It’s clear to most who are paying attention to this story that Penguin’s reasons are more petty than that. Amazon’s foray into publishing has pissed them off. They feel they’re losing control. They can’t handle the changing technological landscape, the changing publishing landscape. But these reactions are nothing more than scrambling, futile grasps for some kind of hold. They aren’t going to change things, and in the end, Penguin will still be forced to adapt, and the only people who will lose are those who always have: those who rely on libraries to access information. Not to mention the future of our cultural record, when libraries are no longer able to fulfill a crucial preservation function.

The fact is that the world of writing and publishing, selling and reading is different, and we can’t turn it around. Books are going to be published digitally, no matter how many people write impassioned diatribes against ebooks. Ebooks are the future of reading. But right now, we’re creating a world where access is being limited more and more to those who can afford it. Libraries have always played a key role in leveling that playing field, and we’re being prevented from doing that in a digital future.

That Penguin made this move just a week after a much anticipated meeting between the Big Six publishers and ALA head honchos just makes me feel powerless. As a librarian, I put my trust in ALA leadership to advocate for our needs, and the needs of our patrons. But it sounds like they went in there with anything but a heavy stick. ALA has a massive communications network, and a marketing budget. For decades ALA has spent that marketing budget creating Read posters and other pieces of propaganda that, frankly, serve more of a sentimental purpose than anything else. Why not use that budget to create a unified voice around issues that really matter, like this one? ALA could orchestrate an excellent patron education initiative around digital library issues. I feel like all they did was go into a meeting with the publishers and assure them that everything would be ok. Instead, we need people who are willing to fight.

This year I decided to do a single post wrapping up the whole week, instead of trying to write something everyday. Mainly because I didn’t really think I’d have enough interesting stuff going on to post everyday. Lucky for me, I ended up having a more fun and productive week than I anticipated. This felt like my first full week in the office in ages, what with the holidays and a three day weekend, and being out due to minor injury, and going to ALA. I was kind of nervous about that, like what if five straight cubicle days made me nuts? Thankfully, it’s Friday and I don’t think I’m nuts. I think I made it. Whew.

So what did I do this week? The main project I’m working on has been in a phase where the bulk of our work (for now) is done, and other people are doing a lot of work instead. This will change soon, but it’s been a bit slow, and I’ve had a chance to work on some other things.

I submitted an article to a journal, and got my peer review feedback, which indicated that the article needed a lot of work. Ouch, but totally what I expected. So this week I’ve spent a good chunk of every day revising revising revising. And adding more citations. And revising again. I’m hoping to wrap that up today and send it back, with fingers crossed.

In December, I attended a two-day workshop called Leading from any Position, and I was asked to present on what I learned. The presentation was scheduled for this Wednesday, so I spent Monday and Tuesday making slides and reviewing notes and pulling out the most important stuff from an intensive two-day workshop to try to present in 20 minutes. The presentation was a success, and a handful of my colleagues were excited about some of the ideas. I just set up a meeting in two weeks to get any interested parties together to talk more about how we might implement some new things in our projects and in our whole organization. I love this kind of thing, so I’m looking forward to it and hoping lots of other people are excited, too.

We’re gearing up for the next phase of development for the main project I’m working on, so I took some time on Tuesday to pull together a table detailing every part of the project we’re committed to build, what we’ve done, and what we still have to do. I reviewed some open issues related to the website portion of the project to try to pull out what still needs to be done. And I looked at a few recently drafted policies to tease out metadata requirements and get a sense for how we need to build the rest of the system. Finalizing requirements for this project has been a bit of a challenge, so we’re constantly on the look out for unspoken bits and pieces we need to be aware of. I also got some test records for the next phase of the project, so I spent some time reviewing those. I need to do more review, and I have some questions for the person who created them, but it’s always good to see actual records and data, rather than just speculate about what it might look like.

I’m a member of the Staff Council here at CDL, which has recently had a change of leadership. We had a meeting to talk about the direction we want to go in, and how we might revitalize the role of Staff Council here. Our new leaders had a couple of great ideas, and I’m excited to work with them. We just scheduled what will hopefully be the first of many monthly informal lunches, for people to get together and share new things they’re working on, or talk about extra-work hobbies and projects.

The metadata team (well, part of it, anyway) met up to talk about things we learned at ALA and things that are going on in the wider UC cataloging and metadata world. We ranted a little bit about OCLC. It was a good meeting.

I spent too much time troubleshooting a piece of Adobe trial software I was trying to install. I won’t talk about that anymore because it was extremely frustrating.

And finally, I’ve been participating in the Code Year project, which has been awesome so far. I haven’t been able to spend as much time on it this week as I’d like, but I’m hoping to finish up the Week Four lessons this weekend. I love being able to work on this over a sustained period of time: In the past, when I’ve tried to teach myself new programming languages and improve my existing skills, I haven’t maintained momentum. Being sent lessons to work on weekly keeps me driven and moving forward, and it is awesome. And I feel like I’m really learning it: In the past, I’ve learned something quickly, and then just as quickly forgotten it. I think it might be sticking this time!

It’s been a busy week, and it’s proving to be a busy Friday already. I was planning to take lunchtime break to go to the gym, but I think I’ll have to go after work instead. But in my world, it’s always better to be too busy than not busy enough.

There were three sessions I attended that shaped my general impressions of what’s going on right now in libraryland: The Cataloging Norms Interest Group session with Diane Hillman, Susan Massey, and Roman Panchyshyn, OCLC’s presentation on the changes they’re making to FirstSearch, and another OCLC presentation (by Kathryn Harnish) on the WorldShare platform and the underlying theories behind OCLC’s strategic vision.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the word that’s been ringing through my mind since I came home is “change.” Yes, everyone is talking about change. Because, duh, we are all going to be facing a crap ton of it in the coming years. The timing of the Harvard Libraries’ announcement about restructuring was kind of fortuitous: Many librarians were talking about change and change management all weekend. Nearly every presentation I heard over during the meeting was at its root all about change.

Diane Hillman gave a great talk to the Cataloging Norms Interest Group about linked data, “From Records to Statements.” And what she said was, basically, “Hey catalogers, get ready, because everything you know will be different.” I think she did a terrific job of explaining how the future of data differs from our existing practices, and why our existing practices won’t serve us well going forward. Cataloging isn’t going to be about record creation and management anymore, and catalogers need to adapt and learn new skills. Metadata work going forward is going to be about aggregating data, working with programmers and developing new methods for handling and using data, modeling and documenting best practices, and evaluating and analyzing data. We’ll be working to create new tools to work with large amounts of metadata: We can’t think about bibliographic metadata on a piece-by-piece basis anymore. We need to make massive changes in our basic conceptual models, and the faster we do it, the better.

The OCLC presentations I attended were also pretty well focused on change: It sounds like OCLC itself is heading in a new strategic direction, and I think that’s a great thing. Kathryn Harnish’s presentation on the WorldShare Platform was well done and interesting, and I’ll probably end up talking more specifically about some of the things she discussed in a separate post. But the big takeaway for me is that OCLC is shifting the frame around what they’re doing. They’re thinking about data on a large scale, and how libraries can use that data in new ways, to improve effectiveness and to cooperate in ever more meaningful ways. I think it’s fantastic. The only thing I have to say, though, is that in both presentations and one-on-one conversations with OCLC folks, I wish there was less jargon and more solid information. They could definitely work a bit on transparency. As I like to remind myself, OCLC is OUR organization, it’s our cooperative. It would be nice if it didn’t feel sometimes like they are trying to sell it to us.

I think most of the librarians I know are aware of the need for significant transformations in the way we work. We have, after all, been talking about this for a long time. Libraries are notoriously slow about adopting new practices, and this worries me. We do not live in a slow world. But I feel hopeful that the constant murmur around change I heard at ALA is a sign that we know we have to pick up the pace, get on the ball, get our shit together, whatever metaphor you prefer for hurry-up-and-make-good, people!

Some things I think librarians should do in the coming months to start getting themselves and their organizations ready for change (self included):

• Start learning about linked data and RDF. The W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report is a great place to start.
• Read The Age of the Platform by Phil Simon, and think about how data management works outside of libraries (PS – I tried to link to Worldcat for that book, but I couldn’t find it using a keyword, title, OR author search; if OCLC can’t fix stuff like that their ideas about platform driven development are kind of meaningless.)
• Learn about change management. There are best practices, no matter your role or position in an organization.
• Start thinking about your own skills and strengths, and your weaknesses. Come up with a plan for learning something new this year. Codeyear has been great fun for me so far. Position yourself well for the changes that are bound to come in your organization, rather than waiting for some kind of training to come from on high.
• Read about RDA, if you haven’t already. Even if you’re not a cataloger, it will help to understand how library metadata is being conceptualized.

These are just a few things off the top of my head that I want to do this year; I’m sure some of you have more and better ideas for how you are getting ready for big ol’ fancy changes in libraryland. I’d love to hear them. Are there other big themes you’re hearing and seeing in the profession right now? If you went to ALA, what are you thinking about this week, now that you’re home?

In PAPR, we’re building the supporting infrastructure for one of the largest library collaborations being undertaken right now: The WEST project. I’ve talked about WEST here before, but a quick recap: WEST (Western Regional Storage Trust) is a collective serials preservation project being undertaken by approximately 100 libraries in the western United States. These libraries are coming together to make decisions about which libraries will continue to hold print copies of specifically chosen journals in order to allow other libraries to jettison that weight and free up storage space. The hope is that through cooperative collection analysis and selective archive building, everyone will be able to make more strategic de-selection decisions. Cooperative collection management moves like this will better allow us to adequately preserve what needs to be preserved, while not requiring that every single library hang onto everything forever.

I think WEST is a harbinger of things to come for libraries. We’ll be making many more decisions on a larger scale, and collaborative with each other to make the best decisions, not just for our own communities, but for the global community. But collaborative work like this, as Crutchfield points out, requires infrastructure. It requires a system to manage and analyze the massive amounts that will be generated once you start working on a larger scale.

I’m hopeful that what we’re building will prove to be a useful supporting infrastructure, not just for WEST, but for other libraries that decide to collaborate in collections management and preservation. Working together is, after all, our best chance for survival, the best chance, in fact, for us to thrive.

One of the best things that happened at ALA Annual in New Orleans was a spontaneous dinner outing with some folks who gathered together via Twitter. It was a lot of fun to sit around a table with a group of people I didn’t know, and talk things I love: books, librarian stuff, and FOOD. We ate a Cochon, and it might have been one of the best meals of my life. I’m really hoping to pull together another Twitter Dinner in Dallas.

Some of the places I’ve got on this tentative list are Bread Winners Cafe, Off the Bone for barbecue, and Luna de Noche for Tex-Mex. I’d LOVE to hear other suggestions, if anyone has them. I’m definitely for at least one meal from a well-renowned and respected restaurant in the area, and I sadly don’t know that much about the Dallas restaurant scene. I’m keeping my eyes peeled for recommendations. And if you’d like to join me for a Twitter Dinner, I’m on Twitter as @lkrier.

I’m looking forward to conference-related things, too. It’s not all about the food. Mostly.

I attended partially as a representative of CDL, and partially as myself, a person who is interested in how standards are created and who believes very strongly that libraries need to be represented at these kinds of meetings. Unfortunately, there were very few librarians in attendance, but I think we did our best to raise issues that are crucial in our community.

Ebook annotations might not seem like a big issue for libraries, but I think it has the potential to be very important for us in the near future, especially for those of us working in academic libraries. NISO executive director Todd Carpenter opened the meeting with a brief talk about why ebook annotations are so important: reading is, and always has been, a social activity. It may not seem so on its surface. After all, most people read in solitude. But we love to discuss what we’re reading. We make recommendations, we make references to passages in books, we write reviews and give ratings. And in the world of digital reading, we have the opportunity to read socially on a greater scale. Many ebook readers offer the opportunity to make annotations, and to share and save them, but what isn’t always clear now is how to port your annotations, for example, from one system to another. This is related to a bigger problem with ebooks overall, which is how you move your digital books themselves from one system to another if you decide to make a switch, but we’ll save that one for another day.

The day-long discussion frequently raised more questions than answers, but they were all very good questions. I’ll be honest, in the second half of the day the conversation tended toward the very technical, and was often over my head. The room was filled with programmers who are grappling with some of these technical problems on a day-to-day basis. But I came away with a sense of what the key problems are, and some ideas for how these things are going to matter for libraries.

The biggest issue seems to be finding a technical way to locate a very specific place in a text. It sounds like most people working in this area are coming up with a hodge-podge of ways to do this, using several different techniques in concert. But ideally, there would be a standard way of doing this, so that annotations can be easily ported from one “copy” of a digital text to another. The problems around this arise when a digital text changes, or when you’re dealing with multiple editions of a single work, especially editions that might have some significant differences (just think about Bowdlerized versions of Shakespeare, or different translations of Anna Karenina). This is where the issue of identifiers comes up, and where I think the ideas underlying FRBR could come in handy.

Some of the other problems seem to be providing context for an annotation: If you simply quote a passage of text, copyright issues arise (you could potentially piece together an entire book by finding people commenting on every passage in it, but really? Really?). But providing only a technical identifier for a passage removes the annotation from its context, and anyone reading the notes outside of the book itself will have no idea what those notes are about.

For me, as a librarian, I kept wanting to get back to use cases. How are people annotating books, when do they want to share those annotations, and with whom? I’ll take two examples: First, that of a single reader who reads primarily recreationally, and second, a class of students reading an article as a group.

As a solitary reader, I’ll frequently want to highlight a passage and make a note because something strikes my interest, or I want to remember to look something up later, or I want to share a particularly prescient passage with a friend. I might want to make notes in a book and then share the entire book, with the notes, with someone else. I might want to share only a particular passage. The Kindle now allows me to make annotations in a library book, and then make them available to anyone else who checks out that book. I should be able to share my annotations from any ebook on any site: sometimes I might want to share a passage on Facebook, and sometimes I might want to share it on Goodreads, and sometimes I might want to share it on my blog. An open annotation standard should make that possible. It should also allow me to keep my annotations if I buy a book on my Kindle, and eventually want to transfer it to my Nook. It would be nice, too, if I could keep the annotations (with some contextual data), even if I no longer have access to the book. My annotations should be shareable with others, and shareable with myself (I like to think of this as sharing with my future self).

As a reader in a group of readers, like a classroom, it would be great if everyone’s annotations could be shared in a group system, like a learning management system. It would be even better if you could choose which of your annotations would be shared, and which kept private. The class annotations should be saved (along with contextual data, if not the entire book or article) as an archive with the other materials in the LMS. Private annotations could be saved in one’s private learning portfolio. This should be true whether the materials you’re reading are owned or borrowed from the library.

The other significant use case I can see for Open Annotations is perhaps the most significant, and the one most likely to be put into use quickly: The use for scholarly communication. I think an open annotation system could have a huge impact on the way that scholarly communication (in its big-picture shape) happens. If we could publish research openly, and provide an open annotation system for peer review, the big (expensive) journal publishing system might finally be able to be put to bed. There should be a way to validate commenters for the peer review system, and to work published in an open process is considered valid in the tenure system. In fact, the research process could be changed in wonderful ways if we provided systems that would allow researchers to comment on each others research and data, and share information and ideas. We might not even need the idea of “publishing” as we understand it now.

Most of the people at this meeting were thinking of commercial needs and applications, and that’s why I think it’s good to have librarians at the table, and other people who might have non-commercial needs and ideas. There are a lot of issues around this, and my notes, they are extensive (yes, even more extensive than this blog post). It’s a fairly new idea for me, but clearly not for a lot of other people. But I think as digital publishing grows, this issue is going to become more important for libraries, and library patrons, especially in academic libraries. It would be nice if we could get out in front of it now.

What other library-specific needs around ebook annotation do you see emerging? How do you think this might work for your library, and for your patrons? What would you want to see, as a reader?

The ALA estimates that one in four book challenges in libraries goes unreported, and in these cases, the librarians dealing with these challenges are also unsupported. There are many reasons a librarian might choose not to report a book challenge, and some of them might be perfectly reasonable. But the worst of these reasons is fear: Fear of losing a job, fear of bad publicity, fear of loss of funding. In these cases, a librarian might choose to simply remove the item in question, without consideration for what the loss of that material might mean for the community. It doesn’t mean that’s a bad librarian, it means that’s a fearful librarian.

Banned Books Week exists so that we can bring attention to the reasons to stand up for your community, and your library’s collection. It exists so that, in the future, those librarians might be able to find more support than they thought they could expect. I think that’s as good a reason as any to continue holding Banned Book Week events every year.

Andy articulates this much more clearly than I, so please, go read his excellent editorial on Banned Books Week.