Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration
; 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 > >>> eha...@georgialibraries.org > >>> www.georgialibraries.org > >>> www.georgialibraries.org/pines > >>> > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org > >>> [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] 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.) > >>> > >>>
[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: Awesome Box Integration
een that we could leverage for >> this purpose? My first thought was MVF. >> >> I do have one general recommendation speaking with my OPW admin hat on. >> It really is a general recommendation for any of the OPW candidates who >> might be following along. I mentioned in IRC today that I'm not a >> developer, but I've managed a lot of development projects, and one thing I >> try to watch out for is project creep. As we continue to talk about the >> project and think of new configuration options to make it a more flexible >> project, it can also become a very large project that isn't as easy to >> manage. >> >> Therefore, as you think through how you plan to implement the project, I >> recommend breaking it up into distinct milestones. You might want to start >> with smaller tasks as you ease into the project (e.g. collecting the >> awesome tags and sending them along to the Awesome Box site), and then move >> on to the larger components once you become more familiar with the system. >> >> Kathy >> >> >> Kathy Lussier >> Project Coordinator >> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >> (508) 343-0128kluss...@masslnc.org >> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier >> #evergreen IRC: kmlussier >> >> On 9/25/2014 6:40 PM, Tim Spindler wrote: >> >> 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 >> 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 < >>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org> 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 >>>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Vanya Jauhal" >>>> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" < >>>> open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org> >>>> 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 l
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.
Since this recommendation system is based on non-abstract data ( any book
is either tagged awesome or it's not), we can
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Rogan Hamby
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 <
> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org> 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
>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Rogan Hamby"
>> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <
>> open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
>> 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 < vanyajau...@gmail.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> I'm Vanya, from India. I'm a candidate for OPW Round9 internship with
>> evergreen.
>>
>> While
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
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 <
> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org> 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
>> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Rogan Hamby"
>> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <
>> open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
>> 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 < vanyajau...@gmail.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> I'm Vanya, from India. I'm a candidate for OPW Round9 internship with
>> evergreen.
>
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration
Hello Rogan Thank you for your input. Now that you pointed it out, it seems to be a valid point. Maybe, as a solution to that, we can have a hierarchical algorithm for categorizing. In other words, we can allow the administrator to decide whether the categorization comes all the way down to genres, or just takes into account the overall weight of the user's awesome tag. What do you think? I'm glad you liked the idea. Any feedback from you would be very helpful. Thank you Vanya On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Rogan Hamby wrote: > 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 > 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 <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis> >
[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration
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
