Skip to content

Category: Tools and Technology

New Email/Calendar System: Week Three

The new email system is all-around ok, but it’s by no means been a seamless transition for my department. My new mantra (and I swear I’m going to stick a little card on my computer monitor that says this) is:

Even this is worth it if the whole campus is on one system.

For one thing, it’s thrown a little monkey wrench into my department’s system of publishing our availability to our students. Last year we came up with a pretty slick plan of using Google Calendar, sharing our calendars with each other (to facilitate making meetings), and publishing separate “Available Time” calendars for everyone else to see (example). It worked very nicely.

Well now we’ve got our Zimbra calendars, which are really only useful if everyone uses them. These are very much like Outlook calendars, or Groupwise calendars. You know the drill: email and calendar all in one place, people can see when you’re busy when they schedule meetings… the whole nine yards. Except that in our case, we’re only up to about 4 yards because of two significant kinks.

First, even if we use Google Calendars to subscribe to our Zimbra calendar’s iCal feed, we cannot make Google Calendar understand that this is ok to publish this on our HTML web pages. We’re now in the process of searching for another 3rd party program that we could use to mimic this functionality, but currently we’re stuck updating two calendars. Why? Because even though students could propose a meeting time and see if we’re free, we don’t know how many students will be using the calendar function this first year, and we do know that sometimes it’s much easier just to glance at a calendar a week at a time to get a feel for free time. With all the appointments we do, we need an easy way for students to see when they can come see us that doesn’t require any training. So that knocks about two and a half yards off the “whole” right there.

Second, not everyone is going to use this new calendaring system. I know of one whole department in the library that’s said it’s going to stick with a Google Calendar system that’s working well. And I know full well that many professors and students won’t bother. This means that even within the library we won’t be able to use the new system to it’s full potential, let alone with the wider campus. So that knocks at least another yard off, if not two, and my optimistic nature has to work even harder to sprinkle it’s habitual pixie dust over the situation and keep me mellow in the belief that this will be wonderful.

A third kink doesn’t come nearly to the level of the first two, which is why I didn’t include it above. But for now it’s a pain. For now, we can’t sync with our palm pilots, so that means maintaining yet a third calendar for all those times when you’re in meetings trying to schedule new meetings and really need a portable calendar. (And no, we don’t have cool data-enabled phones, more’s the pity.) But hopefully this kink will disappear very soon, which is why I choose not to be annoyed by it for now.

Still, my optimistic self keeps thinking that there is still value in having a campus-wide system, and that there’s enough value that even this is worth it.

3 Comments

Comments: Terms of Service

I’ve been thinking about a blog post I ran across a while ago about laws that apply to bloggers, specifically point 7 on that list of 12 laws: Who owns user-developed content and can you delete it? This reminded me that comments people write here are their own, and that I may not have the right to delete them even if they’re threatening or offensive. According to the law, I need a “terms of service” in order to be able to delete any such content.

I have never received any such comments and I hope I never do, but just in case, here are my terms of service.

I reserve the right to delete any comment left on this blog if I think that the comment is inappropriate or harmful in any way.

I hope that I never have to exercise these rights.

4 Comments

Wikipedia Could Help Search Engines Understand Names?

The Search Engine Watch Blog just pointed me to a post that pointed me to a paper entitled “Large-Scale Named Entity Disambituation Based on Wikipedia Data” (PDF) by Silviu Cucerzan of Microsoft. Most of the paper is technical and algorithmic greek to me, but this one sentence makes perfect sense to me (or rather, the first half of the sentence makes sense to me and the rest should have been its own sentence).

The application on a large scale of such an entity extraction and disambiguation system could result in a move from the current space of words to a space of concepts, which enables several paradigm shifts and opens new research directions, which we are currently investigating, from entity-based indexing and searching of document collections to personalized views of the Web through entity-based user bookmarks. (page 9, my emphasis)

One of the main gripes about web search has been that it can’t benefit (at least not very well) from human knowledge of the relationships between words. It matches letters in a row while directories gather pages based on concepts. But then, directories got out of hand and people couldn’t keep up with them, and then they all turned into search engines no matter how much they still tried to look like directories… Well, if this thing gets off the ground, we could have the best of both worlds. We could have the scale of search with the power of directories.

Another source of this conceptual linking that’s so powerful and so difficult to teach to computers may be the Google Book Project. Think of all of those indexes to all of those books. Surely we could harness the power of generations of indexers to map concepts. How hard could it be? ;)

3 Comments

Thinking about the Future of the Catalog: MnObe Moving Forward

For the last year and a half, the five liberal arts colleges known as MnObe (pronounced min-OH-bee and derived from Minnesota Oberlin Group Libraries) have been thinking collectively about our library catalogs. We started at very different points (ranging from “what we’ve got works pretty well” to “what is this thing we’re using and where are the punch-card computers it seems to match?”). Then Roy Tennant came and talked to us and everybody got pretty excited about the idea of a next generation catalog. And I was pretty sure we’d stay that way… excited about the idea of change.

But then we held a “debate” between five teams of librarians each proposing an alternative to our current systems. Our biggest surprise that day was the amount of agreement between groups and audience members about a) the need for change and b) the types of things that need to change. (Here’s a quick list of features and functions we liked, none of which are surprising.) At the conclusion of that meeting, the directors of our libraries charged a group of volunteers to actually map out our movement forward.

Well, a couple of weeks ago, this group of volunteers met, thought, discussed, and drafted a report. You can read it on the wiki if you want, or the PDF (which is prettier). It’s definitely a first step, but the group felt that we needed to clear up the first step first. You’ll notice, though, that we clearly and explicitly state that we want some kind of drastic change in the near future, and we map out a few key actions that will start us moving toward that change.

Now it’s been delivered to the MnObe directors. We’ll see what happens. I’m having to work a lot harder to keep from getting too excited now that we’ve actually formally recommended action.

3 Comments