Entries from January 2008 ↓

On Monday, January 28, 2007 four people got together to attempt to install Evergreen on a Dell PowerEdge 2900 running Debian Etch (4.0) on a server at TCNJ. Besides myself, also attending was Kurt Wagner (William Patterson), Dave Hoover (Rutgers/VALE), and Kate Lynch (Drexel). We started at about 9:00 AM and we ended at about 5:00 PM. Except for lunch, we pretty much worked straight through. While we didn’t end up with a working system at the end of the day, we all learned a little more about the architecture of Evergreen and the underlying software. Basically, the place where we quit was with the config.cgi working where we can create and add basic systems configuration settings such as item types a but the OPAC and the staff clients were not working. (Note: I have since gotten Evergreen working with only a little bit more work, continue reading)

The reason behind our problems was the underlying database was not created completely. When install Evergreen, there database gets created. apparently, by a shell script (builddb.sh) that executes a series of SQL statements on the underlying PostgreSQL database. This script is called elsewhere in the install process. This apparently failed without any notice (at least not that we noticed). The reason for the failure, at least initially may have been because the Debian server we had set up had two versions of Postgres installed (7.4,and 8.1), and that was confusing things. However, even after fixing that problem, we still did not get the scripts to run correctly. After locatign the builddb.sh script and running it by hand, we found out that we were missing a programming language in the PostgreSQL database. Entering the following command seemed to fix that particular problem:

su -c "createlang plpgsql evergreen" - postgres

At this point the whole script was still wasn’t working, and it was time to go home. At that point, the staff client was timing out and not connecting, the OPAC was given “Internal Server Configuration Errors” and basically things just were not all that well.

I looked at it again today, and I figured how to get the SQL script to run. The script was actually fine, but I was using a wrong option trying to run it on the command line (You had to put your database version as a command line argument. I used “8.1″ but I should have been using 81). Once I fixed that, things went a little more smoothly, and the OPAC was up and working (with no data, however). The staff client, however was still not functioning. I was able to login, but at that point I get an error saying “TypeError: Branch has no properties” and pretty much nothing happens. Thanks to the kind folks on the Evergreen IRC channel, that was solved by re-running the autogen.sh program. After doing that, I was able to login, use Z39.50 to locate a record, and add it to the database. After adding an item record, I was also able to search and find it. So, I think I have a functioning Evergreen install.

Besides the SQL problems, we had a few other problems with the install, that we were able to figure out how to deal with. The install documentation needs a little editing as a few things were missing (things like, download the software) or could have been expanded upon. I took some notes, so maybe I can help improve it a little. Most of our problems related to not having experience with PostgreSQL and Jabber. Besides the issue with two versions of Postgres being installed, we also had to change the port for 8.1 since it was running on a different port then expected. We also had some issues knowing what server name to use where (localhost, evergreen, the FQDN?). We muddled through it though and really it was a good learning experience. We may have had less issues if we tried the Debian Evergreen install script that John Schmidt created, but we decided to do it the other way so we can learn a little more about the architecture (which we did).

Still to do at this point is to get the proper static IP information configured, and start figuring out how to load data. Also, I need to get the network people to open the proper firewall ports so others can connect from off campus

I came across a blog post that was basically an interview of Richard Stallman (RMS) this morning. While the interview. which took place in Sri Lanka, doesn’t expose any new beliefs or ideas of RMS, it is a nice read, esp. for someone that hasn’t been involved, or following the Free Software movement. It also has a nice answer on what Stallman thinks is the difference between the Free Software and Open Source movement. Again, nothing really revolutionary but if you are relatively new to the game or are looking for some words to explain what the difference is to your colleagues, it is a good read.

I read with interest Meredith Farkas post about “The essence of Library 2.0?” last night. When I read it I couldn’t pick up what was bothering me about it, but something was. I agreed pretty strongly with most of what she was saying, and I didn’t particular disagree with anything, but still something just didn’t sit right with me about it. Than, about 4:00 AM I think I figured it out. The post, while not really what she was doing, made me think of the phrase “shooting the messenger.” Or maybe treating the symptom and not the problem. I think the problem Meredith is focusing on in this blog post is really not a Library 2.0 problem at all. Abandoned library MySpace accounts are more likely a symptom of a bigger issue, but libraries, and librarians, investigating how Web 2.0 applications can be used in libraries (which seems to be the definition of Library 2.0 she is mostly commenting on) is not a problem. The problem is constant evaluation of what the library is doing with regard to it’s mission, goals, and user needs. More accurately, the problem is a lack of this happening.

Meredith says:

Not every library needs a public-facing blog. Not everyone has a population that wants to read news about the library or book reviews. Not everyone has a population that wants to have a dialog with the library. Unless you see a real need that could be filled by a blog, your library does not need a blog.

This is probably quite true. However, how do we know if there is a need if we don’t actively, and constantly, engage in outcomes based assessment? How do we know what we want to do if we don’t have a defined mission and goals that we aim to follow and meet? The answer is we don’t. While there are many good libraries that don’t do this kind of stuff, it is probably more luck then anything else. Sure, good librarians and staff help, but if libraries are going to compete for mind-share in the long term, we will need more than luck and good people.

Libraries need to do more assessment to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. What that is can very greatly between library and the type of institution they are aligned with, but the fact is all to many libraries take it as it goes, and are not actively pursing strategic goals.

The technology (and to some extent the philosophy) behind Library 2.0 offers great possibilities to reach users in different ways, and to reach users we haven’t been able to reach. However, libraries need to define goals, and they need to be in a constant state of evaluation (which I think is a core fundamental of the idea of Web 2.0 which is sometime ignored when one just talks about tools and not ideas.

Sure, some librarians maybe went hog-wild over Library 2.0 without thinking it through, but also many librarians kept their head in the sand. Neither of these is the right approach. But they are not the right approach whether we are talking about Library 2.0, converting from DDC to LCCN, starting a book club, renting videos, or anything else.

I believe the key for libraries to survive in the information space with the ever increasing competition is to decide what the library ought to be doing
and continuously evaluating to see if they are doing it and if they are still doing the right thing. Not implement something, evaluate it once, and keep it as is. What was right 3 years ago is not always the right thing now.

Librarians, as with all organizations, will need to be nimble to thrive. They will also need to take risks. They will also need not to be afraid to fail. Not everything we implement will be a huge success. Not everything will reach all of out users/patrons. But if it reaches some, and wasn’t a great deal of investment it terms of human resources, it is worth it.

One of the things Meredith and others have commented on is the feeling that most students don’t want to contact us in Facebook or MySpace, but a University of Michigan study showed that 34% of undergrads said “yes” or “maybe” to a question asking if they “would be interested in contacting a librarian” via MySpace or Facebook. Considering the number of students who go to Michigan, and the low barrier to enter the Facebook or MySpace social spaces, on the surface it would be a huge return on investment. If these numbers are indicative of the response of undergraduates everywhere, I think it shows a majority of academic libraries need to have a Social Networking Web site strategy, or at the very least need to evaluate if they should have a strategy.

One thing I did disagree with Meredith about (or at least my interpretation of what she said is when she mentioned “But the focus should always be on the users we have…” While I agree we need to have a focus on the users we have, we also need to focus on the users we don’t have. Why aren’t a huge percentage of undergraduates going to the library or using library resources? Why doesn’t everyone use the public library? We need to focus on the users we don’t have as well. This is where reading and learning (and imitating) abouts successes (technological or otherwise) in Educause or Wired is important. Blindly implementing things with no plans is a problem, but so is not implementing things without thinking about where the library is, and where it should be.

Another thing I disagree with her on is when she says:

“I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think the Library 2.0 movement itself is to blame for a lot of the not-so-well-thought-out technology implementations we’ve seen out there.”

This is not a problem of the Library 2.0 movement. It is a problem of the Library.

In closing, the one thing I think we both strongly agree on is the need for assessment. However, blaming the Library 2.0 movement on any of this is not really fair. The issues run much deeper than the latest technology trend or fad.

I have been reading (and discussing on the #code4lib IRC channel) Carl Grant’s recent response to Dan Chudnov’s response to Carl’s earlier post. The way I interpret the conversation is a basic disagreement about what it means to be a member of the FLOSS community in general, and the FLOSS community in libraries in specific. I must say, I side with Dan Chudnov on this one. Before I get into why, I want to make it clear that I believe that Carl Grant and his CARE Affiliates company have every right to run their business the way they are, and if they want to sell proprietary solutions like OpenTranslators, that is fine (just don’t tell me that it aligns with the goals of FLOSS). I also have absolutely no problem with them making a profit off of Free and Open Source Software by providing consulting, implementation, support, and other services to libraries. That is well within their rights and I believe it fits into the fabric of the Open Source and Free Software movements. However, if CARE wants to be considered part of the community, they have to understand their marketing decisions and statements have meanings, and will be interpreted by various people and using ambiguous naming of products such as OpenTranslators will be questioned, and rightfully so. This is especially true when the have the motto on their Web site that says “Open source information solutions built for you with CARE.” One would reasonably assuming that OpenTranslators was open source.” When it isn’t, people are going to cry fowl, especially if you don’t make it clear from the get-go.

All that said, I think what disappointed me the most by Carl Grant in these posts is he characterization of people who have been supporting, advocating, and creating the Open Source Software that his company is building their business on. Calling these people “zealots” and categorizing OSS as “an activity practiced in basements in people’s spare time” is just wrong. Dan is right. This is 1998 FUD. Someone must have a big basement to fit IBM or Sun Microsystems in it! Give me a break, while there certainly are people contributing to Open Source projects from their basement or as an “academic practice” there is much more to it then this, and belittling the people who create the software you are basing your business on is just wrong. And you know what, even if it were just ins someones basement, that doesn’t mean it is a bad thing. The people that do this in their spare time do it because they love to do it and they are passionate about what they are doing. And name calling is no way to make friends.

Another thing that stood out to me is Grant’s thoughts on what it means to be part of the FLOSS community. As he rightly noted, his move to the FLOSS community was seen as a positive to members of the community. I was one of them that believed this and in fact I personally think that his company and what they do is still a positive. It is true that some libraries either don’t have the necessary resources to implement Open Source solutions (or proprietary ones for that matter) on their own, and a company founded by someone with Carl Grant’s credentials allows these libraries to implement Open Source solutions. But that is a little different from knowing what the community is all about. Grant coming to the community didn’t offend me, calling me and others who think like me a zealot does. While I’m at it, liking himself to a presidential candidate after a couple of blog posts is a bit over the top.

Another thing that struck me is this part of his blog post:

OpenTranslators [...] when coupled with many open source solutions, libraries can now provide new (and frequently) matching or exceeding levels of functionality as those obtained with pure proprietary solutions. Again, I thought this was in line with the goals of FLOSS (maybe I haven’t been fully assimilated yet?)

While this might jive somewhat with the Open Source movement, it does not with the Free Software movement and by extension doesn’t with the FLOSS movement which, by definition, includes the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement is about ideas, it is about a philosophy. It is about the Freedom of the user to use, share, and improve upon the program. OpenTranslators is not about this, and being able to build Open Source applications on top of it doesn’t change that. No one would say Microsoft Windows is in line with the goals of FLOSS because you can run Apache or some other OSS application on it. Would they? Carl, you are doing good things with your company by giving libraries more options and a means for those without the necessary human resources to use the wonderful Library-related FLOSS applications that zealots built in their basements, but I think you are right that you haven’t been fully assimilated yet.

I don’t normally make it a habit of making blog posts about job openings In fact I don’t think I’ve ever done it before. However, this one is interesting only because it shows that that MLC’s Michigan Evergreen open-source shared ILS team is really moving forward with Evergreen. I think this is another positive sign about the adoption of Open Source in libraries. Anyway follow the link if you are interested in a position working with the Evergreen integrated library system as an ILS Training & Support Librarian.

On Feb. 13, 2008, Neil Cherry will be the speaker at LUG/IP. Neil will be talking about Linux Home Automation, and probably trying to sell a few copies of his book, Linux Smart Homes For Dummies. Should be an interesting presentation.

After this years unfortunate cancellation of the Dakar Rally, the Chilean government is supporting an effort to move the rally from Africa to Chile. While the idea of the Dakar rally moving out of Africa is not something on the surface that makes sense, it might be necessary for the race to continue. According to the article, if the race moved to Chile, it may also go through parts of Brazil and Argentina. Apparently, Chile already hosts a successful local rally, the Patagonia Atacama, that appears to have the same types of vehicles as the Dakar rally.

On January 10′th, I was a last minute addition to a VALE-OLS panel. I was originally going to be out of the state during the conference, but due to a change in plans, I decided to attend the conference at the last minute. The organizers decided to have people blog about the VALE conference, and one of the bloggers wrote a nice summary about the VALE-OLS panel. You may also be interested in the notes of the Brainstorming the Next Generation Academic Library System (make sure to follow the links in the post).

I don’t know much about NewGenLib, but it is an Integrated Library system that apparently is widely used in India (where it was developed) and is also used by a number of libraries in Syria. It was proprietary but they announced on January 11 that it is now available under the GNU General Public License. Here is the announcement:

I am a very happy to announce that NewGenLib, the integrated library management system developed in India is now open source. Details are given below.

NewGenLib Open Source

1. NewGenLib (www.newgenlib.com ) is now open source under the most widely used open source software licensing system called GNU GPL (General Public License)
2. The open source binaries and source code can be downloaded from http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/newgenlib. Installation notes for Linux and Windows are also available at the site. The user manual is also downloadable.
3. Librarians/developers who download the software can post their views, problems, solutions, discussions, etc., on https://sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=210780.
4. NewGenLib is web-based and has a multi-tier architecture (www.kiikm.org/newgenlib_architecture.jpg); uses Java (a swing-based librarian’s GUI) and the JBoss (J2EE-based Application Server). The default backend used is the open source PostgreSQL.
5. NewGenLib functional modules: Acquisitions management (monographs and serials); technical processing; circulation control; system configuration; a desktop reports application and an end-of-day process (scheduler) application.
6. NewGenLib is compliant with MARC-21 format
- Has a MARC editor
- Allows seamless bibliographic and authority data import into cataloguing templates
7. Form letter templates are configurable using openOffice 2.0 as ODT and htm.
8. SMTP mail servers can be configured for emails that can be sent form functional modules.
9. NewGenLib allows creation of institutional open access (OA) repositories compliant with the OAI-PMH.
10. NewGenLib servers are SRU/W compliant supporting MARC-21 and MODS 3.0 metadata formats. CQL (level 1) with both Bath and Dublin Core Profiles are supported.
11. NewGenLib is Unicode 3.0 compliant. It is an internationalized application. English and Arabic interfaces are already available.
12. Is RFID ready.

Regards
L.J.Haravu

Due to a family medical emergency involving a person close to the person I was supposed to travel to the Chili Bowl I almost canceled my trip to Tulsa for this year’s race. Actually, I did, but I then decided to see if I could find any last minute airfare packages at a reasonable rate to make it out to the last two nights. Once I did, I decided to go out for Friday and Saturday night on a solo Chili run. As always, the racing was great. However, on Friday the heats weren’t up to normal Chili Bowl standards, but the main event made up with that with Dave Darland coming from 14′th to 2nd. Damion Gardner took the final qualifying night. Third was Gardner’s car owner, Jason Leffler. Local (to NJ/PA) drivers didn’t have as much luck. Andy Martin was running good, but spun out. Same with Steve Bulkwalter who ended up doing the best of the back-east contingent coming home in 10th in the A-main on Friday night, earning himself a starting spot in one of Saturday’s B-mains.

2008 stats after Friday night at the Chili Bowl:

Races: 1
Tracks: 1
States: 1