Join us for keynote speaker, Sarah Houghton as she presents “Library Futures: Star Trek or Starbucks”, Sunday, Oct 7th at 10:30am EDT http://www.ustream.tv/channel/lita-forum (Recordings will be available via USTREAM after the event.)
View streaming video of the LITA National Forum 2012 keynote speakers:
- Eric Hellman on Friday, Oct 5th at 1pm EDT
- Ben Shneiderman on Saturday, Oct 6th at 9am EDT
- Sarah Houghton on Sunday, Oct 6th at 10:30am EDT
At http://www.ustream.tv/channel/lita-forum (Recordings will be available via USTREAM after the event.)
Also, check out photos of the forum via the Flickr group Pix4LITA
LITA and the Association for Library Collections &Technical Services (ALCTS) , with the support of Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), divisions of the American Library Association, are pleased to announce the formation of the ALCTS/LITA Metadata Standards Committee.
The ALCTS/LITA Metadata Standards Committee will play a leadership role in the creation and development of metadata standards for bibliographic information. The Committee will review and evaluate proposed standards; recommend approval of standards in conformity with ALA policy; establish a mechanism for the continuing review of standards (including the monitoring of further development); provide commentary on the content of various implementations of standards to concerned agencies; and maintain liaison with concerned units within ALA and relevant outside agencies.
The Metadata Standards Committee will begin its work at the Midwinter Meeting of the American Library Association, January 2013. While composition of the committee is still under discussion, membership will likely include equal numbers of voting members appointed by ALCTS and LITA and a voting liaison member appointed by RUSA. The committee will actively seek input from many groups and communities of practice in its work.
Having formed this new committee to spearhead participation in developing a wide range of applicable metadata standards, the three ALA divisions have also voted to disband the ALCTS/LITA/RUSA Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information (MARBI) Committee, as of June 30, 2013. After June 2013, the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/advisory2.html) is expected to continue to advise the Library of Congress on MARC development. While there will no longer be MARBI involvement with MAC, other ALA representatives and liaisons as noted on the MAC roster will continue to advise LC about MARC. If a major issue related to MARC requires the attention of a voting ALA body, the issue may be brought to the new ALCTS/LITA Metadata Standards Committee. MARC, however, is not expected to be the prevailing focus of the new ALCTS/LITA committee.
For the past several decades, MARBI has played a critical role in improving library metadata, particularly the MARC formats. ALCTS, LITA, and RUSA thank all those who have contributed to MARBI’s many accomplishments. We look forward to working with the metadata community broadly in developing and monitoring current and emerging metadata standards.
LITA President 2012/13
The LITA Program Planning Committee is now accepting innovative and creative proposals for the 2013 Annual American Library Association Conference. We’re looking for full day pre-conferences and 90 minute conference presentations on technology in libraries–use of, new ideas for, and trends. Last year we received 95 proposals and we’re excited about all of your new ideas to share with us.
Changes from last year!!
- Due to changes announced in June by the ALA Conference Committee – DS comments, all divisions are limited to accepting 20 programs each next summer.
- All programs will be 90 minutes, located in the convention center, and will be recorded.
- All proposal submissions will need to choose a Conference Track. Please see Appendix A in the Roadmap here (http://connect.ala.org/node/178761) for more details.
- Vendors wishing to submit a proposal should partner with a library representative who is using the product. The library/librarian should submit the proposal.
*When/Where is the Conference?*
2013 Annual ALA Conference, Chicago, IL: June 27-July 2, 2013
*What kind of topics are we looking for? *
We’re looking for programs that can scale to other libraries, inspire technological change and adoption, or go above and beyond the every day.
Successful topics in the past have included Data Management Services, Responsive Web Design, and Homegrown Technology Tools.
*When are proposals due? *
August 24, 2012
*How I do submit a proposal? *
Fill out this form
Program descriptions should be 75 words or less.
*When will I have an answer? *
The committee will be reviewing proposals after August 24, final decisions will be made in September.
*Do I have to be a member of ALA/LITA/an IG/a committee?*
No! We welcome proposals from anyone who feels they have something to offer regarding library technology. Unfortunately, we are not able to provide financial support for speakers. Because of the limited number of programs, LITA IGs and Committees will receive preference where two equally well written programs are submitted. Presenters may be asked to combine programs or work with an IG/Committee where similar topics have been proposed.
*Got another question?*
Please feel free to email me (email@example.com) and the group will figure it out.
At yesterday’s meeting, the Board spent time crafting a new vision statement for LITA. We would LOVE your feedback on this before we finalize it on Monday afternoon, in the form of comments below, tweets, photos, whatever! If you’re in Anaheim this weekend, buttonhole one of your Board members in the hallway–look for our light blue “LITA Board of Directors” badge ribbons. We want to hear from you! If you provide feedback online, please tag with #litavision so we can keep track.
“LITA builds a community of professionals, thinkers, doers and makers who foster innovation and leadership in library technology.”
Ready, set, go!
The June issue of Information Technology and Libraries, available at:
Issue contents are listed below. To receive automatic notifications of future issues, please subscribe to ITAL here:
Suggestions and feedback are always welcome: please send to Bob Gerrity, ITAL Editor, at gerrityr (at) gmail.com.
Information Technology and Libraries
Volume 31, Number 2 (June 2012)
President’s Message: Year in Review–Open Everything
Editorial Board Thoughts: Doesn’t Work
Tudor Groza, AAstrand Grimnes, Siegfried Handschuh
Reference Information Extraction and Processing Using Conditional Random Fields
Fostering both the creation and the linking of data with the scope of supporting the growth of the Linked Data Web requires us to improve the acquisition and extraction mechanisms of the underlying semantic metadata. This is particularly important for the scientific publishing domain, where currently most of the datasets are being created in an author-driven, manual manner. In addition, such datasets capture only fragments of the complete metadata, omitting usually, important elements such as the references, although they represent valuable information. In this paper we present an approach that aims at dealing with this aspect of extraction and processing of reference information. The experimental evaluation shows that, currently, our solution handles very well diverse types of reference format, thus making it usable for, or adaptableto, any area of scientific publishing.
Heather Hessel and Janet Fransen
Resource Discovery: Comparative Survey Results on Two Catalog Interfaces
Like many libraries, the University of Minnesota Libraries-Twin Cities now offers a next-generation catalog alongside a traditional online public access catalog (OPAC). One year after the launch of its new platform as the default catalog, usage data for the OPAC remained relatively high, and anecdotal comments raised questions. In response, the libraries conducted surveys that covered topics such as perceptions of success, known-item searching, preferred search environments, and desirable resourcetypes. Results show distinct differences in the behavior of faculty, graduate student, and undergraduate survey respondents, and between library staff and non-library staff respondents. Both quantitative and qualitative data inform the analysis and conclusions.
Kimberly D. Pendell and Michael S. Bowman
Usability Study of a Library’s Mobile Website: An Example from Portland State University
To discover how a newly developed library mobile website performed across a variety of devices, the authors used a hybrid field and laboratory methodology to conduct a usability test of the website. Twelve student participants were recruited and selected according to phone type. Results revealed a wide array of errors attributed to site design, wireless network connections, as well as phone hardware and software. This study provides an example methodology for testing library mobile websites, identifies issues associated with mobile websites, and provides recommendations for improving the user experience.
Practical Limits to the Scope of Digital Preservation
This paper examines factors that limit the ability of institutions to digitally preserve the cultural heritage of the modern era. The author takes a wide-ranging approach to shed light on limitations to the scope of digital preservation. The author finds that technological limitations to digital preservation have been addressed but still exist, and that non-technical aspects—access, selection, law, and finances—move into the foreground as technological limitations recede. The author proposes a nested model of constraints to the scope of digital preservation and concludes that costs are digital preservation’s most pervasive limitation.
Public Library Computer Waiting Queues: Alternatives to the First-Come-First-Served Strategy
This paper summarizes the results of a simulation of alternative queuing strategies for a public library computer sign-up system. Using computer usage data gathered from a public library, the performance of these various queuing strategies is compared in terms of the distribution of user wait times. The consequences of partitioning a pool of public computers are illustrated as are the potential benefits of prioritizing users in the waiting queue according to the amount of computer time they desire.
Angela Dresselhaus and Flora Shrode
Mobile Technologies: Do Students Use Mobile Technologies in Their Academic Lives and are Librarians Ready to Meet this Challenge
The authors report on two surveys and offer an introductory plan that librarians may use to begin implementing mobile access to selected library databases and services. Results from the first survey helped us to gain insight into where students at Utah State University (USU) in Logan, Utah, stand regarding their use of mobile devices for academic activities in general and their desire for access to library services and resources in particular. A second survey, conducted with librarians, gave us an idea of the extent to which responding libraries offer mobile access, their future plans for mobile implementation, and their opinions about whether and how mobile technologies may be useful to library patrons. In the last segment of the paper, we outline steps librarians can take as they “go mobile.”
Eva Dodsworth and Andrew Nicholson
Academic Uses of Google Earth and Google Maps in a Library Setting http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/1848
Over the last several years, Google Earth and Google Maps have been adopted by many academic institutions as academic research and mapping tools. The authors were interested in discovering how popular the Google mapping products are in the academic library setting. A survey was conducted to establish the mapping products’ popularity, and type of use in an academic library setting. Results show that over 90 percent of the respondents use Google Earth and Google Maps either to help answer research questions, to create and access finding aids, for instructional purposes or for promotion and marketing. The authors recommend expanding the mapping product’s user base to include all reference and liaison librarians.
New vacancy listings are posted weekly on Wednesday at approximately 11:00 a.m. Central Time. They appear under New This Week and under the appropriate regional listing. Postings remain on the LITA Job Site for a minimum of four weeks.
New This Week
Visit the LITA Job Site for more available jobs and for information on submitting a job posting.
The LITA Executive Committee spring meeting, held Monday, March 19, 2012 from 1:00 to 5:00 and Tuesday, March 20 from 1:00 to 4:00 CDT, was intended to be an online meeting, open to the public. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties with web conferencing software, the meeting is instead being conducted as a conference call.
We appreciate the LITA membership’s patience as we work to find a solution for future LITA governance meetings that will allow for member participation. The meeting agenda and documents are posted in the LITA Executive Committee Connect Group in the 2012 LITA-Executive-Committee-Spring-Meeting folder; look for Minutes from the meeting to posted publicly in the LITA Executive Committee Connect Group within the coming weeks.
Please leave a comment or contact the LITA office, lita (at) ala.org, with any questions you may have.
With the help of some great LITA member input, I’ve put together a list of interview questions for the LITA President candidates in the upcoming ALA Election, March 19-April 27. I’ve asked the Director candidates to respond to these same questions. I hope this helps you make an informed decision among these outstanding candidates.
What is LITA?
LITA is the technology division of “the oldest, largest, and most influential library association in the world.” Structurally, this is what sets LITA apart from all of the other organizations, communities, and conferences that serve those of us who are committed to libraries and to efficient and innovative uses of technology. LITA’s status within ALA means we are in a unique position, and have a unique responsibility, to encourage libraries and ALA to make wise decisions about technology and to use technology wisely when making non-technical decisions.
LITA is also an impressive assembly of people who work in and in behalf of libraries. Meeting many of you in person and following many others’ work online, as well as learning more about the people we have elected to LITA’s board, has made me eager to participate in its governance.
LITA has the best members anywhere, but it’s struggled with retention. How will you make the members feel supported by, and connected to, LITA?
When you’re given an opportunity to do work that matters and results in something tangible, you develop a sense of ownership and loyalty toward the entity that provided you with that opportunity. You also make the world a marginally better place, and you’re happier for it.
The board’s responsibility is to help LITA allocate its resources effectively, and its members’ energy and expertise are unquestionably its most valuable. There are innumerable ways in which each of us has the capacity to change libraries for the better. The more of that LITA helps us do, the more likely we’ll be to renew our memberships and recruit additional members to join us.
If you could focus on one effort during your time as LITA Director, what would that be? What one thing most needs your attention?
Two words, but it’s one effort: simplicity and transparency. That’s what makes anything more accessible, and LITA is no exception.
I think two of the most famous maxims about simplicity apply: We need to focus on making LITA as simple as possible (though no simpler), and we need to focus on explaining LITA simply (because if we can’t, it means we don’t really understand it). We also need to be willing to provide that simple explanation to anyone who’s interested in hearing it.
Given the current financial conditions, many LITA members are unable to travel to conferences. What are your views on the use of technology to enable virtual attendance to various LITA meetings and functions?
Short answer: I’m 100% in favor of enabling virtual attendance.
Real answer: I think our individual financial resources and our interest in virtual participation are separate issues, and I think it’s important to see it that way. For one thing, if you conflate these ideas then it’s almost impossible not to create a tiered membership that views virtual attendance as a sort of adjunct to “real” participation. As a librarian, I’m committed to obviating this kind of tiering, and as a technologist I love finding ways to help people get the most out of every mode of communication, including online and face-to-face.
What new collaborative opportunities between LITA and other divisions or round tables would you like to see happen?
What I would most like is for LITA to provide more opportunities for collaborative opportunities, for LITA to become the library world equivalent of Silicon Valley. We have an enormous capacity and inclination for collaborating effectively in unexpected ways. My goal is for LITA to provide the freedom and the resources that nurture the kind of activities I mentioned above, those intersections of librarianship and technology that ultimately help to make the world a better place.
For more about Brett, see his LITA election page.