Upload
richard
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 13 November 2014, At: 22:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
New Review of InformationNetworkingPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rinn20
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 – FROMDEBATE TO REALITYRichard WallisPublished online: 07 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Richard Wallis (2007) WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 – FROMDEBATE TO REALITY, New Review of Information Networking, 13:1, 53-64, DOI:10.1080/13614570701571484
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614570701571484
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 � FROM
DEBATE TO REALITY
A presentation to the cpd25 Conference,
23 April 2007, London
Richard Wallis
Building on a history of providing services to users that goes back
centuries, libraries are beginning to embrace the social software features of
what has become known as Library 2.0. Library 2.0, a conjunction between Web
2.0 and librarians, is starting to engage users with online library services. Behind
these developments, there is something more fundamental taking place. The
services that drive the library systems are becoming accessible as web services,
enabling the componentisation of services and systems. These changes are going
to fundamentally change the way library systems and services will be built and
delivered in the future. Library 2.0 is not an end in itself, but just a point on the
road to a wider distribution of library services in the Web of Data promised by the
Semantic Web.
Libraries, and librarians, have been providing services to their users for
many centuries. Archaeological research has shown that buildings, such as the
Library at Ephesus, were integrated into their surroundings with easy access to
the local purveyors of alcohol and other human necessities built in.
Rolling the clock forward to the 20th Century, not ignoring the introduction
of the book on the way, we find libraries providing services to the wider
population in a locality, stocking a wide range of material for all to freely lend.
The 20th century library also provided the fully integrated search and discovery
system for people to find information � the card catalogue. Moving in to more
recent decades, we are now seeing new library buildings being fashioned for a
purpose wider than just housing books.
Learning Spaces
The Saltire Centre at the Glasgow Caledonian University1 for instance,
which opened its doors in January 2006, is far more than just a library. It provides
flexible ‘learning spaces’, making use of portable and even inflatable furniture, to
provide areas that satisfy the needs of the students. In this purpose-built
building, the noisy, more collaborative areas are to be found on the lower floors
at the front of the building, and the quieter more study-based areas are located
on the upper floors, towards the rear of the building.
New Review of Information Networking, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2007ISSN 1361-4576 print/1740-7869 online/07/010053�12
# 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13614570701571484
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The Online Spread of the Library
Towards the end of the 20th Century, technology started to play its part
and integrated library systems started to appear, providing online access to the
catalogue for users of the library, via computer terminals in the reading rooms.
With the spread of the Internet providing access to these online library
systems, users of the library can now access the library service from anywhere on
the planet. The consequence of this trend is that, often, the reading room of
choice for many students and citizens is their sitting room or bedroom, where the
only visibility of the library environment is on the screen in front of them.
Evolution of online service provision has not stopped there though. Non-library
organisations are now appearing, providing library style services.
LibraryThing2 is a social software service which enables anyone to create a
catalogue of the books that they own, or have read. This service is free, for those
with collections of less than 200 books, and has some 200,000 members world
wide. Its simplicity, ease of access and social features, such as being able to
search, view, compare and comment upon books in other members’ libraries, has
even attracted some smaller physical libraries to the possibility of using it for their
library system. LibraryThing is now so successful that some of the data it has
amassed, relationships between titles, reviews and ratings, etc., are being
provided to add value to traditional library catalogues.
The three dimensional virtual world has not escaped the influence and
experimentation of innovative librarians either. Second Life,3 an online 3D virtual
world, has many librarians exploring and experimenting with it. Talis have
sponsored an initiative by the Alliance Second Life Library in setting up an Island in
Second Life, named Cybrary City. On this Island, they have set up buildings for
libraries to use to experiment with the possibilities, and identify some of the
challenges, for providing library services in a virtual environment. As sponsors, we
at Talis4 have an office in Cybrary City, in which we have met and interacted with
the avatars of many librarians from across the world. These meetings have resulted
in conversations that would probably never have occurred in any other way.
Second Life, for librarians, therefore, is not only about playing with the possibilities
for services in the future, it is also a way to interact and share ideas in real time
with colleagues from all over the planet. Second Life, in my opinion, has along way
to go in terms of speed, ease of use, and development capability, but it is an
excellent pointer to how things may be very different in a few years (Figure 1).
Web 2.0
Web 2.0 has been a meme for the last 2 to 3 years. It has been a label
attached to something different going on in the Web and on the Internet. Web 2.0
is just a label for a collection of attributes that ‘Web 2.0’ sites and services
possess. There is no real definition of what Web 2.0 is, but examination of some
sites can begin to clarify what is meant by Web 2.0. Liveplasma.com is an
54 RICHARD WALLIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
excellent example of a Web 2.0 site. It simply offers the user a graphical
representation between musical groups and artists (it also provides similar
services around movies and actors). Entering the name of a band into the search
prompt, results in an animated display as all the similar groups collect around it.
By clicking on the names of other bands, the user can traverse these relation-
ships, discovering new artists, and being offered links to purchase relevant CDs
from Amazon, as they go (Figure 2).
Liveplasma5 has a compelling user interface, but that is not its main
attribute which gives the site Web 2.0 status. Liveplasma do not compile or store
the data that drives their service, it is all freely provided by Amazon6 through
their Web Services.7 The Liveplasma application is a fairly small piece of software
running on a comparatively small set-up, all the power and the valuable data
being provided by Amazon. Liveplasma is also light-weight in business terms. The
fact that Amazon services provide the systems that do the hard work means that
a very small business organisation can put together, launch, and run such a site
very easily. The running costs are being covered by referral fees, as users
purchase from clicking on to Amazon’s site.
Liveplasma is an example of the Internet moving inside applications.
Traditionally, the Internet has been used only to connect a user’s web browser to
a web site, where he/she could only benefit from what was provided by that site.
In the Web 2.0 world, where machines can talk to machines, applications are
FIGURE 1
Richard Wallis’ avatar meeting an Australian librarian in Second Life
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 � FROM DEBATE TO REALITY 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
being built upon services provided by many other sites and services distributed
across the net. This effect means that as the underlying services improve their
capabilities all the applications of those services will benefit.
A technologist will tell you that there is very little new in Web 2.0, so why
has this phenomenon appeared now? The dramatic increases in computing
power, storage, network bandwidth, and connectivity, coupled with the equally
dramatic decrease in the costs of computing has served to release the innovators
and entrepreneurs to produce the solutions we are now calling Web 2.0. As a
simple example of this trend, the co-operative bibliographic cataloguing service
Talis Base,8 20 or so years ago, ran on an IBM mainframe in a fully air-conditioned
data centre managed by several staff. Today’s service could be stored on a
standard iPod, twice over.
Library 2.0
Library 2.0 in simple terms can be described as a conjunction between
libraries, and their traditional ethos for serving their users, with Web 2.0. There
has been much debate between librarians whether or not this is a real trend.
Whatever your opinion on the debate, it is clear to all that because of this trend, a
spotlight has been shining on developments in the library world. Some libraries
FIGURE 2
liveplasma.com
56 RICHARD WALLIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
are already starting to make use of Web 2.0 applications, such as Blogs, Wikis, RSS
feeds, etc., to reach out and interact with their users. Others are starting to
embed those tools into their more traditional offerings.
The Lamson Library9 at Plymouth State University have created WPOpac. By
embedding their OPAC into a blogging platform, they have turned every search
result into a blog posting, enabling users to comment and even create
conversation threads around the individual contents of the catalogue. As a
standard piece of blogging software is used, it was comparatively simple to add
in other features, such as tagging, lists of recent searches, and even a link through
to Amazon’s search inside the book feature.
The University of Huddersfield10 have taken a different approach with their
OPAC by embedding Library 2.0 features in to it. At first glance it looks like a
normal OPAC, but close inspection reveals features such as star ratings, ‘People
who borrowed this item, also borrowed . . .’, and floor plans with arrows
indicating which stack to look in for the selected item. Plymouth State and
Huddersfield are just two of many examples of how libraries across the world are
experimenting with their OPAC interfaces.
Taking the Library to the Users
Innovation in the way users access library services is not just taking place in
the OPAC interface. John Blyberg, then of Ann Arbour District Library11 in
Michigan, was a prize winning entry in the 2006 Talis Mashing Up The Library
Competition with ‘Go-go-google-gadget’.12 This provided four Google Gadgets
for users to load on to their Google home page (Figure 3). The gadgets display
New Books in the library, the Top Ten most popular books, Material on-hold, and
Material checked out. This is a way of bringing the library to the user, on their
home page when they open up the web every morning. How many people have
the library OPAC configured as their home page? This concept has been taken
even further by a citizen of Ann Arbour, Ed Velmetti, who has used the Web
Service, that Jon Blyberg used for his competition entry and made publicly
available, to produce a browser plug-in which tells him if a book he is looking at
in Google Book Search is available in the library.
Another way to take the library to where users are, in their daily activities, is
demonstrated by the Student Portal at Queens University Belfast. With the aid of
Talis Keystone13, a tool for exposing Library System functionality as Web Services,
a live representation of the students’ library account and a single-sign-on link in
to the catalogue, is displayed on their portal home page every time they login.
You’ll Wonder Where the Library Went14
As I postulated in my blog posting ‘You’ll wonder where the Library went’,
although these innovations, in the way libraries can unlock their online services
and deliver them in to the daily work flow, should be welcomed and widely
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 � FROM DEBATE TO REALITY 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
emulated, it does create a problem for the libraries themselves. Where is the
library brand inside a student portal; where is that brand in a browser plug-in;
where is it in a Google Gadget; and where is the Library influence in a student
bedroom? A dichotomy is emerging where libraries, delivering ever more useful
and powerful services to their users, are becoming less and less directly visible
within their parent organisations. Librarians must improve the marketing of
themselves within their organisations, otherwise come the next round of bids for
funding, they may have an uphill battle.
Disruption and Consolidation
Whilst these developments in the way libraries deliver services have started
to emerge, the world of the library system has not been stagnant either. Here are
just some of the events over the last couple of years:
. Sirsi and Dynix announce merger � June 2005
. OCLC Pica acquire Fretwell-Downing � November 2005
. ExLibris acquired by Francisco Partners � July 2006
. ExLibris merger with Endeavor � November 2006
. Evergreen Open source Library System runs 252 Georgia Libraries � September 2006
. Google’s Eric Schmidt promotes portability of data � November 2006
. SirsiDynix acquired by Vista � December 2006
. SirsiDynix shelves Horizon and Unicorn upgrades in favour of Rome � March 2007
. EMI and Apple to sell DRM-Free music � April 2007
. OCLC to pilot WorldCat local � April 2007
FIGURE 3
Go-go-google-gadget
58 RICHARD WALLIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Are the monolithic library management systems provided by the vendors
mentioned, and others, fit for the 21st Century? I contend that they are not.
They are huge monolithic pieces of software that attempt to carry out every
library function. Some do have APIs, but often very limited, specific to a particular
vendor, and by definition proprietary. For these reasons, the valuable data that is
stored within them is also closed, trapped and obscured inside these systems.
The examples I showed previously are often only made possible by an innovative
system manager delivering services almost despite the Library System, not
because of it; or, as in the case of Talis Keystone, by providing a separate web
service component for an existing system.
Open Data
Even when you can get data out of your library system, is it open to add
value to others? The current model for sharing data between libraries is
fundamentally flawed. Today, libraries can pay significant amounts, up to three
times, to share their data � some Library System vendors charge for the export of
data from a local library system, then, to make their data visible, they have to
fund membership of some form of Consortium or Union, finally paying charges to
use the services to discover, access, or interlend. This financial lock-out � having
to pay to join and use, and financial lock-in-we can’t share with you because you
haven’t funded the Union, massively restricts the mobility and reuse of data. That
is not to say there is no innovation coming from the Consortia, the Unions and
those such as OCLC, but little is being done to break down the walls of the silos,
these innovations are just an exercise in putting lipstick on pigs.
If data was Open and shared it could be mobile, accessible, and useful,
adding value for all. That is not to say that things like ownership should not be
protected. Creative Commons15 for instance has been a powerful influence upon
the sharing of music and images whilst protecting the rights of the creator. The
many and varied images I use in my presentation slides come freely shared, but
nevertheless attributed, from the photo sharing site Filkr.com.16 This is a model
that has many lessons for the library world and how it could approach the
sharing of its data.
Examples of Sharing
So what can happen if we use the Web 2.0 technologies I have been
discussing, and the Open and sharing principles I espouse? Talis Source17 is an
interlending application built upon the Talis Platform which ably demonstrates this.
Talis Source, launched in the spring of 2006, was a re-engineer of a
traditional Inter Library Loan Service. Realising the benefits of commodity
hardware and software, it was possible to create a service that was free for
libraries to contribute to, free for basic discovery, and only a nominal £500 per
institution to use the interlending functionality. Anyone with experience of
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 � FROM DEBATE TO REALITY 59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
interlending will realise the dramatic difference between this and the traditional
business models for such a service. Since its launch, the service has grown to
support in excess of 200 libraries, with approximately 26 million bibliographic
records, and 55 million holdings records, all freely contributed to the Talis
Platform.18 The Talis Source application does not hold or manage the data
contributed to the Platform, all it does is use the services provided by the
Platform to create a resource discovery and interlending application. Due to this
architecture, any number of other applications can consume the same Platform
services to derive value for users in many other ways � so much more than just
Inter Library Loan.
@Libraries19 is an open source freely downloadable (from the Talis
Developer Network) browser plug-in which identifies books on the pages of
Amazon.co.uk, and provides the user with a list of libraries which hold that book.
The plug-in then uses library location information, also openly shared in the
Platform, to take the user directly to the relevant item page in the OPAC when
they click on a library that is relevant to them. The plug-in also has the capability
to select a personal set of libraries, limiting the information to those libraries that
are relevant to the user, effectively creating an ad hoc union. A typical student
will obviously be interested in the catalogue of their University library, but he/she
will also be interested in the libraries in the district where they live, their home
town and even the university and home town of their girl/boy friend. How many
traditional Unions, constructed around related subject and geographical interests
of libraries, could satisfy that need?
Aquabrowser,20 a Dutch company providing alternative online OPAC
systems, became a Talis Platform partner which enabled them to offer their service
to any library that contributed to the Platform, regardless of vendor. The Google
Scholar service also uses the data freely contributed to the Platform to enable users
of its service to identify UK libraries that hold items that they return as results.
The final example of the power and simplicity of building applications on a
Platform containing freely shared data is Talis Cenote.21 Cenote is a publicly
available, free to use, innovative search and discovery site, with a striking user
interface design. It allows users to discover items held by the 200� UK libraries
who have contributed to the Platform. In Library 2.0 style, it pulls in jacket
images, descriptions, and pricing information from other sources, and provides
deep OPAC linking to the libraries that hold the discovered items (Figure 4).
If Talis Source had not been built on a Platform, the contributing libraries
would have only seen their data in an interlending application, but because it is,
their contributions are powering many applications, adding value to users in
many ways with no extra effort.
Benefits of a Platform
So what are the key benefits of a Platform approach that these applications
demonstrate?
60 RICHARD WALLIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Shared Functionality � applications, and their developers, share the
functionality of the Platform. Previously, every application would have to have
its own storage, indexing, search and retrieval functionality � a massive
duplication of effort. As the Platform removes all that complexity, application
builders can concentrate on what they are best at � serving the particular need of
their target users.
Shared Data � consistent storage and indexing of a single logical set of data
that has been loaded in to the Platform without the constraints of a particular
application, means that application developers again only have concentrate on
what they are best at � serving the particular need of their target users. Also, as
the data in that shared pool is added to and enhanced, all the applications that
consume that data will benefit.
Shared Innovation � as enhancements are made, and new features added to
the Platform services, all consuming applications will benefit. Also, as the
Platform is supported by an open developer community, in which they share
experiences, programming tricks, and code for the benefit of all.
FIGURE 4
Talis Cenote
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 � FROM DEBATE TO REALITY 61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Simple Development � as the Platform implements the complex perfor-
mance critical functionality that is needed in many library applications, and
makes it accessible via simple light-weight Web Services, an application
developer does not need the in-depth skills in these areas. Powerful applications
such as I describe are effectively just user interfaces built upon simple web
service calls � well within the skill set of a web developer.
Rapid Development � as the Platform hides the complexity and removes the
requirement for specialised developers, the applications built on its Web services
can be delivered very quickly. For instance, the @Libraries plug-in took
approximately a week to produce its first release; Aquabrowser can deliver an
OPAC within 24 hours; and Talis Cenote took two developers two days to
complete � much of that being taken up producing reflections below images and
a chrome effect on the logo! Imagine using this approach in your library, it would
be entirely feasible to have separate specialised interfaces for students, staff,
researchers, specialist collections, children, and even fresher’s week, poetry week,
or any other event.
Beyond Web 2.0
I have been discussing Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, concepts, practices, tools,
and applications that are already starting to effect the world in to which we have
to deliver our services, and the way those services are developed, organised and
procured. Unfortunately, for those trying to keep abreast of what is happening,
Web 3.0 is already being talked about and having effects.
Web 3.0, like its predecessor, is just another label for a collection of
attributes. As we all know, the Web does not go through revisions like Library and
other software applications has done in the past, with a major upgrade every year
or so. It evolves from year to year, month to month, and even week to week. The
attributes associated with the term Web 3.0 are also sometimes referred to as The
Semantic Web. I prefer the term ‘A Web of Data’.
The Web of Data
The Web so far has been a Web of Documents with web pages interlinking
and referencing each other, regardless of their location. In the Web of Data,
elements of data will be able to reference other data, regardless of location.
These semantic links will enable applications to be built, not only on more than
one data set, potentially held in different systems by different organisations, but
also the semantic relationships between those data.
Describing The Web of Data is a whole other subject, but I will give one
small example of how it will add value to a future library experience. One of the
key requirements of a search interface is to return results in a relevant order,
providing the user with the most appropriate results first. This has been worked
upon in many library systems, using item usage statistics etc. Imagine, if you will,
62 RICHARD WALLIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
a Web 3.0 library system which, as well as bibliographic and circulation data at its
disposal, could also build on the semantic relationships with a course reading list
system and the university administration system. In such a system, the relevance
ranking of a book on the reading list for the course that the searching student is
enrolled, would be greatly increased. As I say, one simple example that just
scratches the surface of the potential for using semantics in our world � it is no
accident that the Platform that is powering applications such as Talis Cenote is
built around Semantic Web technologies ready to take advantage of them at its
core as they evolve.
I have covered many topics in the journey through Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and
on to Web 3.0. To summarise, many of the visible attributes of Library 2.0 are
Blogs, Wikis, RSS, tagging etc., These are valuable assets in striving to reach out
and include our users, and should be embraced whole-heartedly by all libraries.
However, there is something more fundamental occurring, the Web 2.0
technologies are enabling the data and services within our systems to reach
out as well � the users of our systems are not broken, our systems are � these
technologies will help us solve that problem. Openness is key to the future of
libraries � Open Systems, Open APIs, Open Data, and Open Minds. All this is taking
place with a background of disruption and consolidation in the Library Systems
Marketplace � this coupled with the technological changes afoot will result in
future systems being built from components potentially obtained from many
vendors and other sources including Open source.
Talis is at the forefront of much of these fundamental changes, not only
contributing to, and often leading, the Open debate, but also in building a
Platform for Talis, and most importantly, others including libraries and other
vendors to build their applications upon. The Platform is a significant example of
Library 2.0 in action. Oh yes, and do not forget, The Web of Data (Web 3.0)
holding the promise of massive benefits in the future, releasing the power locked
up in the semantic relationships between data.
Notes
1. The Saltire Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, http://www.gcal.ac.uk/thesal
tirecentre/
2. LibratyThing.com, http://www.librarything.com/
3. Second Life, http://www.secondlife.com/
4. Talis, http://www.talis.com
5. Liveplasma, http://www.liveplasma.com/
6. Amazon, http://www.amazon.com
7. Amazon Web Services, http://aws.amazon.com/
8. Talis Base, http://www.talis.com/applications/products/talis_base.shtml
9. Lamson Library, Plymouth State University, http://www.plymouth.edu/library/
WEB 2.0 TO LIBRARY 2.0 � FROM DEBATE TO REALITY 63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
10. University of Huddersfield Library, http://webcat.hud.ac.uk/ipac20/ipac.jsp?force
logout�true&profile�cls&lang�eng#focus
11. Ann Arbour District Library, Michigan, http://www.aadl.org/
12. Go-go-google-gadget, http://www.talis.com/tdn/node/1524
13. Talis Keystone, http://www.talis.com/keystone
14. You’ll wonder where the Library went: http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/archives/
2005/04/youll_wonder_wh.php
15. Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org/
16. Flickr.com, http://www.flickr.com/
17. Talis Source, http://www.talis.com/source/
18. Talis Platform, http://www.talis.com/applications/developers/index.shtml
19. @Libraries, http://www.talis.com/tdn/greasemonkey/amazon-libraries
20. Aquabrowser, http://www.aquabrowseronline.com/
21. Talis Cenote, http://cenote.talis.com
Richard Wallis, Technology Evangelist, Talis. E-mail: [email protected]
64 RICHARD WALLIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
2:47
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14