As a current MLIS student at the University of North Texas (and new LITA member) with a concentration in digital content management,  I had the privilege of attending the LITA session Developing a Sustainable Digital Workflow, at the ALA Annual Conference in Washington, DC.  This session exhibited two very successful digital endeavors:  the digital collections at my very own UNT, and RUcore, the institutional repository at Rutger’s University. I chose this session because it is my goal to work in digital services/archives once I graduate (7 weeks left!!).  Below is a recap from each institution’s presentation on how they handle the management of digital content.

Dreanna Belden (Assistant Dean of External Relations and Head of IT Services) and Hannah Tarver (Metadata Librarian) from UNT Libraries brought the “mean green” to DC.  Although I am a distance student at UNT, it was a pleasure to meet some of the UNT librarians who work so hard to make the library such a great resource to both on and off-campus students.

Managing multiple digital projects simultaneously

Dreanna Belden presented a very organized approach as to how the UNT libraries managed digital projects that originated from within the school, as well as other institutions in the Texas area.  Using 14 full-time staff and student workers, much of the digitization processes and metadata creation are done in-house.  Each collection has its own directory on the server, and within each directory are folders that house digital files at each phase in the digitization process (i.e. raw images, images that have undergone quality control processing, and OCRed images ready for upload).

One process I found particularly interesting was their use of a project wiki to track modifications to the objects. This collaborative approach enables students and faculty to all have access to what is going on in the project. Furthermore, the wiki contains training guidelines, which streamline the training process for any new students who work in the digitization lab each semester.

How UNT Handles Metadata

Hannah Tarver discussed the metadata creation process. For each project, a metadata template is created. The template is also created with a built-in controlled vocabulary, which can be accessed through drop-down menus in the metadata entry interface, or through a browsable subject vocabulary for subject terms.  Furthermore, each digital object within a project has an XML template document associated with it so that metadata for each batch upload into the repository is easily searchable. By utilizing a uniform metadata template, common error patterns in the metadata can be found in one batch-proof, instead of having to go through each record individually. The team at UNT uses an open-source text editor called J-Edit, which color-codes the XML templates for readability.

Grace Agnew (University Librarian for Digital Systems) and Jane Otto (Head of E-Monographs and Multimedia Cataloging Section) from Rutger’s University Libraries presented on the innovative structure of RUcore. Like UNT, the digital services departments at Rutgers manage multiple projects for faculty, as well as grant-funded digital initiatives.

Data-Driven Design

Grace Agnew discussed the multi-faceted architecture and organization of RUcore, a repository built on Fedora. Collections are classified based on from where they originated (provenance). Agnew highlights that there is more to metadata than just the descriptive metadata; rights, provenance, and technical metadata have the potential to create richer, contextual relationships between digital objects.  An object consists of 2 facets: its description, and the events with which it is associated. She mentions one research project, The Video Mosaic Collaborative, which presents videos of mathematics teaching sessions that can be reused and analyzed to improve math education. Event metadata can be created to track a particular video through its use in other education research project, any changes or interventions made, etc.

Trends and Challenges

Jane Otto further expounded on the use of more than descriptive metadata, and underscored the repository’s ability to accept digital objects in a variety of formats. As the costs of storage space decrease, an increasing trend in digital repositories is the archival of video.  She discussed many emerging challenges that accompanied moving images, such as the choice of a metadata scheme that could handle both analog and digital videos; this is compounded by quickly changing standards as the profession moves into the digital realm.

In order to meet these challenges, the importance of cross-training the staff was emphasized. Cross-training not only increases efficiency, but ensures that each employee is well-rounded and flexible enough to respond to a rapidly changing landscape.

Summing it up

The digital departments at both universities took on projects not just from within the institution, but also sought grant-funding and collaboration with outside institutions as well. This underscores the importance of the library’s role in digitization efforts, which in turn provides global access to researchers and users everywhere.

The representatives from UNT presented an established workflow for handling multiple digital projects. Their presentation highlighted streamlining quality assurance, a step that can often become the most time-consuming in a digital project. The team from Rutgers presented utilizing an even richer metadata structure that incorporates more than just descriptive metadata, and presented fresh ways of looking at how objects can be linked in a repository.

It was interesting as a student to see what skills were required for working in digital content. Clearly, technical knowledge is important, especially regarding metadata standards and how they can best be applied to a collection. Yet there were also less concrete skills, such as the ability to envision a collection not just as a stand-alone island, but how it can be molded and integrated into other collections and ideas. Also, there was an importance in finding ways to constantly improve the workflow, and discover how new technologies and processes could make things more efficient.

Overall, this was a very informative session on how institutions are managing their digital content, as well as future developments and challenges to overcome. I wish everyone reading this a happy 4th of July weekend, and for those of you who attended the ALA conference in DC…get plenty of rest, stay cool, and enjoy the holiday!

For more information on the presenting institutions and their collections, please visit the links below:

Digital Collections at UNT

RUCore – Rutgers Community Repository (Developers Area)

Bohyun Kim, the Digital Access Librarian at Florida International University, moderated the discussion with the aid of slides that posed questions for four groups of panelists.

GROUP 1:

• Elisabeth Leonard, Associate Dean for Library Services, Western Carolina University
• Frank Cervone, Vice Chancellor for Information Services, Purdue University Calumet

I stepped into a packed room as Elisabeth Leonard tackled the question, “What are emerging technologies and how should they be adapted for libraries?”

Leonard suggested that as librarians we should “think through the eyes of our users.”  She argued that emerging technologies depend on the target user.  In other words, context matters.  Leonard stated that social networking sites (e.g., Twitter and Facebook) are not emerging technologies for today’s youth.  For them, social networking is a way of life.  Leonard paused for a moment and added that the reverse could be argued for another user group.

Frank Cerone stepped in and argued that social networking sites are not emerging technologies for any user group.  To discover emerging technologies, Cerone suggested that libraries look to the commercial realm for inspiration.

Kim opened the discussion up to a question from the audience, and someone asked, “You’ve been talking about emerging technologies and what they aren’t, so what exactly is an emerging technology?  What’s an example of one?”

“3-D television,” Cerone said.  He added that libraries could include 3-D TV in group study rooms.

“I consider 3-D a ‘leading edge technology’ rather than an emerging one,” argued Leonard.  Leonard proposed discovery systems as an example of her definition of an emerging technology.

GROUP 2:

• Amanda Margis, Web Services Children’s Librarian ,Warren-Newport Public Library
• Danielle Whren Johnson, Digital Access Librarian, Loyola/Notre Dame Library
• Darcy Del Bosque, Emerging Technologies Librarian, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Elisabeth Abarbanel, School Librarian, Brentwood School, Los Angeles
• Rebekah Kilzer, Emerging Technologies Librarian, Drexel University Libraries

The next group of panelists brought new insights to the panel as they addressed the question, “What are the daily tasks and skills required of emerging technologies librarians?”

Before answering this question, Amanda Margis explained that the idea of “emerging technologies” was not included in her job description.  Instead, she sought out emerging technologies because she saw a need, and a recent reorganization provided her with time to devote to this endeavor.

Meanwhile, Darcy Del Bosque explained that her job description has changed five times within a four-month time frame. Del Bosque said that her daily tasks and skills had changed with each revision, but her default role had become the fixer of “stuff that breaks.”

Elisabeth Abarbanel’s experience as a school librarian provided another perspective of emerging technologies in educational organizations.  Abarbanel explained that the librarians and teachers at Brentwood in Los Angeles work collaboratively to bring emerging technologies to the classroom.  She added that, for her users, an emerging technology might be RSS feeds.  For Abarbanel, an emerging technologies librarians should be flexible, involved, and have a knack for publicizing and promoting ideas.  “Do not be afraid to bring a new vocabulary to your institution,” advised Abarbanel–suggesting that librarians need to exude confidence in order to get others excited about new technologies.

Upon entering her role as the Emerging Technologies Librarian at Drexel University Libraries, Rebekah Kilzer performed an environmental scan of the library by taking note of technologies that had already been implemented.  She also talked with her colleagues about their expectations of and suggestions for emerging technologies at their libraries.

Kim posed the question, “How can librarians stay current when it comes to emerging technologies?”

Margis explained that librarians can stay up-to-date on technologies by listening to voices outside of the library.  Margis said that she subscribes to the tech feeds of Mashable, Lifehacker, and Wired.  She also recommended the blog In the Library with a Lead Pipe as a good place to look for tech tips.  Margis dropped a few more names, including ReadWriteWeb, Non-profit Tech Blog, and Museum 2.0.  Margis concluded, “If you want to stay up-to-date, play with the technology… Even if you don’t have it, just get your hands on it… Experiment, test, and reevaluate.”

Danielle Whren added to Margis’ comments, and said, “Go to conferences for non-library things to see what library is missing.”

It seemed to me that the entire panel was saying, “Think outside of the biblio-box!”

Kim asked, “How do u assess emerging technology projects?”

When it comes to assessment, Del Bosque said that you can’t spend your time looking at what other libraries are doing.  Look at your local population.  “How are u going to define your success?” she asked.  For example, some libraries might define success based on usage while others might be concerned with information retrieval.  “Try usability testing, surveys, and focus groups,” Del Bosque said.  These simple and low-cost research methods can help you define your project.   Upon implementing a new technology, Del Bosque asks, “Where do we fit in the life cycle of the project? When is someone else coming in?”

GROUP 3:

• Cynthia Johnson, Head of Reference, University of California, Irvine
• Jacquelyn Erdman, Web Services Librarian, East Carolina University
• Kathryn Munson, Assistant Access Services Librarian, Southeastern Louisiana University
• Marissa Ball, Emerging Technologies Librarian, Florida International University

Group 3 addressed management issues in their responses to the question, “How does your library organize the responsibilities of emerging technologies?”

Cynthia Johnson said that her emerging technologies position took on a consulting role, since UC-Irvine has a web services department and a team of developers.  Jacquelyn Erdman has the benefit of working with a full committee that has an ever-changing group of members.

As the Emerging Technologies Librarian at Florida International University, Marissa Ball explained her team-based approach of bringing new tech tools to the library.  Ball realized that if she got the early adopter types to test out new tech tools, then they would share their knowledge with others.  Through this method of peer-to-peer training, Ball’s team has found uses for tools like Jing and LibX for instruction and collection development.

Next, Kim asked, “How clear is your library’s vision on emerging technologies?”

Due to budget restraints, Erdman said that her team at East Carolina University decided to host an in-house conference that focused on emerging technologies.  Erdman and her colleagues shared tech tools and tips.  The conference gave library staff a new set of tools to increase productivity and communication.

In order to clearly state your library’s vision for emerging technologies, Kathryn Munson suggested a different type of strategic planning.  Munson said that you should document what you are doing, what you aren’t, and why.  She stressed the importance of keeping your timeline in mind throughout the implementation process.

Johnson said that her library’s vision on emerging technologies is clear, since it mirrors that of the mission and vision of the university.  Johnson combined forces with the educational technologies and web services departments at UC-Irvine in order to accomplish certain goals.

Additionally, Johnson explained how her expectations of user’s needs were far different than the reality.  After setting up the library’s Twitter account, Johnson watched as it evolved into a virtual suggestion box.  Johnson welcomed this unforeseen use of Twitter.  Despite the suggestion box that had lived at the library for years, user feedback flooded the library’s Twitter account.

You never can predict how emerging technologies will be used by others, said Erdman.  You need to consider users from the lowest to the highest level of ability and become friends with the person who is the worst or most resistant to new technology.

GROUP 4:

• David Ratledge, Associate Professor & Head, Library Technology Services, University of Tennessee
• Gwen Evans, Coordinator, Library Information and Emerging Technologies, Bowling Green State University
• Rebecca K. Miller, College Librarian for the Sciences, Virginia Tech

Group 4 responded to the question, “How should libraries assess and take risks?”

Gwen Evans works with Computer Science students at Bowling Green State University in order to develop her library’s technological offerings.  Over the years, Evans has devised a system of overlapping schedules–allowing seasoned students to teach the newbies.  Although, the CS students have developed some amazing technologies, Evans said that she maintains a conservative attitude about production.  Still, “failure has to be built in.”

Evans  stressed that libraries confirm that they have the resources to take on a new project.  Where is your team of librarians?  Or, developers?  Who is going to see the project through and offer support for its life cycle?

Rebecca Miller pointed out that librarians can suffer from a case of “technolust.”  Librarians can easily get wrapped up in the “tech arms race” and forget to think about the cost of project’s entire life cycle.  Miller said that when it came time to decide which social media elements to bring to her library, she took a survey of students at Virginia Tech.  She said the decision boiled down to the question, “What can we not afford to do?”

David Ratledge responded, “Your users might be on Facebook, but, do they want you–the library–on Facebook?”

At this point, I was nodding.  As a twenty-something who signed up with Facebook back in its college-kids-only days, I don’t think that Facebook is everybody’s platform.  In addition to asking their users about their favorite social network sites, libraries need to ask their users, Do you want us on your social network?  Why or why not?

Evans said that her team hosts brown bag technology lunches that allow staff to get their hands on new software and tech products.  The brown bags give Evans a chance to hear her colleagues’ thoughts on emerging technologies and their potential for Bowling Green’s libraries.  Such feedback also helps Evans better understand what her colleagues expect from her as the Emerging Technologies Librarian.

After a few last thoughts from the panelists, Kim wrapped up the session.

You can view the PowerPoint slides from this LITA presentation here.  If the author has made an error or omitted an essential piece of panel advice, please leave your feedback in the Comments.

LITA Awards Reception

Full disclosure: I’m one of the awardees, and utterly starstruck by the others.

The event opened with mingling and one of the best food spreads I saw at a program at Annual (cheese, fruit, cake); thank you, LITA, for knowing how to entertain.

The LITA/Library Hi Tech awardee was Marshall Breeding, whose Library Technology Guides site was indispensable to me during my library automation class; exciting to meet the man behind the data. Read the press release for more of his huge pile of accomplishments.

The Frederick G. Kilgour awardee was John Willinsky, whose Public Knowledge Project is doing some really interesting things with open access and scholarly communication. Read his press release, too. He told a charming anecdote about the library club in his school days, to general laughter.

And then me! I received the LITA/Ex Libris Student Writing Award for my paper, “Document Classification Using Wikipedia”. Thank you to Ex Libris for your generous sponsorship, and to the awards committee for letting me share a stage with such distinguished awardees.

Then three LITA scholarships were presented (to Katy Rebecca Mahraj, Sofia Becerra, and Julianna Barrera-Gomez); only one could be there, but Mahraj shared some nice thoughts on how this support from LITA makes those of us who are new to the profession feel like our input matters.

LITA President’s Program

Mary Madden from the Pew Research Center, aka (as she pointed out) “the Pew Center on What the Hell Teens are Doing All Day”, presented on “Four or More” — what can we learn from bleeding-edge power users with four or more networked devices?

For details, check out her slides.

The beginning of the talk covered some common (if not always true) assumptions about youth internet use; demographics of the online population; and background information about who uses privacy controls. (See the slides for specifics.) The meat of the talk, though, concerned this four-or-more population. What do we know about them?

• They’re younger, wealthier, and male-er than the US population as a whole…
• …but not whiter. Unlike most early-adopter groups, they are about as racially diverse as the population at large.
• They have near-universal adoption of desktop and laptop computers, cell phones, and iPods. Many have portable gaming devices. Only 13% have ereaders — but that’s four times the rate in the general population.
• Their devices are wireless.
• They are much more active users of social networking sites: more likely to be on those sites, to check them frequently, and to actively manage their online images.
• They are more likely to filter the flow of content, not just out, but in; they need tools for managing their connectedness.

So what are the implications?

• Question our assumptions about tech use.
• Be ready for patrons who use multiple access points for online content and expect cloud-supported apps.
• Expect that mobile users are social media users, but that a “limited capacity for engagement” means filtering tools are critical.
• Know that privacy and reputation management are huge concerns, but people often understand them poorly (and need guidance).

Audience questions afterward ranged all over the map, but many showed a real concern for privacy issues. For instance: people can get value out of exposing their personal information (for instance, to recommender services) — how should we approach that? (Madden noted “personal information has become a form of currency online”.) Or: do teens manage privacy more actively than adults because they care, or because they put up so much content that they need more after-the-fact response? (Madden: the research isn’t all there to answer this. It’s complicated.) Or: we’ve been talking about online presence and tech skills as they relate to our personal lives, but what about our work lives? (Per the talk, some workplace policies limit employee online presence — and some require it. Madden noted that there’s a Pew report on Networked Workers [pdf], but we still need data on college students.)

Other audience questions touched on potential convergence of technologies (is four-or-more a meaningful metric if we’re all heading toward multifunctional single devices?), educational technology implications at both the K-12 and the university level, including both faculty adoption & training and the expectations of the rising generation of students; the role of gaming; workplace implications; how people find, and trust, information online; and the issue of copyright, both youth expectations and publisher roles. (For myself, I wonder if this population is a leading indicator or an outlier, which have different implications for how libraries need to respond.)

Madden recommended some further reading (and what would a library blog be without reading suggestions!). I think these were what she was talking about:

• Measuring Broadband, a Pew report on broadband access;
• Let the Games Begin, a Pew report on gaming and college students;
• The Internet Goes to College [pdf], a Pew report on college students’ use of the internet, and its impact on them;
• Eszter Hargittai‘s work on web use;
• and a MacArthur Foundation initiative on credibility in the digital environment.

Gregg Sylvis, Chair for the LITA Top Trends Committee kicked off the session.  Six panelists were  each to address current trends, imminent trends and long term trends (3-5 years out).

John Blyberg, Darien Library (CT), Assistant Director for Innovation and User Experience

Lorcan Dempsey, Vice President OCLC Research and Chief Strategist, OCLC

Jason Griffey, Head of Library Information Technology, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Monique Sendze, IT Director Johnson County Library, Overland Park, Kansas

Cindy Trainor, Coordinator for Library Technology and Data Services, Eastern Kentucky University

Joan Frye Williams, IT Consultant

CURRENT TRENDS

Blyberg discussed the new world of  ”multilevel convergent media.”

• With the explosion of new devices and communication channels, people are finding new ways to describe, explain, and interact with the world around them, and the boundaries between personal and professional domains have been blurring.
• This has paved the way for a move to devices that are optimized across multiple applications to support diverse communication and information sharing needs.
• Now it is becoming possible to reach a new point of synergy where the total impact across applications is becoming greater than the sum of its parts.  For example, writing a research paper is not a very good experience on the iPhone but the iPad will work well for this and across many other critical applications.

Dempsey called out some of the changes relating to mobile devices and their implications.

• Much of the early development for mobile devices has related to the direct translation of the web applications to a mobile environment.Now there are opportunities to look at how services can be atomized and reconfigured.
• The web experience can be tied to physical locations, as with the QR codes found at the ProQuest booth.
• There is also the phenomenon of “microcoordination” or checking in to better manage space and logistical challenges.  For example, a quick call or IM can now be used to change the time or location of a personal or business meeting on the fly.

Griffey talked about how content is no longer tied to a container.

• In the past, the container (book, journal, etc.) has defined how the information has been consumed and displayed.
• Now we are starting to see “container sans interface.”  For example, users now expect the library catalog to look like Google, with less emphasis on the various types of information containers.
• Use of iPad with touch screen does not focus the user on containers but just surfaces the information.
• He feels that the touch screen is setting a new interface standard for browsing and exploring content, noting that after showing his iPad to his two-year-old daughter, she started to touch the screen of their TV expecting it to behave in the same way.

Sendze discussed the importance of libraries responding to the rapid evolution of mobile technologies in order to stay relevant to their users.

• It is applications and software that make iPhone different from competing devices and this will also distinguish the iPad from its emerging competitors.
• Libraries need to move aggressively into mobile applications and software as increasingly users will be coming to the library expecting to use their own devices rather than the library’s computers.

Trainor surfaced an increased emphasis user-driven collection development.

• Libraries need to be more about getting people to things rather than owning them.
• Many libraries were adding a complete set of MARC records from an ebook provider and then buying the books that they do not have in response to user demand.

Williams surfaced many of the changes that are being driven by the current economic environment.

• Economic dislocations have been the genesis of a new creative economy.  There has been an explosion of everything from niche researchers  to pastry chefs.  Typically, these business startups are hyper-local and home based.
• Libraries need to explore what can be done to create an optimal environment for these users. This is a significant change in mindset because being an incubator for these enterprises means supporting the messy, iterative activity that is needed to spark creativity.
• Rather than focusing on serving up content, libraries need to focus on being the foundation for a creative process.  It is akin to moving from a grocery store to a kitchen mentality.

IMMINENT TRENDS

Williams talked about the blurring between object descriptions and the actual object.

• There is a new practice called “fabbing” where 3D descriptions are facilitating the creation of the referenced object.  This means that the line is blurring between comprehensive information about a thing and the thing itself.
• Librarians to find new ways manage recall and rights for 3D e-versions of things, because the  e-world of libraries is flatter than the real world is.
• Librarians typically have not developed these types of design sensibilities needed to manage these e-objects effectively because the library world has traditionally been so text based.

Trainor called out the FaceBook privacy backlash and its implications.

• Openness in terms of technology and ideas could be impacted as many people are being more thoughtful about sharing their personal information.
• At the same time, there is an important piece of our cultural heritage that could be lost as it is not clear who if anyone would be in a position to preserve the rich tapestry of information that has been posted on Facebook.

Sendze talked about changes as more and more library technology infrastructure moves into the Cloud.

• This change has the potential to be very disruptive.
• It could significantly reduce library back room IT needs and it will likely mean that the IT function will need to be more embedded in the day-to-day work of library.

Griffey signaled the potential disruptive effects of low-cost e-Readers.

• Citing recent price drops for the Kindle and the Nook , $99 eInk reading devices could be a possibility in the upcoming holiday season.
• Low-cost or even disposable devices could ultimately be married with ebook content that is freely available on the web.

Dempsey talked about how new discovery layers are helping libraries to overcome the fragmentation of library resources.

• Users appreciate a Google-like single search box and faceted results, and they typically perceive that everything in the collection has been surfaced, while there are generally opportunities to expand elements of the collection that are made available in this fashion.
• There are also many other opportunities to surface content outside of the library collection such as Google Scholar and Google Books.
• A third dimension is surfacing resources not in the current collection that could be made available through Patron-driven ILL or on-demand purchasing.

Blyberg used Seth Godin’s term “the dip” to stage his prediction of new struggles with open source software.

• He indicated that many open source library projects were hitting a point where success reaches a plateau and progress gets harder and harder to achieve.
• Funding is one issue since library budgets are under significant stress and while grants have often provided for startup costs, they are typically not funding ongoing costs.
• Also, he indicated that open source solutions have in many cases failed to keep pace with the features and functionality offered by commercial vendors.

LONG TERM TRENDS

Griffey singled out 4G cellular infrastructure and its power to transform mobile applications.

• With speeds of 100 Megabits per second, it will provide ethernet capacity in your pocket.
• He talked about a new small rapid scanner developed in Japan that could ultimately allow quick scanning and OCR of Encyclopedia Brittanica or Oxford English Dictionary by a mobile device.
• Libraries will need to be prepared for these types of technology shifts in order to manage implications for library services and copyright.

Sendze anticipates an acceleration of profiling and the death of Internet anonymity.

• Users are freely giving over their personal information to search engines and these commercial providers are doing profiling and predictive analysis.
• Libraries are still focused on protecting user privacy, despite the fact that lots of data is now available that can be used to enhance the experience of their users.
• Users likely trust libraries to safeguard their personal information a lot more than they do commercial vendors and users will likely be open to their personal information being used to anticipate needs and to enhance their experience with the library.

Trainor predicted that ultimately physical copy scarcity would be gone.

• As the abundance of information continues to grow, scarcity is manifesting itself in new areas such as bandwidth.  Libraries should be helping to bridge these gaps for the benefit of all their users and society at large.
• In the end, it will also be up to libraries to add value in new ways rather than just securing content.  As an example, changes will be needed in library instruction when the only service point is the web and users are getting most of the resources they need for free.

Williams drew a comparison between the information industry and the energy industry.

• Similarities stem from the relationship between the suppliers and their customers in both sectors.
• Libraries are acting like niche green technology companies that are blazing down a new path, often propelled by grant funding. They are committed to building their own “information ecosystem” that is self-contained and pure and free from contaminants, like a locally-owned, socially conscious information utility.
• Resource and technology challenges abound and it is difficult to sustain investments in technology infrastructure for the long term.
• One potential impact could be an epidemic of “dataspills” that involves sensitive or personal information and potentially even crackdowns by the government.

Blyberg discussed the future transformations that are being driven by current economic pressures.

• Current economic pressures have brought a “come to Jesus moment” for all libraries.
• Many libraries have had to admit that they have very inefficient backend processes where significant benefits can be achieved through automation and process improvements.
• Libraries are discovering that they can still be true to what it means to be a library while sharpening their focus on transforming the user experience.

Dempsey called for a shift for libraries from managing supply to managing demand.

• He talked about the complex suite of systems and relationships for supplying information that are driving overhead and keeping libraries from focusing more of their energies on the user experience.
• Greater focus will be needed on the demand side such as helping users rank, relate, or recommend items.
• Embedding  resources in research environments and courseware  and building community around library resources will also derive significant benefits by integrating library resources into user workflows.
• Libraries also need to focus on sparking indirect discovery through surfacing Google material, curation and management of institutional outputs (IRs, etc), and search engine optimization.
• Only with continued focus on the demand side can libraries get to the ultimate desired state – where the mission of the library has become helping users to manage their own library.

ALA Annual Conference 2010

Sunday, June 28, 2010 10:30 to noon

Intro, Jenn Riley: Metadata Librarian, Indiana U. Digital Library Program

MODS 3.4 schema released June 2010. MODS/MADS editorial committee considering overall direction for MODS 4.0. mods 3.4 has

• support for RDA descriptions
• better handling of subject vocabularies (specify vocabulary at relevant subject subelements, specify vocabularies and terms by URI.
• Better support for multilingual cataloging
• expanded the use of the usage attribute
• expanded use of the displayLabel attribute.
• Ability to bind a specific name to a title to create a Uniform title.
• The ability to mark selected elements as containing cataloger-supplied data (rather than brackets, etc.).
• Various changes to make the schema itself for consistent, easier to manage and of greater utility to other applications importing elements from the MODS namespace.

For mods 4.0 thinking of a more formal data model, maybe RDF. Want to encourage linked data and hope that the more formal model may help. Give feedback on the MODS listserv

Speakers:

Bill Leonard, Library and Archives Canada

In 2004 national archives and national library of Canada merged. This meant that they had to merge all of their data and records. They have a federated search to both the archival and bibliographic descriptions: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/lac-bac/search/all

They are also building a trusted digital repository using these metadata standard:

• METS
• PREMIS
• MODS
• Government of Canada records management metadata standard (records are received this way and then stripped down to the archival core set, eventually mapped to MODS to be placed in the TDR)
• archival core set
• ARK

MODS is the common schema for all the descriptions within the TDR.

Another project is Canadiana Authorities: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/canadiana-authorities/index-e.html. This is a new search interface to LAC’s authorities (name, name/title and series title) that has benefits because the data is clean, there is greater flexibility when searching XML and the control and normalization of the data.

In the future bibliographic data to be available in a parallel service. They need to fix character set issues, ingest heading data from the archival descriptions, enhance the bibliographic authority data with biographical or administrative history notes, and make Canadiana Authorities available as a web service

Sally McCallum and Rebecca Guenther, LOC

“Using MODS for Discovery of LC’s Rich Collections”

In 2007 LC went through strategic planning. A goal was to enable “seamless access” to all of LC’s resources but also support subtype access – e.g. digital only, moving image only, photo only, etc.

The LC landscape at the time was horribly diverse. Like really, really crazy with the systems, databases, and repositories all over the place that were of various ages and depth, and obviously, platforms and standards.

They considered two scenarios: federated search, which would mean keeping the silos and doing a metasearch. But this is really only useful for a limited number of systems for special services and very hard to do it fast in realtime. The other option is to combine the metadata in one system. Created a unified database to search (after harmonizing metadata). The metadata would focus on LC collection and would provide just enough information to know if the item is obtainable. They tested out unified database with native XML architecture. To implement this they used markLogic XML Server.

As a sampling: they had about 17 mil OPAC records, 1.3 mill American Memory (mostly MARC), performing Arts Encyclopedia about 50K (MODS in METS), LC Web Archive about 6K (MODs), Handbook of Latin American Studies  about 160K (MARC), and so on and so on and so forth….whew.

They decided to use METS as a wrapper and MODS for descriptive metadata for all items…plus MARCXML if there is MARC; EAD if it’s a finding aid; TEI if there is text of veteran narrative (one of the projects); KML for geographic coordinates; ALTO for newspapers; parts of ONIX for summaries and cover art. MODS article-level data lists the “host item” (or the whole that it is a part of) as <related Item> (for the Latin American Handbook project); <location> is used for holdings

MODS advantages:

• compatibility with what they already have
• less detail than MARC so you can map MARC
• other standards are easy to map to MODS as well (easier than MARC at least)

[mods helps by providing a common format. As a derivative of MARC is retains a lot of the richness of MARC while playing well with less granular data. Does support faceted discovery.]

XML advantages

• can use Xquery
• use of xml-based standards like SRU, OAI
• easy to use tools like RSS and simile
• linking to authority data in id.loc.gov and later even incorporating it into markLogic
• enhanced faceting
• geospatial searching

Will phase in databases to the service and will launch before they are all in there

The metadata for digital content working group also set specific goals included improving discovery of LC digital content through metadata; provide access to metadata isn silos; share content and metadata; provide 2.0 services; establish consistent metadata and create it consistently going forward

Their strategies for improving discovery:

• allow search from external sites
• focus on reusability
• improve and enrich metadata
• other use cases like navigation by facet, reuse for different delivery systems
• supply metadata for partner sites like youtube and flickr.

Steps to do this:

1. establish master list of elements across projects based on MODS
2. annotate list with best practices
3. create metadata profiles for each initiative
4. identify where metadata remediation is needed to apply best practices

Metadata profiles are available at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mdc (only American Memory, LC Web Archive, and Performing Arts Encyclopedia are available now, but they are working on the others)

The upshot?

• Standardize metadata across LC to provide seamless access
• profiles provide compatibility with existing metadata
• quality is improved by applying best practices detailed in the metadata set
• LC is generating HTML meta tags with values extracted from metadata source for use by search engines

Amanda Harlan, Baylor University

“Texas Digital Library’s Eletronic Dissertations and Thesis Descriptive Metadata Guidelines and Vireo ETD Submission System”

Historical overview of the ETS and Vireo submission system:

TDL aggregates digital material from across Texas libraries. In 2005, they had to decide on a metadata for ETD. MARC and DC both dismissed. MODS was chosen because

• based on MARC
• easier to work with b/c of XML
• captured info more easily
• the only extension needed would be for degree
• there was already some experimenting with MODS as separate bitstreams to dspace items. Eventually Mannakin allowed them to work with the MODS record rather than the DC that dspace normally uses

Their schema includes 16 top-level elements.

TDL originally felt that a federated collection of ETDs was a priority. As they developed it, it became the current Vireo system. Each institution has their own instance and repository, and then TDL would federate the metadata through OAI. In Vireo MODS was used and the descriptive metadata. They worked on standardizing workflows across institutions for students submitting ETD, grad school processing and then library processing. The basic workflow includes:

1. students ingest
2. staff and students verity
3. published

TDL Vireo to provide a tool and interface for each step. The turnkey solution can be deployed at each institution.

Other issues to address included TDL’s level of involvement (fully from ingestion to publication) and the author’s rights (the license is similar to Creative commons. Each institution could change the license if needed, but always had non-exclusive rights.

Currently, they have published guidelines and application profile for MODS descriptive that were created in 2008, but haven’t been updated. Vireo is currently on version 1.0.3. There are three institutions in full production and 5 other in various stages of piloting. TDL also hosts a production and lab instance of Vireo for ever TDL member, even if they don’t use them or run their own…so they can play around with it and decide if they want to sue it. They also created a Vireo User’s  Group to identify and report defect and recommend enhancements for the next version. This group provides support for all users of Vireo.

For the future they hope that the guidelines and profile will be reviewed as more institutions are involved and there might be new needs not originally discovered as well as to keep up with changes in standards. They hope to release Vireo as open-source in the fall. Two other institutions use it (UIUC and MIT) so they hope to incorporate customizations made there.

Karen D. Miller, Northwestern University

“Crosswalking EAD to MODS at Northwestern University Library”

Do you know what EAD is? If not, find out: http://www.loc.gov/ead/

Basically, EAD is a description of archival collection in two parts: a description of the collection as a whole and then a description of the parts, organized by format or topic in series, boxes and folder or entities and fonds.

NUL created an EAD portal that includes finding aids from archives and special collections. In addition, there is a special project for a collection of East African photographs that is one quite large EAD.

Why crosswalk it to MODS?  They are storing a MODS version of the record for their digital repository which includes a cross-collection search that searches items original described in MARC, TEI, etc. They create a MODS record for each container that they capture in the collection. The higher-level containers can provide data for quite rich MODS. They create subject headings and other information for each of these in the MODS record that don’t necessarily appear in that format in the EAD.

For sub-containers they can’t necessarily just inherit information from superior containers because info at that level may be too general (i.e. this folder contains german, french and english). They decided that  parents to children/children to parents would be the only inheritance recorded (rather than child to grandparent, or folder to series). This info is put in the MODS <relatedItem> but just the <title> and <identifier>. This way you can go up or down the chain and get that info as needed.

They have created then a way to view the EAD container list tree is a left-hand column and then click on each container and see the generated MODS record and digitized item in the right. Cool! Check it out at: http://repository.library.northwestern.edu/winterton/browse.html#action\tgetAllPhotos

I wasn’t sure what to expect since I had never been to a LITA event before and didn’t know anyone there. However, people all around were smiling and many people were quick to open their circle and let a new-comer join the conversation. I met Abigail Goben the Hedgehog Librarian wearing a hedgehog necklace, two new incoming LITA Board members, and many others.

It’s great to host a happy hour on the first night because it gives people the opportunity to meet people casually before the conference really begins. Also, have you heard that word-of-mouth is the best way to get out information about your organization’s events and services? The same applies to happy hour. I invited several people to the Mixx who hadn’t heard about the event but who were happy (for at least an hour) to join in the fun.

Some of the great tidbits of conversation topics I heard were:

• The awesomeness and efficiency of making group decisions online, rather than at long meetings with stacks of paper
• The importance of cross-training all staff members to break down those silo barriers
• The necessity (sometimes) of moving around the country to get the job you want – then having to tough it out in that location for a least a few years before looking for new jobs

The take away message? Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there and have a good time with your fellow librarians/techies. After a long day of panels and discussions it’s nice to have a chance to “talk shop” over a pint of beer and see what new solutions and opportunities arise. And if you missed the LITA happy hour, maybe you can crash another division or round table get-together!

Watch the video

Below you’ll find a preliminary list of programs. These are the priority coverage areas, but LITA welcomes and encourages blogging on other programs and events as well. Please feel free to volunteer to cover items not listed here. Also, note that more than one person blogging an event is allowed and even encouraged.

Wondering what exactly is going on during each session? Visit the official LITA at Annual page or ALA’s main conference page for all ALA events to see complete descriptions.

To help out, fill in a volunteer form online. No experience required to blog, though we would love to see some of our experienced volunteers back again. If you have any questions, email Brett Bonfield.

Thursday, June 24

• 6:00 p.m. LYRASIS Lounge
• 7:00 p.m. Eats with LITA

Friday, June 25

• 8:00 a.m. ALA Unconference
• 9:00 a.m. LITA PreConference: Migrating to open source library systems
• 9:00 a.m. LITA PreConference: Open Source CMS Playroom
• 1:00 p.m. LITA PreConference: LibGuides Customization
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Executive Committee
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Membership Committee
• 4:00 p.m. LITA 101: LITA Open House
• 4:00 p.m. LITA ERMIG
• 5:30 p.m. LITA Happy Hour covered
• 7:30 p.m. ALA Annual Open Gaming Night
• 8:00 p.m. Eats with LITA
• 10:00 p.m. ALA Dance Party

Saturday, June 26

• 8:00 a.m. LITA Board of Directors Meeting I
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Program: Cloud computing for library services covered
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Committee Chairs Meeting
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Interest Group Chairs Meeting
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Joint Committee Chairs and Interest Group Chairs Meeting
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: Developing a Sustainable DInterest Groupitization Workflow
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: Rich Internet Applications for Libraries
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: Technology and the Developing World: Public Policy covered
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Program: Free Software – Now What?
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Drupal Interest Group
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Education Committee
• 1:30 p.m. LITA JPEG2000 Interest Group
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Program: What Is Your Library Doing about Emerging Technologies? covered
• 1:30 p.m. LITA WCC
• 1:30 p.m. OITP Program: Broadband Adoption and the Role of the Public Library: Issues and Solutions
• 3:30 p.m. ALA Membership Meeting I
• 4:00 p.m. LITA Assessment and Research Committee
• 4:00 p.m. LITA BIGWIG
• 4:00 p.m. LITA MARC Format Interest Group
• 4:00 p.m. LITA National Forum Planning 2010 Committee
• 4:00 p.m. LITA Program: Science Fiction and Fantasy: Informing the Present by Imagining the Future covered
• 4:00 p.m. LITA Program: Supporting the Next Generation of Public Computing
• 4:00 p.m. LITA RFID Interest Group
• 9:30 p.m. ALA After Hours Party

Sunday, June 27

• 8:00 a.m. LITA Program: Playtime in the Open Source Sandbox
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Bylaws & Organization Committee
• 8:00 a.m. LITA DInterest Groupital Library Technology Interest Group
• 8:00 a.m. LITA International Relations Committee
• 8:00 a.m. LITA National Forum Planning 2011 Committee
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Technology & Access Committee
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Heads of Library Technology Interest Group
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Internet Resources and Services Interest Group
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Mobile Computing Interest Group
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program Planning Committee
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: Designing Digital Experiences for Library Websites covered
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: MODS and MADS: Current Implementations and Future Directions covered
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Building a Support Infrastructure for an Open-Source ILS
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Publications Committee
• 1:00 p.m. LITA Top Technology Trends Panel
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Program: Authorized Genre, Forms and Facets in RDA
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Library Consortia and Systems Interest Group
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Next Gen Catalog Interest Group
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Program: Top Tech Trends covered
• 1:30 p.m. OITP Program: Mobile Devices, Libraries, and Public Policy
• 3:00 p.m. LITA Awards Reception covered
• 4:00 p.m. LITA President’s Program covered
• 4:00 p.m. LITA Program: Who’s driving the technology bandwagon – the users or the librarians?
• 4:00 p.m. LITA Standards Interest Group covered

Monday, June 28

• 8:00 a.m. LITA Emerging Tech Interest Group
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Program: Coffee and Conversation with Experts
• 8:00 a.m. LITA Standards Task Force
• 10:30 a.m. BIGWIG Showcase
• 10:30 a.m. ITAL Editorial Board
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Bylaws & Organization Committee
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: Emerging Technologies: Virtualization in Libraries covered
• 10:30 a.m. LITA Program: Science Fiction: Past, Present, Future covered
• 11:30 a.m. ALA Membership Meeting II
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Board of Directors II
• 1:30 p.m. LITA Program: Ultimate Debate: Open Source Software, Free Beer or Free Puppy?
• 5:30 p.m. BATTLEDECKS!

Tuesday, June 29

• 9:00 a.m. ALA Closing Session
• 11:00 a.m. ALA Legislative Rally

Saturday, June 26 | 1:30-3:30 p.m.
Washington Convention Center, Room 143 B/C

Imagine living in a city where censorship does not exist. Where your First Amendment rights and liberties are not only tolerated but encouraged and celebrated? That culture is created and that society exists in physical form for one week every August in Black Rock Desert, Nevada in the community known as Burning Man.

The Intellectual Freedom Round Table is delighted that Larry Harvey, Executive Director of the Burning Man Project, will join Lauren Christos, Chair of the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, in a lively conversation on how intellectual freedom informs the Burning Man experience and our 21st century society. IFRT envisions that our program will challenge and expand the boundaries of currently held intellectual freedom beliefs. Through the social experiment that is Burning Man, the audience may come away with new and creative ideas to explore intellectual freedom in their personal and professional lives.

There will be ample opportunity for Q&A from the audience.

We would like coverage for as many of the sessions as possible. Visit the BIGWIG LITA Events calendar and pick one (or more) and join the LITA Blogging Community.

Interested? Sign up using this form and you’ll be added to the schedule. No experience is required to blog, though we would love to see some of our experienced volunteers back again. If you have any questions, email Cindi Trainor using Facebook or at cindiann at g mail dot com.

Migrating to open source library systems
Speakers: Terry Reese, Gray Family Chair for Innovative Library Services, Oregon State University; David Lindahl, Web Initiatives Manager, University of Rochester; Brenda Chawner, Senior Lecturer, Victoria University of Wellington
A number of libraries have successfully migrated to open source ILSs and digital repository systems such as Duraspace, Evergreen, and Koha. But how did they get from point A to point B? During the pre-conference, members of the LITA Open Source Software Interest Group and invited speakers will share practical tips and tricks for performing migrations and managing the migration process.

Open Source CMS Playroom
Speakers: Karen A. Coombs, Product Manager for Developer Network, OCLC; Amanda Hollister, Web Applications Specialist, LISHost
Open source content management systems present an opportunity for libraries to distribute content creation and maintenance and add Web 2.0 features to library websites. This workshop will provide an overview of several content management systems, compare and contrast system functionality and features, and demonstrate how open source CMSs can be used to enhance library websites. Bring your laptop to explore and compare basic installations of WordPress, Joomla, Silverstripe, and Drupal CMSs.

LibGuides Interface Customization
Speakers: Jenny Brandon, Web Designer/Reference Librarian, Michigan State University Libraries; Kelly Sattler, Head of Web Services, Michigan State University Libraries; Christine Tobias, Reference and Technology Librarian, Michigan State University Libraries
LibGuides is a hosted content management system that enables libraries to post subject guides, course guides, information portals, etc. to the web. The LibGuides template allows administrators to upload a banner, and to choose from a limited selection of colors, tabs, and borders. This hands-on workshop will provide instructions on how to further customize the LibGuides interface by adding custom header/footer code, and using CSS to create a unique look for your LibGuides site.

More LITA events at Annual

How to Register for a Preconference

• Register to attend Annual Conference; add a preconference in the “Your Events” section.
• Already registered for Annual Conference?
  Add a preconference to your existing Annual Conference registration by calling ALA Registration at 1-800-974-3084 or accessing your registration online; add events in the “Your Events” section then check out and pay only for the events you’ve added.
• Would you like to attend a preconference without attending Annual?
  You do not need to be registered for the ALA Annual Conference to participate in a preconference. To register only for a preconference using the online form; in section 4 “Registration Type,” select “Preconference and Special Events Only” then select the preconference in section 7 “Your Events.” When you check out, you will pay only for the preconference. You can also fill out a registration form. On page 6, skip Section I and complete Section II “Other Events.” Return by fax to 1-800-521-6017 or mail: ALA Registration and Housing Headquarters 568 Atrium Dr. Vernon Hills, IL 60061

http://tinyurl.com/LITAPrograms2010

The form will be available at the above link, on ALA Connect (http://connect.ala.org/node/76611), on LITABlog, and anywhere else we can embed it.

Once you submit your program proposal, the Program Planning Committee will be in touch with you by the middle of August, 2009. The deadline for submitting proposals to LITA for a program for Annual 2010 is July 31st, 2009.

Questions

If you have questions about anything relating to programs at ALA Annual, there is a public discussion board on ALA Connect designed just for that:

http://connect.ala.org/forum/6608

You do have to have an ALA Connect login, but you do not have to be an ALA member…you can register as a non-ALA member and still ask questions of the PPC. If you are an ALA member, you can login to Connect using your ALA login information.

If you have any problems that the Connect group doesn’t solve (or you have other issues), you can email me directly, Jason Griffey, at griffey at gmail.com or find me on Twitter at @griffey. But please try to use the forum first.

What Can You Submit?

I am well aware of the challenge inherent with planning technology programming a full year in advance of the conference. Feel free to be a general as you need to be in describing your program on first draft…we can always approach you and ask you for details as we move through the process. But you do not have to have every speaker booked, and every topic decided, to put forward a proposal. Have a topic area, a theme, an idea for where you think tech will be? Go with it.

Who Can Submit Proposals?

There is one more difference in the process this year that everyone should be aware of. In the past, all programs were driven by Committee and Interest Group submissions, with each group effectively submitting one program. While the PPC is happy to get submissions from these groups, it is NOT NECESSARY to be backed by a group in order for LITA PPC to examine and forward your proposal for a program.

If you, as an individual member, have a great idea and want to be considered, please put in a proposal. If you and two friends want to throw your hats in the ring, please do. If you aren’t a LITA or ALA member _at all_ and think you have the best idea for a program at ALA Annual in the history of technology, fill out the form!

Library Society of the World, Code4Lib, and other library groups: here’s your chance! Please participate and share with us! Let LITA give you a stage for your ideas. If you have an idea worth putting in front of 300 people at the largest gathering of librarians in the world, we are interested in giving you that opportunity.

Bring it.

Jason Griffey
Chair, LITA Program Planning Committee