://scilib.typepad.com/science_library_pad/2005/02/why_the_webopac.html
The next step, one which I know you and others are working on very hard, is how to build a real, usable, client interface. Do you find a way to talk to the inventory database? Or do you suck the data out and repurpose it? Fundamentally, all the XML Server vs. Web Services discussions boil down to: in order to build a good user interface, libraries MUST be able to fully access and manipulate the data in their inventory systems according to the needs of the LIBRARY, not the whims of the VENDOR.
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] I couldn’t say it, but Alexander Johannesen could: libraries are the last bastions of the â??not invented here syndromeâ? (scroll down just a bit, you’ll find it). [...]
[...] One only need look at LibraryThing to see an alternative. It’s not that I think LibraryThing or Listal or any other service will make better privacy decisions than we will. My point is that our attempts to build out customized services will likely draw resources away from efforts to improve the way our existing services interoperate with the rest of the internet. Listal and LibraryThing work because Amazon built an outstanding API and made it freely available to all. If libraries offered an API like that, those services could easily integrate our holdings, and LibraryThing users could match their interests against materials available at their local libraries without revealing themselves to us. Patrons could run desktop applications like Delicious Library and (mostly) avoid revealing themselves over the network. Libraries are in the awkward position of having identifying information about their patrons, but online-only services might not need any more identification than an anonymous username and password. [...]
[...] What about RSS, XML, OpenSearch? WordPress solves the RSS feed for us (look at this URL to see). A feature-complete XML API, is a bit further off, but maybe somebody wants to pitch in to help solve that one? And full OpenSearch support, taking advantage of the suggested and alternate search features, is my next big project (here’s where I’m going with that). [...]
[...] I’ve talked about this before (here, here, here, and here, among others), and I’ll be talking about it more yet. Most exciting for me, I wasn’t alone in my plea, as Art Rhyno made some great points about how our acquisitions and accounting processes are substantially similar to what’s called ERP in the outside world. [...]
Post a Comment