Panlibus Blog

Archive for November, 2005

Changes in e-Commerce behaviour?

Over on the business2blog, Erick draws my attention to the fact that online visits to Walmart (4.85% of net traffic) last Friday passed those to Amazon (2.80% of net traffic).

In the US, last Friday is considered to be the day that the Christmas shopping frenzy begins. Over here, it feels as if we’ve been surrounded by Christmas decorations and selection boxes since the Easter Eggs disappeared from the shelves…

Assuming that Walmart is what it is perceived to be on this side of the Atlantic (as my brother works at Walmart subsidiary Asda, I’m phrasing this carefully!), these figures surely have a lot to say about demographic shifts in Net usage, and a mainstreaming of e-Commerce…

Technorati Tags: , ,

Research Libraries Network morphs into the RIN

The nascent Research Libraries Network (RLN) has been formally unveiled as the Research Information Network (RIN), with backing from the UK’s four Higher Education funding councils, three national libraries, and eight Research Councils.

Refreshingly for such bodies, it both has an RSS feed… and gives prominence to it on their current home page!

“The RIN is a new organisation set up in 2005 to lead and co-ordinate the provision of research information in the UK. Its ambition is to serve the research community by helping to cut paths through the ever-growing and increasingly-complex mass of information that underpins the work of all researchers.”

Technorati Tags: ,

ILS customer Bill-of-Rights – round two

Last week I posted a response to John Blyberg’s ‘An ILS Customer Bill-of-Rights’. His posting was partially stimulated by Michael Stephens’ musing over at ALA TechsourceDo Libraries Matter: On Library & Librarian 2.0’ which in turn was calling attention to the Do Libraries Matter? The Rise of Library 2.0 whitepaper published by Ken Chad and Paul Miller here at Talis. (who was it said that the Internet was making the world smaller and more connected?).

Anyway, I’m now going to make life even more complex by responding to John’s response to my response to his Bill-of-rights.

I empathize with what is driving the needs that he expresses forcefully in his original posting. We both agree Libraries matter, and from John’s point of view especially the one in Ann Arbor. He is doing all he can, and much more than many, to make that library’s services and web presence matter more than I expect his local citizens thought it could. He should be proud of his results so far. But like all good enthusiasts he is not resting on his laurels, and is expressing understandable frustration in how the ILS is holding him back.

In his response John says “This does not’t give enough credit to those of us who hack away on these systems every day. We’ll figure it out.” Looking at the issue from John’s end of the telescope it sounds so obvious and simple. Imagine looking at it from as a support analyst’s point of view. From her end of the telescope she can see [in Talis’ case] potentially 100+ Johns hacking away on their systems every day – a thought to drive you straight toward the caffeine in the morning!

As I admitted in my last post, I’ve been around at Talis for some 15 years, and in that time have gained notoriety as also coming from the hacking wing of the programming fraternity, unjustified I must add – well I would say that wouldn’t I ;-}. So I share his frustration in the amount of time it takes to see great new things evolve in to an ILS product line. Knowing the vast amount of energy and effort that goes in to the testing and quality assurance of the complex beast that is an ILS, that frustration has been tempered over the years with understanding. Perhaps that’s why I find myself in the Research Team where ‘continuous beta’ is a more acceptable concept.

Here we go again, I here you cry, an ILS vendor trying to justify the status quo. Up to a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you, because that’s mostly just the way it was. The development and support needed to provide an ILS that was capable of being relied upon by 100’s of academic and public libraries, predicated the customer vendor relationship we are now used to.

Read Paul & Ken’s whitepaper and you will see that we at Talis, believe that things are due for a change, and not a small one; If Libraries are to continue to matter, which we believe they must. We Libraries, librarians, ILS & other system vendors, we will have to embrace and promote that change. Library 2.0 is not just some RSS, Wiki, Blog, and enrichment, sticking plasters on top of an unchanged ILS. It is a revamping of the whole architecture to get those nice to haves, and make it easy to add so so much more.

John is a little skeptical of my hope that “eventually we will be able to run an ILS appliance (a bit like the Google appliance) where you don’t know, or care, what OS or database is under the hood.” He is of the opinion that appliances “tend to be locked into a very narrow and rigid functional spectrum.”.

That is exactly what the core of an ILS should be. They all acquire, catalog, enable search of, and circulate items. What should be non-rigid about that? But I want mine to do things differently to the next library. Quite right too, but are those things really ‘core’? You want your OPAC to differentiate your Library; you want your users’ account information to appear in their favorite portal; you want to communicate with your customers by email, RSS, SMS Text, IM, etc.; if all the core functionality was available via a software service you could – and would you care how and on what it ran? I think not.

Is that to say that this will happen overnight, definitely not. Library 2.0 as a term is less than a month old. Web 2.0 and the technologies and different thoughts behind it are mostly only months old. This period reminds me of 1995 when the first Web OPACs were appearing. Who would have predicted RSS searching then? The only difference is that things are moving much much faster this time around. Web service enabling ILSs, and the world they operate in, will take longer than we would all like, but when ubiquitous access to them becomes the norm, don’t stand in the way you will get run over.

This posting is getting excessively long so I’ll finish by answering a couple of John’s direct questions/challenges:

I can’t think of a case in which running SELECT statements against a RDBMS would be dangerous under any conditions.” Any SELECT which causes a substantial slow down in the performance of your ILS is dangerous for the reputation of your Library. Are you sure that all the bespoke work you do against your database is scalable, (eg RSS feeds) when used by the majority of you customers. How many RSS readers, polling every hour, can you support ? What happens when an upgrade to your ILS changes the shape and performance characteristics of your system?

Richard didn’t directly address my assertion that we should have administrative control over the servers.” John’s points on this are very valid, but if/when the system does go down and a call has to be placed to the ILS Vendor support team how much more efficient will that team be if they are supporting systems of similar OS, database, and configuration, than they would be if everyone was different (and with respect not run by people as agile, enthusiastic, and capable as those at Ann Arbor).

As John says it looks like Talis is listening. We are doing much more than just listening, it is exciting times and we are passionate in our belief that Libraries do matter, and the new wave of technologies will enable them to matter even more in the future, not less.

What does Attention mean for Library 2.0 ?

Talking with Talis

Over on Talking with Talis, we’ve just released our third podcast. This one is a conversation with Ed Batista, Executive Director of the AttentionTrust.

Fundamental to the AttentionTrust are four principles;

  1. Property
  2. Mobility
  3. Economy
  4. Transparency

Together, they encapsulate the notion that the record of the things I visit, look at, listen to, buy, or otherwise engage with – the things to which I give my attention – is mine.

Attention has proved something of a hot topic recently, attracting the interest of Robert Scoble, the Gillmor Gang, and many more. As I mentioned at the time, AttentionTrust’s proposals struck me as amongst the most important issues explored at the recent Web 2.0 Conference in San Francisco, too.

Theoretically and conceptually, it’s all certainly very interesting. It feels right that information about what I do and where I go should belong to me, and that I should decide who else gets to access that flow. Listen to Ed, and hear more about attention and the coming of the Attention Economy.

But what might it mean for Library 2.0, and am I any closer to understanding my feeling that Attention and Identity are just begging to become more closely associated?

Building upon well understood library processes, the most obvious application area is clearly around borrower history, where it is entirely feasible to envisage attention data being used to drive recommendation services around items that a patron might like to borrow. Mechanisms to amalgamate anonymised data from across large numbers of ‘similar’ libraries should make it possible to counteract the odd results likely to be generated by the relatively small sample size in any single institution. Offering readers the tools to easily combine aspects of their borrowing history with purchase data from online bookstores and borrowings from other libraries to which they might have access creates the potential for truly powerful and tailored recommendation, especially when aligned with the knowledge of library staff.

Whole new markets open up for reading groups and similar activities, bringing discussion of particular authors to the attention of interested library patrons who frequently read their work, whether they are currently a member of a library reading group or not.

Existing services such as, interesting as they are, clearly suffer from a lack of data about a sufficiently large number of books. Might the wisdom of crowds not be deployed to their advantage, enriching their existing reviews and book selection mechanisms with a vast body of empirical evidence about how similar readers actually found ‘similar’ books to be, and reviews from those very readers?

Stepping back a bit, a fundamental aspect of Library 2.0 is surely that the sector take its place within the broader information landscape. To the degree that Attention is gaining attention within that broader landscape, libraries and their systems should therefore be capable of participating, and permitting their users to consume and contribute their own attention in the library context. What types of uses might the current generation of library patrons be prepared to permit of their data, and what new uses might they actively seek out?

Changing tack slightly, might attention data be used in a university or college – with the agreement of students – to follow the resources that they use during their course of study, to identify the popular books, VLE/CMS units, web pages and more, and to look at the ways in which these mesh together when used by successful students, or fail to when students struggle? Might we learn to guide students better by more closely observing ‘successful’ behaviours?

Where else might Attention impinge upon Library 2.0?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

An ILS Customer Bill-of-Rights

John Blyberg, Network Administrator and Lead Developer at the Ann Arbor District Library (which has previously attracted my approving attention), has published in response to Michael Stephens writings over at ALA Techsource, his ILS CustomerBill-of-Rights (A collection of “must-have’s” for doing business in a Web 2.0 world).

In general terms I approve of the thrust of his argument. An ILS market in which vendors are challenged by their current and prospective customers, to deliver what they need to provide a better service to their customers the library users, can only be a healthy one.

Having been deeply involved architecture and development of Library Systems software and associated components for the last 15 years [that makes me feel old!] I believe I am in an ideal position to comment on some of the detail in his bill-of-rights.

Just before I do, let me share with you a little bit of advice I received when I first joined this industry all those years ago. It went something like this “Whereas cars have a rev-counter to give you a clue to how the engine is performing, libraries have a queue at the issue desk to give you a clue to how the LMS (British for ILS) is performing. When that queue gets long enough to reach the telephone in the support office you really know you have a problem! Bearing that in mind us ILS Vendors can often be seen as a cautious lot, and there is some mileage in the argument that what ever you do with your ILS, you are dead in the water if it can’t search for and then issue books in quick time without needing more computing power than NASA has. BUT all to often things like that can be used as an excuse for not innovating, and that is plain wrong.

Anyway back to John’s Bill-of-Rights:

1) Open, read-only, direct access to the database.

This first one I have difficulty with. An ILS is a complex beast, and because of performance tuning and inevitable data denormalization its database is even more so. Open access to the database, especially if it is the one servicing the live ILS can be dangerous. As a vendor, here at Talis, it is not unknown to be contacted by an unhappy customer complaining about OPAC performance only to discover more than one heavy-weight MIS process being run against their database at 11:00am on a weekday. Duplicate databases can help, but these then introduce synchronization issues, and still leave the problem of understanding what the data in the tables actually means.

I would rephrase this must-have to read Open, read-only access to the data in meaningful form utilizing Web Service techniques (see must-have 2) an ILS should be able to deliver what you would ever want/need whilst utilizing the business logic of the ILS therefore ensuring performance and a ‘true’ view of the data. Raw SQL access to data very often does not take in to account subtleties of business logic that have evolved [in code] over years of development and return wrong results.

2) A full-blown, W3C standards-based API to all read-write functions.

Absolutely! This has been the driving force behind Talis’ Keystone integration product, and our Web service standards work with VIEWS and NISO. If an ILS cannot interact in a standard way [not necessarily library industry standards either] with the systems around it, it will get bypassed.

3) The option to run the ILS on hardware of our choosing, on servers that we administer.

This brings me back to that old chestnut of supportability. Even in this ‘standard world’ that we operate in in the 21st century, complex software packages do behave differently on different kit, the more variations the bigger the problem. Nevertheless this is a great goal to strive towards. Personally I am hoping that eventually we will be able to run an ILS appliance (a bit like the Google appliance) where you don’t know, or care, what OS or database is under the hood.

4) high security standards.

Again absolutely! It was not that long ago when ILS’s were seen as a weak point on the network, not necessarily worth hacking in to [one time when the traditional boring image of libraries is useful] but a great platform to launch attacks on other systems from. Talis recognised this several years ago introducing our sever hardening service. Now we often get reports from customers that the Talis system has been discovered to be one of the most secure on their network.

Finally I must comment on John’s statement:

If we put pressure on ILS vendors to begin providing new Web 2.0 type services, they most certainly will. They?ll charge for it, you?ll pay it

Well yes, the current generation of ILS systems were not built with Web Services everywhere. To put it bluntly, who will pay the salaries of the developers who are going to develop these services for you to consume? But, and its a big but, once you have those services embedding chunks of library functionality wherever you need/want it should be a an exercise totally under the control of the library. That is where Library 2.0 is different, Web 1.0 meant that any user could use the OPAC from any browser, Library 2.0 will enable any process can consume library services anywhere.

At risk of being a bit repetitive, I will recommend the recently published White Paper Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0, it encapsulates the view from Talis on Library 2.0, very well.

Great posting John, keep up the good works at Ann Arbor.

Google Book Search – a ‘man on the moon’ initiative

Google Book Search has suddenly crept in to our lives with the ‘Try searching for XXX on Google Book Search‘ message appearing at the bottom of the first page of results from a normal Google web search.

This looks fun, so follow the link and you end up with a list of books, all with book jacket images. Clicking on a result takes you to a page dominated by a scan of the Contents Page which can be swapped for Copyright Page, Front Cover, Back Cover, and Index. Included are links to purchasing sites, with the usual suspects (Amazon, Barnes & Noble) being supplemented by Froogle and often the publisher’s site.

All this is supported by the Google Books Partner Program and Book Search’s predecessor Google Print.

The test is how useful is this. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to search for books by title and/or author. If you do this with Book search you soon realise all the books you are not searching. There again it is suprising what others arrive in your search results, because Google are indexing the contents of the books as well as the traditional Author & Title information. Is this better, I remain to be convinced. Is it useful, probably yes. What I think I want is what I am used to, supplemented by what is provided here. Next time I cannot find what I’m looking for, it may come in to its own. I’ll wait and see.

Despite my reservations, it is certainly impressive. Now what they need to do is to involve the Library community more than with the few library partners they already have. Thats certainly what is behind the announcement of their donation to the World Digital Library Project
with the Library of Congress.

Google’s vision for Book Search says:

In May 1961, JFK said that he was going to put a man on the moon. The idea was unthinkable at the time, but within the decade, the goal was achieved.

Google Book Search is our man on the moon initiative. We see a world where all books are online and searchable*. How exactly will this be done? How long exactly will it take? We aren’t sure, but we’re committed to making it happen.

Imagine this programme’s potential impact on education and research. On how our children discover books. On writing and publishing. On how all of us find and use information.

So does this mean that the librarians have a decade until they pick up their final pay check? No way! If Libraries were just physical manifestations of Google’s virtual vision, maybe. But in such a case you would be using a Library like a supermarket – wander in – find what you think you want – and leave. Librarians add far more value than the average supermarket check-out operator They guide, suggest, lead, recommend, attest to quality & relevance, and load more besides. That’s why our libraries are very different to our supermarkets.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the influences of what is being called Library 2.0 will have dramatic effects on Libraries and the way we access them, but the skills and ability of the librarian will be no less relevant. Librarians and Libraries matter, and will do for a long long time.

No coincidence that Library 2.0 and Libraries Matter were two of the main themes at the recent Talis Insight Conference. The resources from which are available online. I definitely recommend a read of the Do Libraries Matter? – The rise of Library 2.0, it puts this all in to context.

Talking with Talis – Inviting your questions for Jim Michalko of RLG

Jim Michalko

I am recording a new Talking with Talis programme with James Michalko, President and CEO of RLG, on Tuesday 13 December.

Jim will be talking around a number of areas in which RLG are currently active, doubtless including their RedLightGreen service, and their membership of the new Open Content Alliance.

Quoting from the RLG web site,

“RLG supports researchers and learners worldwide by expanding access to research materials held in libraries, archives, and museums.

RLG works with and for its member organizations enhancing their ability to provide research resources. RLG designs and delivers innovative information discovery services, organizes collaborative programs, and takes an active role in creating and promoting relevant standards and practices.”

If you have any questions that you would like put to Jim, please send them to podcasts [at] talis [dot] com by Friday 9 December.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Talis whispers about Library 2.0 possibilities

Talis Whisper front page

Along with wider discussion of Library 2.0, such as that captured in our Do Libraries Matter white paper [PDF download], last week’s Insight conference included several examples of Library 2.0 concepts surfacing for real in forthcoming products and proof-of-concept demonstrations.

Attendees were able to see the next generation of Talis’ Prism OPAC, Prism 3, and to see – and hear – enrichments appearing alongside more traditional entries, as well as realising the ease with which the interface could be switched in order to fulfill different requirements.

An experimental Whisper (experimental, and best in Firefox for now) also attracted interest from attendees, out on the blogosphere, and even on Flickr (it wasn’t us!).

Whisper offers a visualisation of some of the ways in which library content might be aggregated with content from elsewhere in the library, from other library domain systems, or from elsewhere entirely in order to deliver rich and meaningful services to users.

As Lorcan spots, the Whisper interface builds upon the now well-established “MODELS verbs” of Discover, Locate, Request, Deliver, and offers a tabbed interface comprising Discover, Locate, Directory, Borrow and Monitor.

Discover pulls together bibliographic data, enrichments such as book jackets, holdings data from participating libraries, and pricing from Amazon. From a single screen, the user can find a book (assisted by smart suggestions as they type, drawn from the titles of actual items known to the system), discover whether or not it is available to borrow or buy and – for those systems already known to the Directory – link straight through to detailed information from the ILS (Talis or otherwise) of the holding library. By default, the system searches every book and library that it knows about, but this is easily altered to either search only for books that are actually available to borrow, or to search only your own library. It would be straightforward to expand a search of your own library, say, to only search those nearby libraries likely to allow you access to the item.

Locate interprets the word literally, and uses Google Maps to display the locations of library branches, sorted by type. Selecting an individual library causes further details to pop up. For those libraries known to the Directory, a search entered here will be directed straight into the library’s own system. There are various ways in which such functionality might usefully deliver value to a range of different users, and it should be feasible to provide the types of segmentation and subsetting that real-world uses would require.

The Directory provides much of the power behind the applications being shown, and also now drives aspects of third party systems outside Talis. The Directory recognises that information about libraries and their systems changes with depressing frequency, and that time-pressed library systems staff rarely manage to inform all those linking through to them of any change. With the Directory, however, it becomes a simple task for changes to be spotted and modified once (by anyone with access, not just Talis or library staff), and for those changes to propagate out to any services requiring the information. The scripts running behind the Google Maps mash-up on the Locate tab, for example, do not require knowledge of the URL for a given library’s OPAC in order to offer the search of that catalogue. All that the script needs to know is a way to identify any individual library, allowing it to pass that identification to the Directory and receive back information to allow the formulation of a query. Any other system inside or outside Talis should be able to do the same thing.

Before you try it with your own library, it is worth noting that not all libraries listed via the Locate tab currently link through to the back-end library system. This is not some technical fault or major failing with the system. Rather, it is a reflection of the difficulty that anyone currently faces in building an accurate picture of libraries, their services, systems and capabilities. We are working to populate the directory more fully, and welcome participation from customers and non-customers alike. More comprehensively populated, the Directory is capable of powering a host of applications from Talis and others capable of consuming the underlying services.

Borrow demonstrates the way in which an Inter-Library Loan request might be integrated into the offering, whilst Monitor again utilises the Directory, this time to poll known systems for their status.

Whisper draws together a range of functions that, individually, would actually benefit quite different people. With current models, it is unlikely that the same person would be finding out where their local library was, submitting a full-blown ILL request to a different library, and monitoring the availability of various library systems. Nevertheless, the technologies behind these functions, and the way in which they have been drawn together in this demonstration interface, certainly serve to enable innovative thinking around ways in which different user communities might be given access to a range of tools tailored to their requirements and powered by robust, easily updated and ubiquitously accessible pieces of Platform infrastructure such as the Directory.

Demonstration of Library 2.0 web services

Ian Davis also showed a more bare-bones view on the same services, in which the user could consciously and visibly enable and disable individual services. Lacking a recognisable ‘library’ interface, Ian’s demonstration underlined the point that these services might actually be surfaced anywhere, and in any combination, not just in an application that looks like an ‘obvious’ evolution from the OPAC.

Behind all of this lie web services and other systems constructed in accordance with current thinking around the most appropriate standards and specifications from W3C, NISO, OASIS and others. The technologies behind Whisper are far from closed and proprietary and, where appropriate, Talis is continuing its practice of engaging with the appropriate standards bodies in order to ensure that emerging specifications are shaped in the light of the experiences we are gaining from Whisper and other developments.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Talis begins to describe vision for Library 2.0

One of the white papers that we released last week for Insight was a first iteration of Do Libraries Matter: the rise of Library 2.0 [PDF download]. This was written by Ken Chad and myself, but incorporates ideas being expressed every day across Talis.

The paper is a work in progress, as we engage with the widest possible community in order to capture a range of expectations and requirements for the ways in which Library 2.0 can challenge current models for delivering library services.

It has been picked up on various blogs, including Michael Stephenscomprehensive post at ALA TechSource, Chris Keene’s post at, Michael Casey’s post to LibraryCrunch, Jenny Levine’s Shifted Librarian post, and related discussion around Whisper (see my next post) from Tim Hodson, Lorcan Dempsey, and others.

On the whole, feedback has been positive and constructive, and we are moving discussions forward around the issues that are being raised in order to improve our explanation of the Library 2.0 space, the potential that it offers, and the current models that it inevitably challenges.

However, a number of comments raise the oft-repeated concern that ‘vendors’ are not to be trusted, that we should not be involved in the community of thought leaders exploring this area, and that we are somehow trying to capture and control the Library 2.0 concept to our own nefarious ends.

To be as clear as I can, and more polite than my first pass at this sentence, this is simply not true.

As mentioned in my rather oddly formatted comments to Michael Stephens’ post, I am a recent arrival at Talis. I have been here two months, having previously worked exclusively in the public sector with organisations such as the Common Information Environment, UKOLN, the ADS, and a few universities.

I joined Talis, not to fleece poor unsuspecting libraries, but because I was persuaded (and still believe) that I stood more chance of delivering on some of the principles I’ve been arguing in favour of for over a decade from within Talis than in my previous role as Director at the CIE. Everything I have seen from my enthusiastic, knowledgeable and committed new colleagues assures me that I made the right choice.

Of course, as Chris Keene suggests in his post, there is a lot to do in carrying new ideas and new functionality through to existing products. As a Talis customer, he should ask someone to show him the demo of Prism 3, where some of these features have a prominent place. We are also looking, as the white paper argues, at ways to ensure that the library is everywhere. Prism, and other OPACs, represent a point in time in the development of library systems. They have a role to play, but library content and services should equally be available in a whole range of other interfaces from your course management system or portal to your television, your mobile phone, your search engine, and your favourite electronic book store or auction site. In many of these contexts, the library needs to be delivered in a wholly new way, far removed from an explicit “look for interesting books about this” option. How do we deliver better library services to those who already use them in other ways? How do we make library services welcoming and relevant to the many who either don’t use them at all, or who have a rather narrow perspective on the types of help that a library might provide?

There is a great deal of work to be done in maintaining current services whilst Talis and those such as the bloggers already commenting on our paper prepare the wider library sector for the disruptive changes that new user expectations require and new technology makes feasible. Much of the community’s work in this area is not yet sufficiently robust or full-featured to wholly replace existing mission-critical library systems. But it will be, and it will get even better. Talis believes that there is a role for a company such as ours in maintaining current types of system until people are persuaded of the value in radical change, in assisting the realisation of that change, and in delivering services that our current and future customers will value and therefore pay for. We do not force people to buy our systems. We will not force people to pay for any chargeable new services that we might wish to offer in future. Rather, we seek to participate fully in building an open platform along with customers, competitors, and others. We will then argue and demonstrate the additional value that any chargeable components deliver above and beyond the participative platform, and persuade you of the cost-effectiveness of our added value components as opposed to those built by competitors, or those that you might very well seek to build for yourselves. Just because software can be downloaded off the web for free, doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone can construct, run and maintain a zero-cost service on top of it.

An open, interoperable, Platform shifts the goalposts, and dramatically reduces the costs of participation. It fundamentally alters the model in which libraries obtain access to and gain benefit from software and services provided by third parties.

Read the paper [PDF download]. Read the comments from those who already have. Think about how it fits with where you want library services to go. Believe that Talis genuinely wants to work with you, and join us in the debate. Submit your comments here, blog them yourself and trackback to here, or send them straight to me.

Technorati Tags: ,

White papers from Talis

To coincide with TalisInsight Conference in Birmingham earlier this week, we have released a number of white papers.

These are available online, and cover a wide range of topics including advances in current Talis products and a snapshot of our rapidly evolving thinking around such key topics as Library 2.0 and the importance of the emerging Platform.

As we move forward, traditional models of the monolithic system and the single entrenched system supplier look increasingly unnecessary. These papers are part of Talis’ contribution to the ongoing debate around ways in which the whole sector can, should, or must evolve to reflect and lead the world around us.

Have a read, and engage with us in person, via our fora, our blogs, and at our events over the coming year.

There’s a lot happening, and we want to work with the community in order to ensure that these new developments meet your requirements as well as our own.

Technorati Tags: ,