[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Awesome Box Integration

[Kathy Lussier]

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
klussier at masslnc.org
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
> ehardy at georgialibraries.org
> www.georgialibraries.org
> www.georgialibraries.org/pines
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at 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.)
>
> 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
> tmccanna at georgialibraries.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vanya Jauhal" <vanyajauhal at gmail.com>
> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group"
> <open-ils-general at 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 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 < rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net >
> 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 <
> tmccanna at 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
> tmccanna at georgialibraries.org
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rogan Hamby" < rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net >
> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <
> open-ils-general at 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 < vanyajauhal at gmail.com >
> 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
>
>
>
>