Is Library Experience Necessary for Technology Jobs in Libraries?

I've been waiting for this. I noticed on David Leek King's blog that 'Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library is seeking a creative, energetic Web Developer to help move our Digital Branch to the next level of sophistication'. What is of interest to me is not so much that a library is employing a web developer. Rather, it is the selection criteria that I've been expecting, and in particular that Library qualifications and/or experience are NOT listed in the Essential Criteria. Library Experience is listed in the desirable criteria but that says to me that they're more interested in someone with an IT background that has the technical skills to work in the web field than someone with a library background. They want someone who can take their library stuff and present it on the web - not someone that can work on the reference desk.

I'm regularly surprised to see jobs in NSW public libraries for Systems Librarians - with library qualifications as essential criteria. These are positions where the main responsibility is database administration and in many cases these positions have taken on the responsibility of the Library web presence. It's only my personal opinion, but it seems to me that many "Systems Librarians" are library graduates who have learnt this stuff on the job, maybe because at one stage they had an interest in computers. Libraries rely on the Council IT staff and their "technology guy" (or girl) to handle any new duties involving computers and the web - from maintaining the ILS to Public PC support to web maintenance to subscription databases.

For instance, I am responsible for the web presence at my place of work but I do not have qualifications in this area. I learnt on the job. I can get by - I "borrow" and piece together bits and pieces from all over the place, a short course here and there and I've learnt enough to fill in the gaps - but it's amateur hour at best. I really wish that I had a lot more in the way of technical programming skills. I've felt for some time that libraries would be better served by technical staff who could write SQL queries to investigate the ILS database, who could take an API and mash it up with library data to make new services, and so on. We're starting to see some big picture job titles and job descriptions appear but I was wondering when Libraries would start employing their own programmers/web specialists, not in strategic planning positions, but for the hack work to mash together the disparate systems we use - the catalogue, web site, databases and Web 2.0 services. I've heard lots of suggestions of great ideas from libraries about what online services they could provide but without those technical skills it's near impossible to put them into practice. Relying on your Council's IT department to implement new services, however sympathetic to your library they may be, is impractical as they are generally already stretched for time. I'm not aware of this type of position in any NSW public libraries but maybe you can enlighten me? Have seen technology jobs in libraries that don't expect Library experience?

(library) science 2.0

A recent Scientific American article about science 2.0 shows many (unsurprising) similarities to library 2.0.

Try reading the article as 'library 2.0' instead of 'science 2.0'. Libraries can learn from this discussion which scientists are having.

While on a (slight) science theme have a look at Beyond the button a blog about how museums can use web 2.0 tools. There are some great ideas here for libraries as well.

Web 2.0 applications

The Webware awards have been announced - with over 1.9 million people voting for them.

You will have heard of many of them, and used some of them, and others will be new(ish).

Do you have any ideas about interesting (and relevant) library applications inspired b these tools?

Information 2.0?

I read an interesting opinion piece by Mark Lewis, President of EMC Content Management & Archiving Division in response to the IDC White Paper, The Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe (you may have come across this report via the SMH), suggesting that Information 2.0 will revolutionise the way that companies will view information management in the future.

Lewis proposes 8 rules for Information 2.0. You should definitely read the whole article but I want to highlight a couple of his points I think that have particular relevance to libraries.

1. Information is decoupled from applications.
Information is far more valuable if it isn't stuck in some proprietary application as it can be re-used and combined with other information sources for new purposes.

2. Information is accessible via web services.
An extension of the previous rule. By allowing re-use of information via web services you make the information more valuable.

3. Information metadata is integrated with all data.
When Metadata travels with the information itself rather than being stored in a separate database it becomes more useful and therefore more valuable.

6. Information is personalized.
8. Information is simply always available.
These 2 rules work together I think. The inference being that you can't know what information different people will need or when they might need it, and people's requirements are constantly changing. To be most valuable information must be contextual. It must meet different people's needs whenever and wherever they need it.

Lewis is coming at this topic from the point of view of organisational management of information and the value information can provide to a business. I don't think, however, that it is a big jump to imagine these rules in terms of a library catalogue for instance.

Imagine if your library's holdings data was decoupled from your LMS and could be integrated into any number of discovery environments throughout the web. The books themselves carried their own metadata, their descriptive record, so that wherever that item was encountered the associated data could also be found. And finally, that information was universally available through all types of devices in just the way our users wanted it.

What an improvement a user experience like this would be compared with the current generation of OPACs.