Kastellec – The Way Forward – Contemporary Issues in Digital Preservation

The Oconee County Libraries (OCL) has to keep track of information on over 100 pieces of electronics (computers, monitors, printers, etc.)  Currently, a combination of Excel spreadsheets and an online tool from webjunction.org are used to record inventory information.  The result is an unwieldy system that is time consuming to keep updated.  The [...]]]> PDF Version

The Oconee County Libraries (OCL) has to keep track of information on over 100 pieces of electronics (computers, monitors, printers, etc.)  Currently, a combination of Excel spreadsheets and an online tool from webjunction.org are used to record inventory information.  The result is an unwieldy system that is time consuming to keep updated.  The goal of this project is to create a database to record essential inventory data for both branches.  It is hoped that, if the system performs well, it may one day be expanded to cover the other libraries in the Athens Regional Library System (ARLS).  Most frequently, the system will be used to record or update the location and relation (e.g., which monitor is hooked up to which computer) of pieces of equipment.  In its current incarnation, the database will only be accessed by the author (OCL’s sole IT staffer), but in part that will entail translating requests from the Library’s Manager and Regional Business Office staff into database queries.

Business Rules

General Rules

• · A computer consists of a laptop or a desktop and monitor.  Computers within a given library have unique names.
• · Every piece of equipment has a unique serial number and a non-unique ARLS purchase code.  Equipment belongs to a type (e.g., “Desktop”) and a model (e.g., “Optiplex 740.”)  Models are made by one manufacturer (e.g., “Dell.”)
• · Each purchase has a unique ARLS purchase code.  A purchase may include many different models but one purchase comes from only one vendor and one date.  Orders from more than one vendor on the same day, or from the same vendor over many days, will each have their own purchase (and ARLS purchase code.)
• · Vendors have a phone number and/or website address.  Vendors may have a sales rep attached them, who may have their own phone number and/or email address.
• · A library contains one or more locations.  While of course an actual location only exists in one library, libraries may share names of locations (e.g., the Watkinsville library may have a location called “Adult” and so may the Bogart library.)  Therefore a location in the database may be contained by one or more locations.
• · When equipment is disposed of, it must be removed from the active inventory but a historical record of its information must be maintained.  It is not necessary, however, to retain previous libraries or location if a piece of equipment is moved.
• · Zero to many pieces of equipment are located in each library and location.  Every piece of equipment has one library and location.
• · A piece of equipment belongs to one model.  Each model may define one or many pieces of equipment.
• · A model belongs to a type (of equipment.)  A type contains one or more models.
• · Active computers (both desktops and laptops) are identified by a unique name.  Active desktops are connected to a monitor.
• · A desktop (computer) may be connected to zero or one monitors.  A monitor may be connected to zero or one desktops.
• · A purchase code identifies one or more pieces of equipment purchased at the same time.  Each piece of equipment is identified by only one purchase code.
• · Each purchase is purchased from one vendor.  Vendors may supply equipment for many different purchases.

Relationships

Entity Relationship Diagram

Data Dictionary

See Appendix.

Initializing the Database

Create Tables

CREATE TABLE Equipment (

eq_serial_num VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,

eq_status ENUM(‘ACTIVE’,'STORAGE’,'ORDERED’,'DELETED’) NOT NULL,

eq_price DECIMAL(8,2),

mod_id int NOT NULL,

lib_id int NOT NULL,

loc_id int NOT NULL,

pur_arls_code VARCHAR(8) NOT NULL,

FOREIGN KEY (mod_id) REFERENCES Model(mod_id),

FOREIGN KEY (lib_id) REFERENCES Library(lib_id),

FOREIGN KEY (loc_id) REFERENCES Location(loc_id),

FOREIGN KEY (pur_arls_code) REFERENCES Purchase(pur_arls_code)

);

CREATE TABLE Vendor (

ven_id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,

ven_name VARCHAR(255),

ven_url VARCHAR(255),

ven_phone CHAR(10),

ven_sales_rep VARCHAR(255),

ven_rep_email VARCHAR(255),

ven_rep_phone CHAR(10)

);

CREATE TABLE Purchase (

pur_arls_code VARCHAR(8) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,

pur_date DATETIME,

ven_id INT,

FOREIGN KEY (ven_id) REFERENCES Vendor(ven_id)

);

CREATE TABLE Computer (

comp_id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,

comp_name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,

comp_serial_num VARCHAR(50) UNIQUE NOT NULL,

monitor_serial_num VARCHAR(50),

FOREIGN KEY (comp_serial_num) REFERENCES Equipment(eq_serial_num),

FOREIGN KEY (monitor_serial_num) REFERENCES Equipment(eq_serial_num)

);

CREATE TABLE Library (

lib_id TINYINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,

lib_name VARCHAR(255)

);

CREATE TABLE Location (

loc_id TINYINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,

loc_name VARCHAR(255)

);

CREATE TABLE Model (

mod_id int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,

mod_name VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,

mod_manufacturer VARCHAR(255),

type_id TINYINT,

FOREIGN KEY (type_id) REFERENCES Type(type_id)

);

CREATE TABLE Type (

type_id TINYINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,

type_name VARCHAR(255)

);

Insert Data

INSERT INTO Library(lib_name)

VALUES

(‘WAT’),

(‘BOG’);

INSERT INTO Location(loc_name)

VALUES

(‘Adult’),

(‘Reference’),

(‘Kids’),

(‘Circ Desk’),

(‘Workroom’);

INSERT INTO Type(type_name)

VALUES

(‘Desktop’),

(‘Laptop’),

(‘Monitor’),

(‘Printer’),

(‘Copier’);

INSERT INTO Vendor(ven_name,ven_url,ven_phone,ven_sales_rep,ven_rep_email,ven_rep_phone)

VALUES (‘Dell’,'dell.com’,’8001234567′,’Lumumba Weems’,'lweems@dell.com’,’8001234568′);

INSERT INTO Vendor(ven_name,ven_url,ven_phone)

VALUES (‘Gordon Docs’,'gordondocuments.com’,’7701234567′);

INSERT INTO Vendor(ven_name,ven_url)

VALUES

(‘Amazon’,'amazon.com’),

(‘HP’,'HP.com/gov’);

INSERT INTO Purchase(pur_arls_code,pur_date,ven_id)

VALUES

(‘S-08-02′,’2007-08-01′,’2′),

(‘S-02-04′,’2002-11-19′,’2′),

(‘S-05-12′,’2005-06-22′,’3′),

(‘S-08-06′,’2008-03-18′,’4′),

(‘S-07-01′,’2006-07-28′,’4′),

(‘S-03-04′,’2002-09-01′,’4′),

(‘S-07-05′,’2005-01-30′,’1′),

(‘S-08-01′,’2007-08-01′,’1′),

(‘S-08-08′,’2008-04-11′,’1′),

(‘S-08-09′,’2008-05-03′,’1′);

INSERT INTO Model(mod_manufacturer,mod_name,type_id)

VALUES

(‘Konica Minolta’,'C252′,5),

(‘Sharp’,’1000k’,5),

(‘HP’,'lj2420dn’,4),

(‘HP’,'clj2600n’,4),

(‘HP’,'lj4050′,4),

(‘HP’,'dc5000′,1),

(‘HP’,’7550′,3),

(‘Dell’,'Optiplex 740′,1),

(‘Dell’,'M150′,3),

(‘Dell’,'Optiplex 755′,1),

(‘Dell’,'M170-DX’,3),

(‘Dell’,'XRT26′,3),

(‘Dell’,'Latitude D260′,2);

– broken into two inserts b/c VSU server won’t accept such a long imput

INSERT INTO Equipment

(eq_serial_num,eq_status,eq_price,mod_id,lib_id,loc_id,pur_arls_code)

VALUES

(’1278433′,’ACTIVE’,3125.25,2,2,1,’S-02-04′),

(’1278432′,’ACTIVE’,3125.25,2,1,2,’S-02-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-545′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,7,2,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-546′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,7,2,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-547′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,7,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-548′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,7,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-549′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,7,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-550′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,7,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-551′,’STORAGE’,NULL,7,1,2,’S-03-04′),

(‘YW-987-100012-552′,’STORAGE’,NULL,7,1,2,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432478′,’ACTIVE’,989.85,6,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432479′,’ACTIVE’,989.85,6,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432480′,’ACTIVE’,989.85,6,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432481′,’ACTIVE’,989.85,6,1,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432482′,’ACTIVE’,989.85,6,2,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432483′,’ACTIVE’,989.85,6,2,3,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432484′,’STORAGE’,989.85,6,1,2,’S-03-04′),

(‘mv-010-432485′,’STORAGE’,989.85,6,1,2,’S-03-04′),

(‘h1-8909-3213′,’ACTIVE’,481.32,3,1,4,’S-05-12′);

– broken into two inserts b/c VSU server won’t accept such a long imput

INSERT INTO Equipment

(eq_serial_num,eq_status,eq_price,mod_id,lib_id,loc_id,pur_arls_code)

VALUES

(’321-dsa2-32190′,’ACTIVE’,788.09,5,2,1,’S-07-01′),

(’1338-QPZ-983S32′,’STORAGE’,1089.98,13,1,5,’S-07-05′),

(’1338-QPZ-983T98′,’STORAGE’,1089.98,13,1,5,’S-07-05′),

(’10303-OJP-13′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,9,1,4,’S-07-05′),

(’10303-OJP-14′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,9,1,4,’S-07-05′),

(’10303-OJP-11′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,9,1,2,’S-07-05′),

(’10303-OJP-12′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,9,1,2,’S-07-05′),

(’10303-OJP-10′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,9,2,5,’S-07-05′),

(‘GX-321h890-F3′,’ACTIVE’,770.33,8,1,4,’S-07-05′),

(‘GX-321h890-G3′,’ACTIVE’,770.33,8,1,4,’S-07-05′),

(‘GX-321h890-D3′,’ACTIVE’,770.33,8,1,2,’S-07-05′),

(‘GX-321h890-E3′,’ACTIVE’,770.33,8,1,2,’S-07-05′),

(‘GX-321h890-H3′,’ACTIVE’,770.33,8,2,5,’S-07-05′),

(’21398-UUP-992′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,11,1,2,’S-08-01′),

(’21398-UUP-993′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,11,1,2,’S-08-01′),

(’21398-UUP-990′,’STORAGE’,NULL,11,1,5,’S-08-01′),

(’21398-UUP-991′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,11,1,5,’S-08-01′),

(‘GX-923k987-025′,’ACTIVE’,722.01,10,1,2,’S-08-01′),

(‘GX-923k987-026′,’ACTIVE’,722.01,10,1,2,’S-08-01′),

(‘GX-923k987-023′,’ACTIVE’,722.01,10,1,5,’S-08-01′),

(‘GX-923k987-024′,’ACTIVE’,722.01,10,1,5,’S-08-01′),

(‘CLM1201′,’ACTIVE’,5285.05,1,1,5,’S-08-02′),

(’312-fds324-32132′,’ACTIVE’,654.21,4,1,4,’S-08-06′),

(’20123-UXP-490′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,11,1,5,’S-08-08′),

(’20123-UXP-491′,’ACTIVE’,NULL,11,1,5,’S-08-08′),

(‘GX-923k987-343′,’ACTIVE’,626.09,10,1,5,’S-08-08′),

(‘GX-923k987-344′,’ACTIVE’,626.09,10,1,5,’S-08-08′),

(‘hidw395-32hj-ii8988′,’ACTIVE’,399.99,12,1,5,’S-08-09′);

INSERT INTO Computer(comp_name,comp_serial_num,monitor_serial_num)

VALUES

(‘CHL-01′,’mv-010-432482′,’YW-987-100012-545′),

(‘CHL-02′,’mv-010-432483′,’YW-987-100012-546′),

(‘CIRC-01′,’GX-321h890-H3′,’10303-OJP-10′),

(‘CHL-01′,’mv-010-432478′,’YW-987-100012-547′),

(‘CHL-02′,’mv-010-432479′,’YW-987-100012-548′),

(‘CHL-03′,’mv-010-432480′,’YW-987-100012-549′),

(‘CHL-04′,’mv-010-432481′,’YW-987-100012-550′),

(‘CIRC-01′,’GX-321h890-F3′,’10303-OJP-13′),

(‘CIRC-02′,’GX-321h890-G3′,’10303-OJP-14′),

(‘REF-01′,’mv-010-432484′,’YW-987-100012-551′),

(‘REF-02′,’mv-010-432485′,’YW-987-100012-552′),

(‘REF-01′,’GX-321h890-D3′,’10303-OJP-11′),

(‘REF-02′,’GX-321h890-E3′,’10303-OJP-12′),

(‘REF-03′,’GX-923k987-025′,’21398-UUP-992′),

(‘REF-04′,’GX-923k987-026′,’21398-UUP-993′),

(‘STAFF-CHL’,'GX-923k987-344′,’20123-UXP-491′),

(‘STAFF-IT’,'GX-923k987-023′,’hidw395-32hj-ii8988′),

(‘STAFF-MANAGER’,'GX-923k987-024′,’21398-UUP-991′),

(‘STAFF-REF’,'GX-923k987-343′,’20123-UXP-490′),

(‘LAPTOP-01′,’1338-QPZ-983T98′,NULL),

(‘LAPTOP-02′,’1338-QPZ-983S32′,NULL);

Sample SQL Statements

Selects

– List the name, manufacturer, model, serial numer and location of all active computers at the Watkinsville Library

SELECT

C.comp_name AS Computer,

M.mod_manufacturer AS Manufacturer,

M.mod_name AS Model,

C.comp_serial_num AS “S/N”,

Loc.loc_name AS Location

FROM

Model AS M

NATURAL JOIN

(Equipment AS E

INNER JOIN

Computer AS C

ON C.comp_serial_num=E.eq_serial_num

NATURAL JOIN

Location AS Loc)

WHERE

E.lib_id = (SELECT Lib.lib_id FROM Library AS Lib WHERE lib_name=”WAT”)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”

ORDER BY Loc.loc_name;

– List the owning library, location, manufacturer, and model for all printers and copiers

SELECT

Lib.lib_name AS Library,

Loc.loc_name AS Location,

M.mod_manufacturer AS Manufacturer,

M.mod_name AS Model

FROM

Equipment AS E

NATURAL JOIN

Model AS M

NATURAL JOIN

Type AS T

NATURAL JOIN

Location AS Loc

NATURAL JOIN

Library AS Lib

WHERE

T.type_name IN (‘Printer’,'Copier’)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”

ORDER BY M.mod_name;

– List the name, owning, library, manufacturer, and model of all public computers

SELECT

C.comp_name AS Computer,

Lib.lib_name AS Library,

Loc.loc_name AS Location,

M.mod_manufacturer AS Manufacturer,

M.mod_name AS Model

FROM

(Equipment AS E

NATURAL JOIN

Model AS M

NATURAL JOIN

Location AS Loc

NATURAL JOIN

Library AS Lib)

INNER JOIN

Computer AS C

ON C.comp_serial_num=E.eq_serial_num

WHERE

Loc.loc_name NOT IN (‘Circ’,'Workroom’)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”

ORDER BY Lib.lib_name,Loc.loc_name,C.comp_name;

– Get detailed info on an active computer (and attached monitor), given only the name and library

SELECT

Loc.loc_name AS Location,

C.comp_name AS Computer,

CONCAT(M.mod_manufacturer,” “,M.mod_name) AS Model,

C.comp_serial_num AS “S/N”,

E.pur_arls_code AS “ARLS Code”,

CONCAT(

(SELECT M.mod_manufacturer

FROM

Model AS M

NATURAL JOIN

(Equipment AS E

INNER JOIN

Computer AS C

ON C.monitor_serial_num=E.eq_serial_num

)

WHERE

C.comp_name = “STAFF-IT”

AND

E.lib_id = (SELECT Lib.lib_id FROM Library AS Lib WHERE lib_name=”WAT”)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”

),

” “,

(SELECT M.mod_name

FROM

Model AS M

NATURAL JOIN

(Equipment AS E

INNER JOIN

Computer AS C

ON C.monitor_serial_num=E.eq_serial_num)

WHERE

C.comp_name = “STAFF-IT”

AND

E.lib_id = (SELECT Lib.lib_id FROM Library AS Lib WHERE lib_name=”WAT”)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”

)

) AS “Monitor Model”,

C.monitor_serial_num AS “Monitor S/N”,

(SELECT E.pur_arls_code

FROM

Equipment AS E

INNER JOIN

Computer AS C

ON C.monitor_serial_num=E.eq_serial_num

WHERE

C.comp_name = “STAFF-IT”

AND

E.lib_id = (SELECT Lib.lib_id FROM Library AS Lib WHERE lib_name=”WAT”)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”

)     AS “Monitor ARLS Code”

FROM

Model AS M

NATURAL JOIN

(Equipment AS E

INNER JOIN

Computer AS C

ON C.comp_serial_num=E.eq_serial_num

NATURAL JOIN

Location AS Loc)

WHERE

C.comp_name = “STAFF-IT”

AND

E.lib_id = (SELECT Lib.lib_id FROM Library AS Lib WHERE lib_name=”WAT”)

AND

E.eq_status = “ACTIVE”;

– List purchasing information for every unit purchased in Fiscal Year 2008

SELECT

LEFT(P.pur_date,10) AS “Purchase Date”,

P.pur_arls_code AS “ARLS Purchase Code”,

V.ven_name AS Vendor,

T.type_name AS Category,

M.mod_name AS Item,

E.eq_serial_num AS “S/N”

FROM

Equipment AS E

NATURAL JOIN

Purchase AS P

NATURAL JOIN

Vendor AS V

NATURAL JOIN

Model as M

NATURAL JOIN

Type AS T

WHERE

P.pur_date BETWEEN ’2007-07-01′ AND ’2008-06-30′

ORDER BY P.pur_arls_code,P.pur_date

– List summary of purchases made in FY2008, broken down by models ordered

SELECT

LEFT(P.pur_date,10) AS “Purchase Date”,

P.pur_arls_code AS “ARLS Purchase Code”,

V.ven_name AS Vendor,

M.mod_name AS Item,

COUNT(M.mod_name) AS “Units Purchased”,

E.eq_price AS “Price per Unit”,

SUM(E.eq_price) AS “Total Price”

FROM

Equipment AS E

NATURAL JOIN

Purchase AS P

NATURAL JOIN

Vendor AS V

NATURAL JOIN

Model as M

WHERE

P.pur_date BETWEEN ’2007-07-01′ AND ’2008-06-30′

GROUP BY M.mod_name,P.pur_arls_code

ORDER BY P.pur_arls_code,P.pur_date;

– List total spending by year, rounded to nearest dollar

SELECT

YEAR(P.pur_date) AS “Purchase Year”,

ROUND(SUM(E.eq_price),0) AS “Total Spending”

FROM

Equipment AS E

NATURAL JOIN

Purchase AS P

NATURAL JOIN

Vendor AS V

GROUP BY YEAR(P.pur_date)

ORDER BY P.pur_date

Operations

– Mark a piece of equipment deleted

UPDATE Equipment

SET eq_status = ‘DELETED’

WHERE eq_serial_num = ’21398-UUP-991′

LIMIT 1;

– Move a monitor out of storage and assign it to a computer

UPDATE Equipment

SET eq_status = ‘ACTIVE’

WHERE eq_serial_num = ’21398-UUP-990′

LIMIT 1;

UPDATE Computer

SET monitor_serial_num = ’21398-UUP-990′

WHERE comp_name = ‘STAFF-MANAGER’

LIMIT 1;

Project Evaluation

During the initial design phase, it was difficult to visualize how best to handle attributes that would necessarily have duplicates: the ARLS purchase codes and locations names shared by multiple libraries.  Creating the ERD (using Dia diagramming software) clarified things.  It became apparent that I needed to add a table to record purchases, and then I realized a linking table needed to bridge purchases and equipment (or so I thought at the time).  As for the problem of similarly named locations, I considered alternative solutions but stuck with the design you see above.

While going through steps of normalization process, I realized that giving each purchase line a unique ID (and including it with the purchase ID and equipment’s serial number as a composite primary key) was unnecessary—a composite key of just those two other attributes is enough to uniquely identify each purchase line.  After fixing that, I realized I had forgotten to include the ability to store the price of a purchase.  After some thought, I added it to the purchase line table, so as to be able to easily capture prices of equipment on a per unit basis.

One complicating factor that turned up again and again was maintaining historical data for deleted items.  It wasn’t necessary to track every computer a desktop or monitor was associated with over the course of its lifetime, but a record of serials numbers and purchase info for deleted items would be beneficial.  My simple solution was to add “deleted” to the list of possible equipment statuses (the others being “active”, in “storage”, and “ordered” but not yet received.)

With the initial design completed, I began to insert data into the tables.  I soon realized I hadn’t been clear enough with my business rules—ARLS purchase codes are unique, so the purchase table didn’t need a surrogate key.  Then it became apparent that the table linking purchases and equipment was unnecessary—the relationship between the tables isn’t M:N, it’s 1:M.  I deleted the linking table and moved the price and alrs code attributes to the equipment table, with arls code as a foreign key.

Since WAT and BOG can share computer names (e.g., they each could have a computer named “CIRC-01”, I thought I needed to add the owning library’s ID to the computer table as part of a composite primary key.  However, I then found that deleted computers could easily have duplicate computer names and owning libraries, so I didn’t have a good primary key candidate between the two of them.  I weighed using the desktop’s serial number as the primary key but instead decided that a surrogate key was better solution in this case.

I ended up revising the design of the database many times, both during the initial design phase and then over and over again as I inserted data and wrote queries.  Knowing that I’d have to include the create and insert statements that would build a working copy of my table for the purposes of this paper made the development process frustratingly slow—in a “normal” development environment, I would have been freed to alter tables and data on the fly (and using a GUI), which would have made testing and refining simpler and quicker.  I also encountered a moment when writing a select query where I got “stuck” and began to doubt my SQL skills.  After a couple hours of slogging I realized that I’d actually made a series of data entry errors to one table—my SQL code was correct all along.  The first select query I wrote was by far the hardest to get working—once I grasped that the normalized design I’d come up with facilitated a series of natural joins to link almost any of the tables to each other, I proceeded without much difficulty.  My SQL skills improved greatly with this applied practice.

The one area of my design that I’m least happy with is the computer table, which links computer names to serial numbers for the unit’s desktop and monitor (or, for a laptop, just a single serial number).  The solution I came up with works, as my queries demonstrate, but I consider it inelegant and it leads to very complex queries for anything related to computers’ monitors (as my queries also demonstrate.)  As I continue to develop this database for my workplace, this is definitely one area I will look closely at.  That weakness aside, I’m pleased with the database—it’s a fully functional system to track exactly what my library needs to track.

Appendix: Data Dictionary

industry needs for design, implementation, and management of the database systems. Focuses on

the application of data modeling technologies in library and information science practice and

research.

Tags are keywords chosen by users of a system to describe an item (e.g., a website or book).  Tags gained popularity at Web 2.0 sites like Delicious, Flickr, and LibraryThing, and have now begun to appear in a few library catalogs.  Tags, which usually consist of single words but can extend to short [...]]]> PDF Version

Tags are keywords chosen by users of a system to describe an item (e.g., a website or book).  Tags gained popularity at Web 2.0 sites like Delicious, Flickr, and LibraryThing, and have now begun to appear in a few library catalogs.  Tags, which usually consist of single words but can extend to short phrases in some systems, offer an alternative to the assignment of subject headings in traditional cataloging.  There are four strategies libraries can pursue with respect to the relationship of tags to subject headings, in order of most conservative to most radical: Ignore tagging and continue to exclusively use subject headings; allow tags to Coexist with subject headings, but maintain a clear boundary between the two; utilize tags and subject headings side-by-side, permitting each to inform the other (Cooperate); or deprecate subject headings and Replace their function with tags.

At a bare minimum, tags allow “patrons to personalize the library’s website” (Rolla, 2009, p. 175).  Patrons—and catalogers and other staff—can use tags to bookmark, review, group, and annotate items in the catalog.  Beyond direct value to their creator, tags gain additional value when systems aggregate large numbers of user tags.  Like many other examples of Internet technology, when drawing on a large pool of users the simple system of tagging displays emergent properties—the overlap between users’ personal tags creates an informal shared vocabulary, or folksonomy.  Folksonomies automatic incorporation of current and natural terminology is another advantage over controlled vocabularies, which are by definition frozen and in practice often stilted (Rolla, 2009).  Additionally, the number of times an item is tagged provides a direct indication of its popularity and, by extension, a measure of its value (“Social bookmarking,” 2010).

A user tagging a book has a natural advantage over catalogers—the user is likely to have read the book, unlike the cataloger (Rolla, 2009).  Users “assign many more tags to books than library catalogers assign subject headings. … Catalogers, by following the Library of Congress guidelines [to only identify primary subjects], may omit concepts that are important to users” (Rolla, 2009, pp. 177-178).  In his 2009 study of LibraryThing tags, Rolla compares tags in LibraryThing with subject headings in the Library of Congress (LC).  Rolla finds that tags identify concepts ignored by the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), including both broader terms and narrower terms (2009).

Maintaining a controlled vocabulary like LCSH is extremely difficult and resource intensive, and cataloging with and using LCSH properly requires training (Rolla, 2009).  LC, in fact, is taking steps to move away from pre-coordinated strings of subject headings (Mann, 2008).  Even though cataloging with subject headings is costly and despite the advantages tags can offer, research shows that subject headings have value that cannot be replaced by tags (Mann, 2008; Rolla, 2009; Steele, 2009; Thomas, Caudle, & Schmitz, 2009).  Folksonomies suffer from issues with ambiguous meaning (e.g., synonymy, polysemy, homonymy, etc.), “whereas one of the main purposes of controlled vocabularies is to disambiguate polysemous words and choose preferred terms from groups of synonyms” (Rolla, 2009, p. 175).  Replacing subject headings is not a viable strategy unless libraries are willing to seriously sacrifice cataloging quality.

On the other end of the spectrum, Ignoring tags is an equally poor option, as the value they can add to cataloging is clear.  Adding tags while retaining subject headings will markedly improve access (Rolla, 2009; Steele, 2009; Thomas et al., 2009).  Even Mann, always the staunch defender of traditional cataloging, calls for LCSH and tags to Coexist. Mann’s conclusion is that LC should accept tags but only in such a way that they are clearly separated from LC’s bibliographic records and catalog.  He would have LC expose its records to these linked sites but not pollute the core LC records and catalog with tags.  The coexistence option is exemplified by the University of Pennsylvania library:

PennTags allows members of the Penn community to tag web sites, articles in the library’s database, and records in both the video catalog and Franklin, the library’s OPAC. … Besides the “Add to PennTags” link, the tags are not on Penn Libraries’ OPAC itself.  Those more comfortable with the traditional search experience are not distracted by cloud tags or other unfamiliar features of tagging sites.  This way, the library caters to both those seeking a new way to interact with the catalog, and the traditional user. (Steele, 2009, p. 75)

On the other hand, not incorporating the tags into the base level OPAC means that tags are also hidden from OPAC users who might benefit from the tags’ functionality.  Only users who seek out the separate PennTags interface can benefit.

The Cooperate strategy is similar to coexistence, but incorporates tags directly into the library catalog.  Rolla (2009), Steele (2009), and Thomas, Caudle & Schmitz (2009) all conclude that tags can effectively supplement subject headings in catalogs.  Controlled vocabularies and folksonomies have complementary strengths and weaknesses.  Tags are easy to use, especially for quick searching, while subject headings can correct for tags’ ambiguity.  Subject headings are also indispensible for browsing by scholars in search of an overview of a topic (Mann, 2008).

“The benefit of tagging as a supplement to LCSH is more likely to occur when there are a large number of tags in the system” (Thomas et al., 2009, p. 430).  It’s not until we see tags shared on at least a large consortial level—better yet a national or international level—that network effects can kick in to produce unexpected results.  The future of tagging in libraries hinges on this point: will tags be shared globally (via LC, OCLC, or some other institution/mechanism), like other bibliographic information?  Even in the presence of such a global system, some libraries will opt to constrain their local catalogs to only local tags, or may continue to ignore tags altogether, but libraries as a whole (and therefore library users and society as a whole) stand to benefit from a shared namespace for tags.
References

Mann, T. (2008). “On the record” but off the track: a review of the report of the library of congress working group on the future of bibliographic control, with a further examination of library of congress cataloging tendencies. Retrieved from http://www.guild2910.org/WorkingGrpResponse2008.pdf

Rolla, P. J. (2009). User Tags versus Subject Headings: Can User-Supplied Data Improve Subject Access to Library Collections? Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174-184.

Social bookmarking. (2010, March 28). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_tagging

Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 68-77.

Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M., & Schmitz, C. M. (2009). To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3), 411 – 434. doi:10.1108/07378830910988540

The central premise of Calhoun’s report is that technology has “created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries—a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success” (2006, p. 5).  Calhoun’s perspective is that this notion applies directly to traditional library cataloging.  Yee argues that traditional cataloging is [...]]]> PDF Version

The central premise of Calhoun’s report is that technology has “created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries—a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success” (2006, p. 5).  Calhoun’s perspective is that this notion applies directly to traditional library cataloging.  Yee argues that traditional cataloging is fundamental to the value of libraries (2007).  Mann makes the case that research libraries’ primary mission is to serve the specific needs of serious scholarship (2006).  Each is right in their own way.  Mann and Yee, though, fail to recognize the changes that the coming of the Information Age has wrought on the world outside libraries.  Far too much valuable information is outside the reach of traditional catalogs.  Libraries must embrace technology to extend the grasp of catalogs beyond local holdings.

Mann believes that research libraries should primarily aim to serve the small population of serious researchers.  I do not agree with Mann’s other conclusions but it is hard to find fault with this one.  He is mistaken, though, to think that research libraries or other institutions are free from market forces—taken to the logical extreme, a library with no users has no value.  Market share is a fair measure of library performance; libraries want their base to choose them over alternative sources of information.  “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (“Corporate Information – Quick Profile,” n.d.)  Is that not also the mission of libraries?  Businesses and libraries can have different motivations yet still compete.

Maybe research libraries should be niche products, primarily oriented towards in-depth research, as Mann argues.  However, that path relies on an assumption as radical as Calhoun’s: that information of value to serious researchers is exclusively found in books, local archives, and other traditional library holdings, and that this state of affairs is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.  Simply put, I think this premise is wrong.

Both Mann and Yee display a striking ignorance of technology.  The nadir of Yee’s response comes with the paragraph that begins, “Computers are dumb machines” (2007).  Almost every word of this passage is either dated or just plain wrong.  There is nothing “allegedly sophisticated” about Google’s algorithms, which factor in more than 200 signals, one of which, PageRank, considers “more than 500 million variables” (“Corporate Information – Technology Overview,” n.d.).  By analyzing information like context and user behavior, Google addresses every area raised by Yee (Levy, 2010).  I agree, though, that ceding the field of organizing of information to Google is dangerous—the Internet and the market are too fickle for libraries to tie themselves to any one mast.  Nevertheless, spurning the lessons Google can offer defies logic and smacks of hubris.  Yee writes, “Google and Amazon.com limit human intervention for information organization as much as possible in order to maximize profits” (2007).  While correct, this misses the point—the two companies do so because it is the only way to scale to the enormity of the internet.  As Calhoun suggests, libraries have to accept some form of automated cataloging if they are to remain relevant in the Information Age.

Mann is unwilling to admit the value that the Internet offers for scholarship.  Yee makes the same mistake, mischaracterizing the Internet as no more than “ready reference.”  The Internet runs the full gamut, from ready reference to raw data, and from blogs to published research.  Mann has a valid point that Calhoun’s claims about the waning value of the catalog are unsubstantiated.  He overstates the point, though—unsubstantiated does not necessarily equate to wrong, just unproven.  My counter to Mann is that it is obvious that the importance of catalogs is at least in steady decline, with more valuable information than ever before available outside library holdings.  Is there any reason to assume that trend will reverse?  The catalog might not be dead, but, barring the significant upgrades Calhoun puts forth, it is certainly ailing.

One can question the basic premise of the Calhoun Report, as Mann and Yee strenuously do.  If, though, you accept discontinuous change as a starting point, the rational conclusion is that a radically changing environment must be met with an equally radical response.  It comes down how one gauges the chance that the Information Age presents an existential threat to catalogs and to libraries themselves.  Mann and Yee are conservative—they long to restore the status quo.  I think that libraries underreacted to the rise of the Internet in the early nineties and ever since have been falling further behind the technologically driven wave of change that continues to sweep over society.

Mann and Yee may not like it but libraries are reacting to this wave at last.  I fear, though, that they still have not caught up to the scale and pace of change in the Information Age.  Calhoun outlines a wide range of responses to this dilemma for library catalogs, from incremental improvements to revolutionary measures.  Greater change carries greater hazard, but these risks are necessary.  Failing to adapt is the riskiest course of all.

References

Calhoun, K. (2006). The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf

Corporate Information – Quick Profile. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.google.com/corporate/facts.html

Corporate Information – Technology Overview. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html

Mann, T. (2006). The Changing Nature of the Catalog and Its Integration with Other Discovery Tools. Final Report. March 17, 2006. Prepared for the\line Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun. A Critical Review. Retrieved from http://www.guild2910.org/AFSCMECalhounReviewREV.pdf

Yee, M. M. (2007, July 24). Will The Response Of The Library Profession To The Internet Be Self-Immolation? Message posted to http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html, archived at http://catalis.uns.edu.ar/doku/doku.php/yee-autoinmolacion http://www.slc.bc.ca/response.htm

Access is defined in libraries by the American Library Association (ALA) Code of Ethics, the ALA Library Bill of Rights, and a number of interpretations of the Bill of Rights issued by the ALA.  Access inhabits the region where intellectual freedom and service intersect, in that it concerns applying intellectual freedom [...]]]> PDF Version

Access Defined

Access is defined in libraries by the American Library Association (ALA) Code of Ethics, the ALA Library Bill of Rights, and a number of interpretations of the Bill of Rights issued by the ALA.  Access inhabits the region where intellectual freedom and service intersect, in that it concerns applying intellectual freedom principles to the deployment of libraries’ resources and to shaping service to enable maximal use of those resources.  Aspects of access are often defined in opposition to barriers to access; librarians are charged with overcoming, eliminating, or reducing physical, societal, procedural, and economic elements that hinder users’ information seeking (Rubin, 2004, pp. 45-47).  Conceptually, access can be broken down into two categories: equity of access and access to information.  “Equity of access means that all people have the information they need-regardless of age, education, ethnicity, language, income, physical limitations or geographic barriers” (American Library Association, 2010).  The other half of the equation is access to information—what information does the library make available to users?

The Code of Ethics explicitly commits librarianship to “the freedom of access to information” and calls for “equitable access,” resistance to “all efforts to censor library resources,” and “confidentiality with respect to information sought or received” (American Library Association, 1997).  The Library Bill of Rights prescribes serving “all people of the community the library serves,” and states that, “a person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views” (American Library Association, 1939b).  In support of information access, the Bill of Rights calls for libraries to “provide materials and information presenting all points of view” and it proscribes excluding material because of prejudices against its creator, “partisan or doctrinal disapproval,” (American Library Association, 1939b) or other attempts at censorship.  Diverse interpretations of the Bill of Rights lend further detail to the ideals of access:

“Access to all materials and resources legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude materials and resources even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user.  This includes materials and resources that reflect a diversity of political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues.” (American Library Association, 1982)

Another interpretation decries restrictions to access: “some libraries block access to certain materials by placing physical or virtual barriers between the user and those materials” and “restricting access to library materials violates the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights” (American Library Association, 1973).  Barriers proscribed in various interpretations include age restrictions (American Library Association, 1972, 1989), restricted shelving (American Library Association, 1973), fees for services (American Library Association, 1993), and prejudicial labeling (American Library Association, 1951).

Different Libraries, Same Principles

Academic, medical, legal, and special libraries all have missions and policies that differ from public libraries (and from each other).  Therefore, it is appropriate to ask whether access is defined or applied differently across librarianship.  Preer emphatically states that access is a fundamental aspect of librarianship and that it cuts across all types of libraries (Preer, 2008, pp. xiv, 24).  The guiding documents of various types of libraries support this conclusion, as they universally include the critical elements of access—equity of access, non-prejudicial selection of diverse viewpoints, and protection of users’ privacy—though some fields emphasize certain aspects more than others, in accordance with their differing missions (Preer, 2008, pp. 21-23).  The Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, for example, calls for confidentiality, “a variety of perspectives on subjects that may be considered controversial” (American Library Association, 2000), and equal access, but also specifically addresses the application of access principles to licensing agreements and unequivocally bans filtering of Internet content.  The Code of Ethics for Health Sciences Librarianship similarly is committed the general ideals of librarianship, including access, but diverges from other fields by calling for the provision of “the best available information” (Medical Library Association, 2010) instead of diverse viewpoints.  Both special librarians and archivists follow the ALA’s general principles of access, but assign greater relative importance to preservation of materials, calling for a balance between preservation and access (Rubin, 2004, pp. 22-23).

History of Access

Early libraries could largely be categorized as archives dedicated to preserving select, expensive to reproduce texts.  In America, it took some time for civilization to grow from scattered independent colonies to a stable and prosperous society capable of supporting a significant number of libraries.  The few libraries that existed in early 16^th century America were small collections of wealthy citizens or equally small collections of the handful of colleges operating at that time.  In these historic libraries, access was severely limited, and secondary to the primary mission of stewardship (Rubin, 2004).

The effect of the printing press finally began to greatly affect libraries in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  Cheap books drove literacy rates up to new levels, spawning many more potential library users than ever before (Preer, 2008, p. 4; Rubin, 2004, p. 272).  This demand, coupled with the continued progress of American society, sparked a rash of new libraries with new missions.  Academic institutions embraced a larger role for libraries, turning to them to broadly support curricula and research.  Building on the foundation created by social and circulating libraries, public libraries offered service without membership or circulation fees (Rubin, 2004).  All of these innovations expanded access, facilitating the pursuit of information for all areas of society.

However, a modern librarian looking back at a mid-19^th century library would easily identify significant barriers to access.  Though early public libraries existed, they would not become widespread until the late-19^th and early-20^th centuries (Preer, 2008, p. 4).  Therefore, geographic and economic barriers to access were widespread.  Just as significantly, the profession of librarianship was not yet established, so users and libraries lacked professional guidance.  Libraries commonly had closed shelves, did not allow children, and favored “literature” over popular fiction (Preer, 2008, p. 102).  Finally, societal repression severely limited access to controversial works.

A century later, in the mid-20^th century, libraries had made revolutionary strides, yet were still in a transitional phase on their way to the modern treatment of access.  The late nineteenth- and early-twentieth-centuries saw the establishment of professional librarianship, the adoption of the ALA Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Rights, and increases in access on many fronts.  As mentioned above, public libraries expanded greatly in number (Preer, 2008, p. 8).  Libraries began to cater to children.  The profession consciously rejected suggestions that libraries should orient their services to the white, educated, middle class users that constituted the majority of their users.  Instead, the profession asserted libraries “fundamentally democratic role” (Preer, 2008, p. 55) in making information available to residents of all social strata.  The original version of the Code of Ethics, approved in 1938, laid out the core principles of access that continue to this day.  The document called for representation of varied viewpoints, “impartial service … to all who are entitled to use the library” (American Library Association, 1939a), and confidentiality.

Despite the great strides of the preceding century, access was still treated imperfectly in libraries as of the mid-20^th century.  Most starkly, minorities faced severe barriers, including segregated libraries.  An amendment to the Library Bill of Rights to extend equal access to minorities was still a decade away (Rubin, 2004, pp. 293-294).  Additionally, libraries had not yet come to fight censorship in all its forms.  For many years, librarians considered it their duty to shield users from objectionable material (Preer, 2008, p. 85).  Though the 1938 Code of Ethics called for representation of diverse points of view, from 1944 to 1967 language that called for limiting collections to “sound factual authority” (Preer, 2008, p. 83) was inserted in the Code.  While some within the field argued for impartial selection of materials instead of censorship in the name of service, access did not trump service in the guiding documents of the field until the 1970s (Preer, 2008, pp. 16,24).

In modern librarianship, access is king.  The Code of Ethics and Library Bill of Rights have evolved over the years to reflect the primacy of access to the profession.  Librarianship is explicitly committed to resisting censorship in all its forms.  Besides the racial integration of libraries, further steps have been taken to equalize service to underserved regions and populations.  Physical barriers to access for the handicapped have been reduced.  The ALA has come out strongly for the right of youths to enjoy equal access (Preer, 2008).  Finally, in terms of making diverse points of view available, the Internet has obviously had an enormous effect on the provision of access.  Historically, librarians controlled what information was accessible to users; with the arrival of the Web, it has become relatively easy to access magnitudes more information that libraries ever could provide directly (Rubin, 2004, p. 478).  The challenge for librarians lies in continuing to enable equitable access and to help users find, identify, and choose the best of what is available.

History repeats itself—as once was the case with books, today there is widespread sentiment within and outside libraries to censor access to the Internet.  As they did and continue to do with printed materials, today’s libraries help democratize access to electronic information.  However, those libraries that accept federal e-rate funding to offset the cost of that access also must accept the return of age-based restrictions to access by way of CIPA-required internet filtering.  The specter of self-censorship, never fully conquered even for print materials, has reared its head in the arena of the Internet, with some libraries implementing policies to restrict certain specific uses of library computers and bandwidth.  Paralleling earlier battles over the provision of “literature” versus “novels,” these libraries cut off access to high-demand but “low-brow” sites, e.g., social networking, chat, and video games (Preer, 2008).

Conclusion

Recently centuries have brought revolutionary change to libraries.  From the 17^th century on, and especially since the mid-19^th century, the importance of access has grown.  Preer identifies access as “the central ethical value of librarianship” (2008, p. 24) and it retains that primacy across all subfields of librarianship.  Even in archives, where another fundamental value, preservation, competes for importance, Ranganathan’s ideas hold sway: the purpose of preservation is to allow use (Rubin, 2004, p. 306). According to the ideals of the ALA’s guiding documents, the only restriction on access in libraries should be what is required by law; except for obscene or otherwise illegal materials, libraries should endeavor to provide unrestricted access to every sort of information on all topics to all potential library users.

References

American Library Association. (1939a). Code of Ethics for Librarians. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/history/index5.cfm

American Library Association. (1939b, last amended 1996). Library bill of rights. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/index.cfm

American Library Association. (1951, last amended 2009). Labeling and Rating Systems. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/ interpretations/labelingrating.cfm

American Library Association. (1972, last amended 2008). Free Access to Libraries for Minors. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/ interpretations/freeaccesslibraries.cfm

American Library Association. (1973, last amended 2009). Restricted Access to Library Materials. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/ interpretations/restrictedaccess.cfm

American Library Association. (1982, last amended 2008). Diversity in Collection Development. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/ interpretations/diversitycollection.cfm

American Library Association. (1989, amended 2004). Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/ librarybill/interpretations/accesschildren.cfm

American Library Association. (1993). Economic Barriers to Information Access. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/ economicbarriers.cfm

American Library Association. (1997, amended 2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/ codeofethics/codeethics.cfm

American Library Association. (2000). Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/ interpretations/intellectual.cfm

American Library Association. (2010). Equity of Access. American Library Association. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/access/ equityofaccess/index.cfm

Medical Library Association. (2010). Code of Ethics for Health Sciences Librarianship. Retrieved from http://www.mlanet.org/about/ethics.html

Preer, J. L. (2008). Library ethics. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Rubin, R. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. Neal-Schuman Publishers.