Kathy, I think that's a good point. I think Rogan and others have cautioned about feature creep also. I think in the end I would be happy to first to see integration with Awesome Box and then as a second phase some of the other issues.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Kathy Lussier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Basically, I wouldn't let the quality of genre headings in your catalog >> determine whether Awesome Box uses genre headings. Too much in the history >> of genre use makes clean headings difficult. I would, however, begin >> considering how to clean up those headings so Awesome Box could be fully >> implemented. >> > > I just want to throw out a reminder that full implementation of "Awesome > Box" is really collecting the data for items that have been returned to an > awesome box in the library and sending that information along to > http://awesomebox.io/. I think Vanya has some good ideas to then use that > same data in Evergreen in other ways, which is great and may start a > foundation for even more development. But, in my mind, these other > components are gravy. Exciting gravy, but gravy nonetheless. > > Kathy > > Kathy Lussier > Project Coordinator > Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative > (508) 343-0128 > [email protected] > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier > #evergreen IRC: kmlussier > > On 9/26/2014 2:22 PM, Hardy, Elaine wrote: > >> Genre headings can be corrected so that they are current to the thesauri >> your library uses. LCGFT and GSAFD authority records are available, for >> example. However, authorities for genre headings is relatively recent >> and, >> as a result, many libraries did not retain or add genre headings to bib >> records in the past. Of course, adding subject headings to fiction is >> relatively recent as well. Some older fiction titles may just have genre >> headings, if anything at all. >> >> Copy cataloging should not make a difference in whether headings are used >> correctly or whether your library chooses to use genre headings. Although >> I >> suppose your bibliographic utility will. If you obtain most of your >> records >> from LC or OCLC, then certainly newer titles will have extensive genre >> headings. With the advent of LCGFT, more catalogers do add genre headings >> to >> bib records. GSAFD use was spotty but has increased. What could make the >> difference is whether you use vendor cataloging since your library might >> have to pay extra for use and maintenance of genre headings. Particularly >> if >> you use the vendor as a source for your title records. >> >> If your catalogers are afforded the time to correct and add genre >> headings, >> then whether they copy catalog or create all title records originally >> won't >> matter. What their process and procedures are does. >> >> If your genre headings have not been kept up to date (which is likely true >> of all of us), then I suggest cleaning them up as much as possible if >> Awesome box ratings will include them. And approaching cataloging staff to >> see if including use and maintenance of genre headings can become part of >> their workflow. Keep in mind that, not only could it increase the time it >> takes for items to get to the shelf, if you out source, it might increase >> costs. If you use a vendor authority service, genre heading maintenance >> may >> already be a part of the service. >> >> I'm not sure that beginning with broad categories would solve any problems >> since anything other than literary form (fiction, nonfiction, poetry, >> drama, >> etc) is going to be in, or not, a 655. Again, whether LitF in the fixed >> filed is coded properly depends on the quality of your bib records. Some >> of >> the prePINES records have very little coding of any kind in the fixed >> fields -- about 200,000 out of 1.7 million or so bib records. >> >> Basically, I wouldn't let the quality of genre headings in your catalog >> determine whether Awesome Box uses genre headings. Too much in the history >> of genre use makes clean headings difficult. I would, however, begin >> considering how to clean up those headings so Awesome Box could be fully >> implemented. >> >> >> Elaine >> >> J. Elaine Hardy >> PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager >> Georgia Public Library Service >> 1800 Century Place, Ste 150 >> Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 >> >> 404.235-7128 >> 404.235-7201, fax >> [email protected] >> www.georgialibraries.org >> www.georgialibraries.org/pines >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> McCanna, Terran >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:33 PM >> To: Evergreen Discussion Group >> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > -- Tim Spindler [email protected] *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.*
