I don't think that I ever wrote those words down in an article; I suppose I may have said something to that effect in an interview or q&a in some conference program like ALA Top Tech, though perhaps no quite as strongly as it's expressed here. I have without question spoken out about my concerns regarding investment in open source ILS development in the last few years. IF I did say this, it feels like it's used a little out of context -- or maybe the better characterization is over-simplistically -- in the report.

...

I think there are still major problems -- many of which we really don't know how to solve effectively, and which call for sustained and extensive research and development -- in various areas where ILS get involved in information discovery and the support of research and teaching. While I'm not opposed to seeing an open source ILS -- who could be? -- and recognize that it could be very useful, particularly as a platform for research and future innovation, open source re-implementation of current ILS functionality will not be a panacea for these still-unsolved challenges.

This document was released only to a select number of existing customers of the company SirsiDynix, a proprietary library automation software vendor. It has not been released more broadly specifically because of the misinformation about open source software and possible libel per se against certain competitors contained therein ...

The source states that the document should be leaked so that everyone can see to what extent SirsiDynix will attempt to spread falsehoods and smear open source and the proponents of open source.

In addition, as you may have heard, the Queens Library is suing SirsiDynix for breach of contract; for what it's worth, the initial conference is scheduled for next Monday, November 2, 2009. More information on the lawsuit can be found on Justia.

I think one of the most concerning aspects of this disappointing white paper is the attribution of a quote to Clifford Lynch, the Executive Director for the Coalition of Networked Information. The quote is as follows, taken from page 10 of the report:

Although many in the ILS industry are taking an in-depth look at the viability of open source development over the long run, we believe the movement is premature. Moreover, we are joined in our opinion by none other than Cliff Lynch, the head of the Coalition for Networked Information and a leading thinker in the library space.

Cliff called the development of the open source ILS by OLE, [Georgia] Pines [the developers of Evergreen], etc. one of the “stupidest strategies ever undertaken” in the library world. At a time when libraries should be investing in systems to improve the priority issues in the end-user’s research, discovery and learning experience, here we have a cadre of libraries investing in the reinvention or at least, recreation, of something they already have and have at a cheaper cost than the redevelopment effort.

While Lynch is known for his provocative comments, I find it to be quite alarming that Abram, a trained librarian (read: a holder of an MLS) and Fellow of the Special Libraries Association — two facts made very clear on the title page of the report — did not bother to cite the source of this comment or provide adequate context for it. This comment doesn't particularly stand well on its own, but I see the point; perhaps developers in the library sphere should focus on usability and discovery issues rather than back office parts of the ILS. However, what Abram ignores is that this sort of work ends up being part and parcel of open source development in libraries.

Stephen Abram has a blog and a Twitter account. We could ask him to respond in earnest about the FUD-spreading. How we do that is left as an exercise to the reader.

In typical fashion, I've ported Matt's library to Python, and have released my code. pybhl is available from my site, PyPI, and Github. Use should be fairly straightforward, as seen below:

 
>>> import pybhl
>>> import pprint
>>> b = pybhl.BHLOpenURLRequest(genre='book',
aulast='smith', aufirst='john', date='1900',
spage='5', volume='4')
>>> r = b.get_response()
>>> len(r.data['citations'])
3
>>> pprint.pprint(r.data['citations'][1])
{u'ATitle': u'',
 u'Authors': [u'Smith, John Donnell,'],
 u'Date': u'1895',
 u'EPage': u'',
 u'Edition': u'',
 u'Genre': u'Journal',
 u'Isbn': u'',
 u'Issn': u'',
 u'ItemUrl': u'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15284',
 u'Language': u'Latin',
 u'Lccn': u'',
 u'Oclc': u'10330096',
 u'Pages': u'',
 u'PublicationFrequency': u'',
 u'PublisherName': u'H.N. Patterson,',
 u'PublisherPlace': u'Oquawkae [Ill.] :',
 u'SPage': u'Page 5',
 u'STitle': u'',
 u'Subjects': [u'Central America', u'Guatemala', u'Plants', u''],
 u'Title': u'Enumeratio plantarum Guatemalensium imprimis a H. de Tuerckheim collectarum /quas edidit John Donnell Smith.',
 u'TitleUrl': u'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/827',
 u'Url': u'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/707932',
 u'Volume': u'4'}

Let me know if you find it useful - I'd appreciate any feedback!

UTSA Archives and Special Collections is among the growing number of archives to create an online presence for every one of its collections. ... We were able to utilize inventories generated by former and current collection assistants to create guides to the collection with folder-level and box-level descriptions. The project resulted in access to more than 130 collections and 2000 linear feet of materials.

Archivists in part provide descriptive, contextual, and structural metadata about collections, but ultimately, the products of our knowledge work are merely representations of a complex whole, teeming with relationships between facts, assumptions, and wild-arsed guesses. Thinking of arrangement and description as representation is not a new idea; cf. Yakel, “Archival Representation” (Archival Science 3, no. 1 (2003): 1-25) and Karen Gracy's class on Archival Representation at Pitt. But really, what is the end goal of that representation and how does that converge with what users and our professional peers (e.g. library and museum professionals) expect?

Our professional community is still a bit too sheltered, I'm afraid. I really disagree with Russell James' recent post "Why not 'records science'?" for a few reasons (just as I agree with him on a few points...for what it's worth, there is records science; it just happens to be called archivistics or archival science!). Archivists still have a ridiculous amount to learn about information science. It might not have seemed relevant during whatever graduate program you attended, but really, it's ultra-important!

I'm reading David C. Blair's Language and Representation in Information Retrieval (Elsevier Science & Technology, 1990) right now and am totally riveted by it. This and other works consistently prove to me that we have a lot of important lessons to learn from our counterparts in other fields, namely how metadata, indexing, and the like actually form sets of representations that unavoidably mediate access between a person with an information need and that information. This isn't new research, and it's not just a problem with electronic records. It's just incredibly unfortunate that there isn't a really good community within the profession to discuss this stuff.

You haven't heard the last of me on this yet, and I know this post has been quite rambling. Until next time...

Goudsmit (1902–1978) was a Dutch-educated physicist who spent his career in the US and was involved at the cutting edge of physics for over 50 years. He was an important player in the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s and 1930s; he then served as scientific head of the Alsos Mission during World War II, which assessed the progress of the German atomic bomb project. Goudsmit became a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and editor-in-chief of the American Physical Society. The papers consist of an estimated 66,000 documents, which include correspondence, research notebooks, lectures, reports, and captured German war documents; the collection is the most used in the library.  This is the first manuscript collection that we will digitize, and it will become one of the few complete history-of-physics collections online. We plan to make the collection freely available online by summer 2010.

(Click through for a full-size PDF.)

The syllabus is available on Google Docs, if you're curious.

the patrons’ addresses are removed but their names and City/State information are published. If your name is, for example, [name redacted by thesecretmirror.com], redacting your address doesn’t really protect your anonymity. I’m curious what the balance is between patron privacy and making municipal records available.

Library material censorship and complaint records, including evaluations by staff, patrons' complaints and record of final decision: 6 years after last entry

NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance prior to disposition. Some library censorship records deal with serious constitutional issues and may have value for future research.

However, whether they should have shared them without redacting them is entirely another issue. Under "Public Access to Records" in the Introduction to Schedule MI-1, there can be restrictions placed on certain records based on § 87(2) of the Public Officers Law (POL), one of which being privacy concerns raised in POL § 89(2). In my mind, BPL didn't quite meet the requirements, of POL § 89(2), but IANAL; nonetheless, it was probably in poor taste and possibly ethically improper to not redact all personally identifying information from the records shared with the New York Times.

References

1. Chris Hurley, “Ambient Functions - Abandoned Children to Zoos,” Archivaria 40 (Fall 1995): 21–39. Availalable from http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/provenance.html.
2. Chris Hurley, “Problems with Provenance,” Archives and Manuscripts 23, no. 2 (November 1995): 234-259. Available from http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/ambientf.html.

As co-chairs of the RLG Programs Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists, we’re seeking nominees to co-chair of the Roundtable for 2009-2011. If you'd like to nominate yourself or someone else, please email Mark Matienzo, Co-Chair, at mark at matienzo.org. Please submit all nominations no later than 5 PM Eastern Time on Friday, August 7.

Serving in a leadership position for a Section or Roundtable is a great way to learn about SAA and its governance, contribute to new directions for the Society, and work with other archivists on interesting projects. It is also a great way to serve the Society!

Your RLG Roundtable Co-Chairs,

Thomas G. Knoles Marcus A. McCorison Librarian American Antiquarian Society

Mark Matienzo Applications Developer, Digital Experience Group The New York Public Library