I've always had a hard time explaining my position on e-books. Some of my esteemed colleagues are quick to point out the minor dent that e-books have made in overall book sales in this country and others. But when I started evangelizing about e-books back in the late 1990s, we were still talking about what I call the "curl-up factor." I grew so tired of hearing people complain about not wanting to curl up with an e-book, or the inability to take an e-book to the beach, that as soon as I read either phrase in e-book commentary, I simply stopped. [WARNING: rhetorical question ahead. No need to flood comments.] How many laptop owners can say they've never curled up with theirs in bed, and who hasn't seen a Blackberry at the beach?

The interesting thing to me is that much of the debate about whether to do e-books ended when Google made its now-famous announcement. "Whether or not" to digitize became "how, which, and whose books" nearly overnight. I still find it ironic that despite publishers and middleware providers' valiant efforts to digitize books, it took a press release about Google digitizing millions of books for which it had no rights to turn the tide of e-book production.

There are a couple of interesting new things out there. First, the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) is announcing a conference in New York City for May 9, 2007. Digital Book 2007 will feature digital publishing and mobile device innovations. Librarians might remember the IDPF as the OeBF, or Open eBook Forum. It dropped the old moniker when it became clear that the group was essentially a trade organization, and not primarily an effort to create an open e-book standard—a goal that I still believe was thwarted by the conflict of interest of some of its participants in maintaining the strong footing of proprietary technology in the e-books market space. Anyway, the conference will likely include a better look at e-ink technologies, Adobe's new Flash-based e-book reader, and more.

The conference's confirmed speaker list includes the Digital Library Federation's new executive director, Peter Brantley. Brantley recently shook up the e-book world a little with a Google e-book apologia related to recent library dealings with the Google Books project. The original post is a poetic read; its follow-up, "Reprise with Clarity," is also excellent.

Back to my position on e-books. It's not a "more digital books" position, but what I like to call "books more digital." That is, the more digital the book is, the more options publishers, libraries, patrons, and shoppers will have for consuming them and building services upon them. Whether e-ink, cell-phone, or print-on-demand paperback, a more digital book is a more readable book. Now that the "whether or not" debate is coming to an end, it may be time (or it may be too late) for libraries to reinvest their time in investigating standards, pressuring publishers to release content for digitization, and playing with the technology that will soon be (or already is) in the hands of our patrons.

After all this serious talk about the future of automation systems, I thought I would lighten the load with a little humor.

This was another take-away from my trip to Google that I did not mention in my more formal report. It's a picture from the restroom stall at Google. Now, I work at a state institution where we consider a toilet paper holder still attached to the wall quite a luxury. But this blows away (ahem) all the talk of free food, ping-pong, and jeans at work.

Like most Google user interfaces, the options are simple and intuitive, even if the results are somewhat shocking.

What does it say about us when the toilets of a search-engine giant are even more high-tech than some of libraries' search-and-retrieval technology?

Things just got more interesting. I love a clever turn of phrase, and no matter what you think of vendors or their software, you gotta give props to VTLS for the "No Roaming" double entendre in this latest entry into library vendor intrigue.

VTLS will be offering a free license to its integrated library system, Virtua, in return for a 3-year service contract (press release). Basically, it's an alternative to waiting to migrate to another system, but is pointedly in response to SisriDynix's recent announcement about its new platform, code-named "Rome." Of course, there are the requisite rules and exceptions, but you can't say it's small print. It's all right there in the program details.

Some highlights from the VTLS program:

If you’re a North American library and your ILS vendor has announced the end-of-life for your product, VTLS wants to offer you a cost-effective way to stay on the leading edge of technology. Specifically:

1. VTLS will provide you with a cost-free license to the VIRTUA ILS for the same user count and the same modules (if available from VTLS) as you have licensed from your current vendor.


2. Software installation and data conversion from your existing system (acq and serials data conversion may not be available for all products) to VIRTUA will be done by VTLS for our current list price rates.


3. ORACLE (embedded) licensing costs must be paid by the customer.


4. Training will be offered in a variety of ways to make it as affordable as possible, including:


5. Library must sign 3-year maintenance agreement. Early cancellation charges would apply.


6. The procurement process has to be on a sole-source basis with no RFI or RFP requirements.


7. Customers must sign standard maintenance and license agreements.


8. A commitment must be received in the form of a Purchase Order, or a signed maintenance agreement, by June 30, 2007, with implementation to begin by the end of 2007.


9. Additional, optional software modules the library may desire can be purchased and bundled with the offer.


10. Hardware is not included in this offer and must be supplied by the customer. However, hosted access is available if desired.


11. For the first five libraries to sign a commitment, VTLS will offer a 50% discount on the industry-leading VITAL digital repository product.


12. VTLS reserves the right to modify the terms of the offer at any time without notice.

This is quite an interesting way for VTLS to counter the recent announcement from SirsiDynix. As I mentioned in my previous post, all other things being equal, the pain of migration is the hardest thing to deal with. The question for libraries is how does Virtua measure up to Unicorn.

Though I am sure there are business reasons that make the idea unattractive, if I were VTLS, I would have sweetened the entire thing by releasing Virtua as open source. Whether this turns out to be an interesting publicity stunt or if it gets real traction, the message is still a poignant reflection of the concern of many SirsiDynix customers who do not think that Unicorn is necessarily the best way forward.

I can't wait to see what the reaction to this might be.

My NCSU colleague, Tito Sierra, said to me yesterday, "Haven't the last two years of the library system industry been more interesting that the previous 10?" I could not disagree. And today's news not only adds credence to that theory, it could make the next 5–10 years continually interesting.

The News
SirisDynix announced today that it would begin developing a "holistic platform" for its automation system, code-named Rome. Okay, what does this mean? First some facts, and then some conjecture and editorial.

SirsiDynix will unveil that we are blending the strengths and best features of Unicorn, Horizon/Corinthian, and other solutions to create a new, versatile technology platform to serve 21st-century libraries and consortia. Code-named “Rome,” this platform goes beyond the traditional integrated library system to encompass the full range of technology building blocks for managing library operations and resources, while providing meaningful user experiences to your information consumers.

—from SirsiDynix message to customers

It means that Horizon 7.3 and Unicorn 3.1 will be the last versions of those products from SirsiDynix. Horizon 8 / Corinthian and Unicorn 3.2 will not be released. That said, Rome will be built (not in a day, I venture) upon the architecture of the Unicorn system. End-of-life (EOL) has not been announced for these two platforms. Only Multilis (June 30, 2007) and DRA Classic (February 8, 2009) have been given EOL status.

Business Angle
I understand this decision from a business standpoint, even if I might not agree with it 100%. Choosing a single platform will save SirsiDynix a lot in R&D costs. Not supporting 14 different OPACs (a little hyperbole). Think of main things like development, sales, implementation, and support. Who wants to multiply all of those thing by two?

The problem, to me, is that all the descriptions of Rome sound a lot like the descriptions of Horizon 8.0. Heck, they sound a little like Taos, for those who want to go back even farther. Rumors abound about the instability of Horizon 8. I cannot speak to those rumors. So, I think the decision about Rome is essentially a "time to market" decision. It's a choice between a sexy platform that is unstable and a stable platform that is unsexy. I used to be happy when stability won the day; now my own ideals are staring me in the face.

Golden Opportunity?
SirsiDynix sounds sincere about its direction. I spoke to several principals, including Martin Taylor, John Dickson, Berit Nelson, and Tom Gates—they seem confident in this road to Rome. I am going to reserve the bulk of my judgment for a few months. But I also wonder how this might be playing out in Rome, Georgia.

As many a blogger and library developer has said, the release of the open source Evergreen System by the Georgia PINES group has the potential to change the library automation landscape. "Salivating" was the word I used with a colleague to describe the open source community's reaction to this plan. That salivation might not start until the news of Horizon 8's death sinks in, but I think it will hit them sooner rather than later.

With over 4,000 Horizon libraries and 4,000 Unicorn libraries (libraries, not server sites), this news means the potential for hundreds of migrations over the next 3-6 years. I say 3&#82116 as a guess based on SirsiDynix’s policy of actively supporting a given product in its current release and two prior releases.

The Horizon customers will be the most interesting ones to watch. SirsiDynix would argue that they were facing an upgrade and change of (at least staff) interfaces no matter what. That argument could also be made by libraries for choosing another vendor. Since there will undoubtedly be financial incentive to stay with SirsiDynix, this will be a difficult decision for many libraries. But it is also why I predict salivation from the open source providers, who will argue that the pain of migration is equal but that the value of openness is priceless. I am sure that SirsiDynix's competition is ready to pounce as well.

Final thoughts (for today)
It's likely that Vista's purchase price for SirsiDynix was roughly twice their annual revenues, or over $200M (the rumor I heard actually put the figure higher than that). As a $1B equity firm, Vista is investing a sizable chunk of its money in this decision. That's commitment. We'll see if it pays off.

A couple of days later, I am still trying to wrap my head around the first public meeting of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. My thoughts are still somewhat random, maybe too random for serious consideration but just right for a Sunday night blog post. I summarize without the promise of poignancy for which my colleague Paul Miller hopes. I mean no disrespect in my frank comments that follow.

If it's a play-by of the day's event you want, then I would refer you to Karen Coyle's blog [apologies to Karen, none of my links to her site would validate in my post, so I had to remove them: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com. ] She dedicatedly summarized the talks of each speaker and some of the discussion that followed. In fact, her summary of my own presentation (PowerPoint) was up before I even took my seat. There was a video made of the presentations that I am assuming will make its way onto the internet at some point.

Surprises
After the meeting, I was with a group of people, including two of the Working Group's "at-large" members. Lorcan Dempsey was asking us if we had perceived any "surprises" in what we had heard. (I add this with a touch of irony, since one of the things talked about that evening is the fact that no one can say anything anymore without it being blogged.)

I thought hard about surprises and was hard-pressed to come up with any. "Someone from Netflix was there," I said. That surprised me a little. One of the things that surprised me--a thread that runs through the minutes of the WG's first meeting as well--was what I would call a little too much "traditionalism." I noticed in the introductions portion of the minutes that everyone was trying very hard to show their cataloger chops. There was a little confusion, I think, about which users and uses we were supposed to be talking about (librarians or patrons), but the lines between the two were well navigated.

Disappointments
I was really hoping to learn a little bit more about Google's and Microsoft's role in this Working Group. Full-text is the elephant in the room of bibliographic control, and while some of us danced around the elephant and poked it with small sticks, the elephant was not provoked to trample the quaint discussions of MARC's inadequacies and our mission to protect democracy.

I can't help but think that the Library of Congress might be a little disappointed. One of the goals of this Working Group is, after all, to discover ways in which we can decrease the expenses of traditional description and/or shift resources to improve its breadth and depth into describing other digital resources in ways that support a good return on the investment.

The venue
I can't help but say something about the meeting location. I am sincere in meaning no disrespect to our generous hosts, but I would be remiss if I did not comment.

I am an admitted "Google skeptic." That is to say, I consider myself a realist about Google's motives (profit), which many people interpret as skepticism. That said, I can also admit to some fascination at getting to attend this meeting at Google HQ. What do you think was cooler to my 8-year old Emma and 5-year old Eli--that I was invited to give a talk by the Library of Congress or that I was going to Google? Good guess.

Our meeting was in a wide-open space in one of the buildings of a sprawling complex. If the building had a name, I did not catch it. The room was a thoroughfare, with other meeting rooms, restrooms, and even an elevator around its perimeter.

Google employees came and went, their chatter unsubdued by our presence. Phones rang. Meetings started with doors open, staff (I don't think I saw a single person over the age of 30 the entire day) came and went to the nearby kitchen to grind coffee and make espresso.

I'm sure it's purely something about the culture of Google, but I could not help thinking that Google was disrupting our space. It felt like Google didn't care about library stuff and stuffy librarians. It felt like a metaphor playing out right in front of me.

Promise
Lorcan Dempsey gave an outstanding summary of the day. He has promised a more detailed write-up in the coming days. While there might not have been anything earth-shattering in the day's events, I remain optimistic about the nimbleness and purpose of the group. An interesting recent body of work precedes the LC report that is scheduled to be delivered this year--Karen Calhoun's report, the UC Bibliographic Task force Report (pdf), and a lot of fresh discussion about next-generation systems. Karen Coyle's futurelib wiki is a good place to jump in feet first.

I am also sure that the Working Group will hone the focus and organization of the upcoming meetings. No one can complain about insufficient notice about the upcoming discussions in May, July, and November. I remain, as ever, optimistic--nevertheless this discussion requires library attention and participation.

I remain hopeful that the groundwork is being laid for some change. As a community we cannot continue to complain about our plight while simultaneously either accepting it or refusing to entertain change that might appear radical at first glance. I hope that someone will poke those elephants with bigger sticks.

Bibliographic control does have a future. Though, after spending 30 minutes last night describing the problem to my wife, I sure wish we had called it "the future of finding stuff online."

I'm headed out this morning for a meeting convened by the Library of Congress's working group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. It is an austere group that I think has real potential to make some serious recommendations. Boy, that sounded like I'm running for office, didn't it?

Anyway, I am giving a short presentation on "New Services," which is really just a euphemism for the fact that MPOW has a pretty cool faceted navigation catalog and a homegrown electronic resources management system. So, I've been thinking a lot about data, relevance, and subject access to metadata records. It seems that everyone is after a less expensive way to do what libraries have always done. Not a bad goal.

As a systems guy, I am confident that computational analysis of data will be able to accomplish some measure of what has traditionally required human intervention. (Politician-speak again, eh?...I think I just said that computers should replace people). As a librarian, I am stuck on the paradox that better analysis (even computerized analysis) is only accomplished with the aid of human intervention.

Let me put that another way: Some have suggested that "subject keywords" should replace Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The paradox is that those very keywords are most logically derived from LCSH. "Tagging" (or "social tagging") would be another option, but that is human intervention writ large, and while the effectiveness of tagging is not shrouded in great doubt, I think the jury is still out on its comparative effectiveness and precision in controlling bibliographic data. I will say, however, that I am very, very impressed by the work of Tim Spalding at LibraryThing. Libraries should be licensing his database's social tags. LibraryThing's interface design is also very, very good. I'm sure Amazon.com has taken notice.

Of course, one more option would be to just scan all the books. Every last one of them. And then rely on a really good algorithm to sort things out. Did I mention that the meeting I'm going to is at Google Headquarters?

I don't disagree that we should always be in pursuit of faster, better, cheaper. I remain skeptical that all three will be accomplished at the same time. And there's the rub. One thing's for sure: I'm happy to be on the ride while it lasts.