Overall, I really like the ideas talked about but I agree with Terran that something would have to be done with circ data related to patrons. We use the purge function to anonymize our patron data but I could see other ways of dealing with this. We also have retention policies related to retaining patron circulation data.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Rogan Hamby <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose I don't understand the concern on your part as at that level if > someone could access the raw db they could just query someone's circulation > history, fine payments, etc... since those are recorded as transactions > unless you're doing something to anonymize or wipe those as soon as they're > done. Even then someone could see all current transactions at that level. > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, McCanna, Terran < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This relies on the circulation and rating data still being tied to the >> patron in the system, though - yes, it'd be on the database side and not on >> public view, but it's still creating a picture of a patron's reading >> history that has privacy implications. Of course, this feature should be >> set for systems to enable or disable, so that systems that are concerned >> about privacy simply won't turn it on. (PINES, for example, limits the >> retention of circulation history in the system as much as we can because of >> our privacy policies, so any feature that is linked to a patron's history >> would be unusable for us.) >> >> If ranking data were stored completely independently of the patron, then >> library systems would be able to use it without privacy concerns, and >> patrons wouldn't even need to be logged in to use it - but then it >> wouldn't be able to give completely customized recommendations to a >> specific patron, either. It's a definite tradeoff. >> >> >> Terran McCanna >> PINES Program Manager >> Georgia Public Library Service >> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >> Atlanta, GA 30345 >> 404-235-7138 >> [email protected] >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Vanya Jauhal" <[email protected]> >> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" < >> [email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:41:02 PM >> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration >> >> >> >> Hello Rogan >> >> This is exactly what I had in mind. All the recommendation processing >> will take place in background, and all the user will see is a >> recommendation and not the information of any other patron. This way his >> experience with Awesome Box will get enhanced. >> >> >> And yes, we can maybe, start off with some broad level genres, like, as >> you mentioned, fiction, non-fiction, documentaries, etc. Then, depending >> upon the infrastructure of the system and the response of that >> categorization, we can build upon the algorithm accordingly. >> >> >> You are right- it would be a big task in itself, but since the number of >> parameters involved are few and explicit, it gets simplified to an extent. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Rogan Hamby < [email protected] >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't see an issue with doing analysis of circulation patterns on the >> backend so long as nothing identifying is exposed. >> >> >> For example, if all I saw as a patron was a tab in my opac that said "you >> thought The Yiddish Policeman's Union was Awesome! Some others do did also >> thought this was Awesome .... " I don't see that as different from doing >> the same thing with circulations. It's not telling patrons even what the >> points of comparison were unless they only had a single item in their >> circulation history and even then it doesn't tell them how many other >> patrons, how much, etc.... >> >> >> I'm dubious about subject headings also but wouldn't want to dismiss it >> out of hand. It might work. Without doing some experimenting I could see it >> going either way. Some fixed fields I could see working, like fiction and >> non-fiction. Age groups? Well, at least I can tell you I can't rely on >> those in my catalog. :) >> >> >> However, I also worry that reading recommendations based on circulation >> history could easily grow into a much more complicated task, especially >> depending on how we deliver those recommendations. Looking at a single >> boolean value tied to the user and item (circ table?) could still be quite >> a project by itself especially once all the useful bits and pieces are >> built in. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM, McCanna, Terran < >> [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> Agreed - it's a great idea in theory, but I'm not sure how well it would >> work in actual practice. Even in a single library, genre subject headings >> are usually pretty inconsistent in the MARC records because of copy >> cataloging, and that usually gets even more inconsistent in a consortium of >> libraries. Perhaps it could be partially weighted on genre subject >> headings, but not overly reliant on them? It might be worth considering the >> fixed field values for fiction vs. non-fiction and for age groups, too. >> >> I love the idea of providing recommendations based on other people that >> have similar taste ("other people that liked this book also liked these >> books...") but if the data is tied to actual patrons (and I'm not sure how >> it couldn't be) then quite a few library systems would face legal privacy >> issues and wouldn't be able to use it. We're currently using a commercial >> service to pull in reading recommendations because the recommendations >> can't be tied back to any of our patrons. >> >> >> Terran McCanna >> PINES Program Manager >> Georgia Public Library Service >> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >> Atlanta, GA 30345 >> 404-235-7138 >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rogan Hamby" < [email protected] > >> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" < >> [email protected] > >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:02:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration >> >> >> I can see some challenges to tracking genre and I'd be hesitant to put >> too much value on it. There are ways to catalog it but in my experience >> actually relying on it being in records (much less being consistent) is >> very unreliable in organizations that do a lot of copy cataloging / don't >> have centralized and controlled cataloging and there quite a few in that >> boat. >> >> >> That concern aside, I've always thought this would be a fun and >> potentially valuable thing to add. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Vanya Jauhal < [email protected] > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello everyone >> >> I'm Vanya, from India. I'm a candidate for OPW Round9 internship with >> evergreen. >> >> While discussing the idea of Awesome Box integration with Evergreen, >> Kathy and I discussed the possibility of making the Evergreen support for >> Awesome Box more interpretive using Artificial Intelligence. >> >> What if we could train the system to give weightage to people's "awesome" >> tags on items, depending upon how much their previous tags are appreciated >> by other people. >> >> For example: Let's say you tag a book to be awesome. Now, if 100 other >> people check that book in, and (lets say) 80 of them also tag it to be >> awesome- it will mean that your opinion matches a majority of people. On >> the other hand, if 100 other people check that book in and (say) only 5 of >> them tag it as awesome, this would mean that your awesome tag is not in >> coherence with the majority. >> So, in the former case, your awesome tag can be given more weightage as >> compared to the latter. >> >> Also, the weightage may vary according to genres. So- you may have a good >> taste in mystery books but your taste in classical literature might not be >> the same as the majority crowd. So- the weightage of your awesome tag in >> mystery would be higher than classical literature. >> >> We can even extend it to provide recommendations to users depending on >> their coherence with other users with similar taste. >> >> I am looking forward to your suggestions and feedback on this. >> >> Thank you for your time >> >> Vanya >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA >> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, >> York County Library System >> >> >> “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to >> suit me.” >> ― C.S. Lewis >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA >> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, >> York County Library System >> >> >> “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to >> suit me.” >> ― C.S. Lewis >> > > > > -- > > Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA > Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, > York County Library System > > “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit > me.” > ― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis> > -- Tim Spindler [email protected] *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.*
