Jaymie Cashdollar

Professor Havanko
LLT 510
September 26, 2019

Breaking Tradition: The Use of Koha and LibraryThing for Libraries

in Library Systems Management

Since the explosion of the internet in the early 1990s, technology has become

woven into the fabric of everyday life. From communication to industry, technology has

made countless tasks easier, faster, and more accessible. To stay relevant and

competitive, companies and organizations have had to embrace these changes, and

libraries are no different. One of the most used and important pieces of technology in

every library is the Integrated Library System (ILS), a complex database used to track

items owned, patron borrowing, acquisitions, and more.

Traditionally, Integrated Library System software is sold as a proprietary product

controlled by a single vendor. When using proprietary software, users must rely on the

vendor for support and development, and there is usually limited customization

available. For budget-strained libraries, the cost of proprietary software can straining.

In 1999, facing outdated hardware, the Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT), a group

of three New Zealand libraries, needed to replace the library management system.

After reviewing the options and finding none of the proprietary software completely met

the library’s needs, the library trust decided to commission the creation of their software,

working with a consultant, Katipo Communications, to create Koha. Meaning “gift” in

1
the native New Zealand Maori language, Katipo Communications and HLT, decided to

release the software as open-source, making Koha the first open-source ILS. Thanks to

this bold move, Koha has grown into the most widely implemented ILS in the world

(Breeding 9).

Open-source software is software that anyone can access, inspect and enhance

the source code (a list of commands written by computer programmers) - all at no cost.

According to Joann Ransom, a member of the HLT during the creation of Koha, the

philosophy of open-source software closely relates to the philosophy of libraries.

“Librarians and free and open-source software have lots in common. They both: believe

that information should be freely accessible to everyone, benefit from the generosity of

others, and are about communities (Ransom).”

Crawford County Federated Library System (CCFLS) in Pennsylvania was one of

the first public libraries in the United States to transfer from proprietary software to

Koha. Presenting to the American Library Association Convention in 2008, John Brice,

Executive Director of the Meadville Public Library, a member of CCFLS, explained how

many issues libraries may face converting to Koha can be rectified through

modifications to the software, one of the benefits of using open source. These

improvements are “pay-it-forward” for future users of Koha.

Although originally created for small to medium-sized public libraries, Koha has

been adopted by academic, medical, and school libraries as well. Penn Manor School

District in Lancaster County, PA switched from proprietary software to Koha over ten

years ago, primarily for cost savings. According to Jeffrey Taylor, Penn Manor high

2
school librarian, the district technology director, Charlie Reisinger, advocated for the

switch to open source, and as a district, they use other open-source software, including

Moodle and Ubuntu (J. Taylor, personal communication, Sept. 23, 2019).

Taylor does admit to a few drawbacks, such as report functions and conducting

inventory. School office secretaries must manually input the late books or student fines

to student accounts, which can be time-consuming and takes a lot of communication

between library aides and the front office. Completing annual inventory requires the aid

of the technology department to set up in order to keep track of the collection, and

Taylor has had difficulty adding and deleting batch MARC records, especially those from

ebook vendors.

Overall he said Penn Manor is satisfied with the switch, and he estimates a

savings of $15,000 a year, for total savings to date of $150,000. “With our current

setup, I would not be able to justify a switch back to a paid library system. But again, I

think having a very knowledgeable technology team in place is key for it to be

successful.”

The features of Koha that were so attractive to CCFLS also appealed to Virginia

Tech University (VT), the first R1 research library to adopt Koha, in the summer of 2018.

“That’s the beauty of community-driven software development. We’re capable of

evolving this system, and if more people get on the system, it will evolve faster,” said VT

University Libraries Assistant Dean and Chief of Staff Michael Kucsak (Enis). With over

1.5 million holdings, Virginia Tech’s leadership in choosing Koha is a signal of how much

Koha has grown and evolved since its creation in 1999.

3
 While many libraries continue to choose proprietary software, Koha, and other

open-source software, give libraries looking for more control over their Integrated

Library System an option. Cash-strapped libraries will also appreciate that Koha

provides an impressive ILS for a limited cost. For libraries that do not have a strong

technology team, the cost of hiring a consultant is often cheaper than purchasing a

proprietary product. Overall, the successful integration of Koha in over 4,705 libraries is

proof that there is a place for open-source software in libraries (Breeding 11).

Another non-traditional option for libraries that is gaining popularity is the use of

folksonomies in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In the past, metadata

(data about data) creation was dependent on information professionals, such as

cataloguers or the material’s creators. The ability for users of Web 2.0 technologies to

“tag” information has transformed this process, with users “describing information or

objects using freely-determined keywords (Porter 249).” The name for the informal

social classification - “folk classification” - was coined folksonomy (Vanderwal).

The resistance to folksonomies compared to traditional taxonomy, which is a

centrally-imposed, top-down system of classification, is primarily centered on two points.

The first being that there are no rules or restrictions on how tags are applied, the

second being the tag may have relevance for personal use only (Johansson and Golub

246).

Despite the disadvantages, folksonomies have several advantages over

taxonomy. Groups of users tagging information enable more diverse classifications. An

individual cataloguer might miss a category but a larger, more pluralistic group would be

4
more likely to include it (Porter 250). Folksonomies also utilize user language versus

creator language, delivering searches that are more findable. According to Adam

Mathes, “a folksonomy represents a fundamental shift in that it is derived not from

professionals or content creators, but from the users of information and documents. In

this way, it directly reflects their choices in diction, terminology, and precision (cite).”

Finally, folksonomies are highly adaptive to change, in user vocabulary, world events,

and social/political environments (Porter 250).

Created as a way for users to have a professional-quality library catalog,

LibraryThing, a social cataloging web application for sharing and storing book catalogs

and various types of metadata, has embraced the use of folksonomies. Containing

records for over 100 million books, LibraryThing imports data from Amazon, the Library

of Congress, and 700 libraries from around the world for accurate book data so that

members can create and maintain personal catalogs (LibraryThing). Members of the

site are encouraged to contribute through book reviews, tags, ratings, and discussions.

Tags members create contribute to “tag clouds,” which are visual representations of the

tags, with color and font size representing the frequency of the tag.

Knowing that LibraryThing’s extensive use of social tagging could enhance

traditional library taxonomy, making catalog’s easier and more accessible to library

patrons, creator Tim Spalding created LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL), a system of

OPAC enhancements that includes ratings and reviews, tags, similar books, series,

awards, shelf browse, stack map, other editions, and Lexile measures. Patrons can

rate and review books directly within the library catalog. These reviews are shared with

5
other libraries utilizing LTFL, and reviews can be shared on Facebook and Twitter.

Similar books offer a reader’s advisory featuring titles within the library’s offerings. Tag

clouds are featured on book pages, and there is a tag browser that draws from the 114

million tags users posted on LibraryThing (Catalog Enrichment). The “other editions”

feature links a library’s holdings together, and shelf browse allows patrons to browse

shelves virtually. Patrons can easily find offerings within the library with help from the

stack map. Series, awards, and Lexile measures also aid patrons in their search for the

perfect material. Detailed usage reporting allows libraries to see what features are

being utilized.

Although once negatively viewed by librarians, attitudes are shifting, and more

libraries are embracing folksonomies, and specifically LibraryThing for Libraries.

Manheim Township Public Library added Syndetics Unbound, a combination of two

enrichment platforms - Syndetic Solutions and LibraryThing for Libraries - to their

catalog in 2018. According to their website, “Our previous Content Enrichment

package was very text-heavy and did not include the special features listed below.

Lancaster County is a fast-growing, tech-savvy community that expects these features

from their modern library (MTPL.info).”

As John Brice stated in his presentation on Koha at the 2008 American Library

Association Convention, “Another big difference between the eighties and now is that

the ILS is the primary point of entry for the public to access library resources.” He was

speaking about have complete control over this vital piece of library technology, but it’s

also imperative that the ILS appeal to today’s technologically skilled patrons. Whether

6
it’s choosing an alternate ILS such as the open-source Koha, or integrating

user-friendly, accessible enhancements to the OPAC such as LibraryThing for Libraries,

keeping patrons engaged will enable libraries to thrive, today and in the future.

7
 Citations

Breeding, M. (2017). Open Source Library Systems: The Current State of the Art.
Library Technology Reports, 53(6), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5860/ltr.53n6

Brice, John. (June 2008). Koha: The ILS That Keeps on Giving. American Library
Association Annual Convention.
http://www.ala.org/pla/sites/ala.org.pla/files/content/education/alaannual/past/whatuserk
oha.doc

Catalog Enrichment: Your Existing Catalog Made Extraordinary. N.d. Retrieved

September 25, 2018 from
http://www.librarything.com/forlibraries/handout/LTFL_ce_public.pdf

Enis, Matt. (2018 August 14). Virginia Tech First R1 Library to Adopt Koha ILS. Library
Journal. Retrieved from https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=180814VTKoh

A home for your books. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2019, from
https://www.librarything.com/.

Manheim Township Public Library. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2019, from
https://mtpl.info/.

Johansson, S., & Golub, K. (2019). LibraryThing for Libraries: How Tag Moderation and
Size Limitations Affect Tag Clouds. Knowledge Organization, 46(4), 245–259.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2019-4-245

Porter, J. (2011). Folksonomies in the library: their impact on user experience, and their
implications for the work of librarians. Australian Library Journal, 60(3), 248–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2011.10722621

Ransom, Joann. (2016, April 16). The Story of Koha: The First Open Source Library
Management System. OpenSource. Retrieved from
https://opensource.com/education/14/4/story-of-koha-lms

Taylor, Jeffrey. (2018 September 23). Personal Email Interview.

Vander Wal, Thomas. (2007 February 2). Folksonomy. Vanderwal.net. Retrieved from
http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html