In exchange for the discounted registration, students will assist the LITA organizers and the Forum presenters with the on-site operations for the Forum. This year’s theme is “The Cloud & the Crowd.” We are anticipating an attendance of 400-500 decision makers and implementers of new information technologies in libraries.

The selected students will be expected to attend the full LITA National Forum, Friday noon through Sunday noon, but not the preconferences on Thursday and Friday. You will be assigned a variety of duties, but will be able to attend the Forum programs, which include 3 keynote sessions, approximately 30 concurrent sessions, and 12 poster presentations.

The student rate is $175 – half the regular registration rate for LITA members. This rate includes a Friday night reception at the hotel, continental breakfasts, and Saturday lunch.

To apply for the student registration rate, please provide the following information:

1) Complete contact information including email address,
2) The name of the school you are attending, and
3) 150 word (or less) statement on why you want to attend the LITA National Forum

Please send this information no later than September 10, 2010 to lita@ala.org, with LITA Forum Student Registration Request in the subject line.

Those selected for the student rate will be notified no later than September 15, 2010.

Keynote sessions anchor the event and include speakers Amy Bruckman, Roy Tennant and Ross Singer. More than 30 concurrent sessions and 10 poster sessions provide a wealth of practical information on a wide range of topics. Two preconference workshops, “Redesigning a Website Using Information Architecture Principles,” presented by Jenny Emanuel of the University of Illinois, and “Virtualize IT: Laying the Foundation for the Library of the Future,” presented by Maurice York of North Carolina State University, are also available.

Corporate sponsors of the LITA Forum help to bring programming and networking opportunities to attendees. LITA gratefully acknowledges the support of Boopsie, OCLC, Ex Libris, Serials Solutions and Ristech. An opening reception will be held Friday night to showcase sponsors and provide great networking and camaraderie for attendees. Other networking opportunities include Saturday lunch, continental breakfasts and refreshment breaks, as well as Saturday evening no-host dinner groups organized by LITA leaders.

Registration is limited to 500. For more information, visit www.lita.org/forum.

Chapel Hill – Patrick Mullin, interim associate university librarian for collections and services at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, will retire July 30, after a professional career spanning 37 years.

Mullin joined the library staff in 1987 as systems librarian. He subsequently headed the Systems Department before becoming an associate university librarian with responsibility for systems, access services and systems, and then technical services and systems. Since March, he has served on an interim basis as associate university librarian for collections and services. During his tenure, he oversaw several comprehensive system migrations, as well as a complete reorganization of the library’s technical service operations in 2008.

Mullin has been especially active with association and consortial activities. He was president in 2005-06 of the Library & Information Technology Association (LITA) of the American Library Association, and was a member of the LITA Board of Directors and its Executive Committee from 2003 to 2007. He chaired the LITA 2001 and 2002 National Forum Program planning committees and has held leadership positions with the Association of College & Research Libraries and the Data Research Users’ Group.

From 1988 to 1991, concurrent with his responsibilities at UNC, he was interim director of the Triangle Research Libraries Network (TRLN), a collaborative organization of the libraries at UNC, Duke University, North Carolina Central University, and North Carolina State University. For this service and numerous other contributions, he was recognized by TRLN in 2000 for his “extraordinary service and leadership and for outstanding contributions promoting cooperation among libraries.”

Mullin received a B.A. in history from the University of Notre Dame and an M.A. in history from Purdue University. His M.L.S. is from the University of Kentucky. Mullin began his professional career as the special collections librarian at Marietta College, in Marietta, Ohio. He subsequently spent ten years in various positions with OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., in Dublin, Ohio, before coming to UNC.

http://www.lib.unc.edu/blogs/news/index.php/2010/07/pat-mullin-retirement/

Judith Panitch
Director of Library Communications
University Library
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Keynote Sessions include Amy Bruckman of the Georgia Institute of presenting How Wikipedia Really Works, and What This Means for the Nature of “Truth”, Roy Tennant of OCLC Research will present Using the Cloud to Please the Crowd, and Ross Singer of Talis Information will present The Linked Library Data Cloud: it’s time to stop thinking and start linking.

In addition to concurrent and poster sessions, two preconference workshops will be offered. Starting Thursday afternoon and concluding Friday morning, Jenny Emanuel of University of Illinois will present Redesigning a Website Using Information Architecture Principles. The workshop will focus on strategies systems staff and public services librarians can utilize to inform each other about information architecture practices in order to create and maintain a library web site. Additionally, Maurice York of North Carolina State University will present Virtualize IT: Laying the Foundation for the Library of the Future, exploring how to create a holistic virtualization strategy with a vision towards creating the library spaces and services of the future, including technology selection, cost, design, deployment, and support.

Corporate sponsors of the LITA Forum help bring programming and networking opportunities to attendees. We gratefully acknowledge the support of OCLC, Ex Libris, Boopsie, Serials Solutions and Ristech.

Registration is limited to 500 in order to preserve the advantages of a small conference. Networking opportunities, one of the small conference advantages, are an important part of the Forum. Take advantage of the Friday evening reception and sponsor showcase, Saturday evening networking dinners and meals and breaks throughout the Forum to get to know LITA leaders, Forum speakers, sponsors and peers.

1. Next Gen Library Catalogs by Marshall Breeding
2. Mobile Technology and Libraries by Jason Griffey
3. Microblogging and Lifestreaming in Libraries by Robin Hastings
4. Library Videos and Webcasts by Sean Robinson
5. Wikis for Libraries by Lauren Pressley
6. Technology Training in Libraries by Sarah Houghton-Jan
7. A Social Networking Primer for Libraries by Cliff Landis
8. Library Camps and Unconferences by Steve Lawson
9. Gaming in Libraries by Kelly Czarnecki
10. Effective Blogging for Libraries, by Connie Crosby

LITA members receive a discount on The Tech Set and all Neal-Schuman publications.

This full-day workshop presents best practices for writing for the web within the context of academic and public library websites. The format is lecture style, followed by critique sessions that examine how successful sites implement best practices. Participants will revise web copy and receive feedback on their work during the workshop and will leave the workshop with quick fixes they can apply to their site immediately as well as strategies for tackling long range projects that will enhance the quality of their library website. In this workshop, participants will learn how to critique current web content for immediate improvement, write quality web copy from scratch, identify content areas that require significant revision, assess the “findability” of important features or important library content and create a style guide so that content is uniform and meets standards across the site. The intended audience should be familiar with publishing content on library websites, either as a web designer or as a writer.

Brenda Reeb is director of the Business & Government Information Library at the University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries. In addition to her work as a business subject librarian, she began practicing usability testing methods in 2001 at the University of Rochester. Her usability experience includes developing web applications for academic and public libraries, commercial vendors and nonprofit organizations. She has worked with undergraduate students, adults and children. She speaks regionally and nationally on user-centered design and usability testing on library digital projects. She received a Master of Science degree from Simmons College in 1991.

LITA Regional Institutes are one-day workshops on technology-related topics. Taught by experts and presented throughout the country, they reach beyond ALA Conference locations to bring you high quality continuing education. LITA licenses institute to organizations and would like to hear from potential hosts. Please contact LITA if you would like more information.

Cuddy has served as a member of the LITA Board of Directors and the LITA Executive Committee. She has experience in programming, having served on the LITA National Forum Program Planning Committee, and in governance, having served as the Bylaws Committee chair and Board parliamentarian. “LITA members are innovators and leaders, and I feel very privileged to lead such a diverse group of librarians and library professionals. I look forward to developing methods to communicate the value of technology innovation for LITA members and for librarians at large. I will also work to cultivate LITA membership and create new opportunities for members’ professional growth,” said Cuddy.

This year LITA elected Adriene Lim, associate university librarian, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, as LITA Councilor for a three year term. Newly elected Board Directors, who also will serve for three years, are Cindi Trainor, coordinator, Research and Instructional Services, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, and Jason Griffey, head of Library Information, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Lupton Library, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

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!

~John Blyberg
~Lorcan Dempsey
~Jason Griffey
~Monique Sendze
~Cindi Trainor
~Joan Frye Williams

The session is moderated by Gregg Silvis, chair of the Top Tech Trends committee.

Watch below or visit ustream for the archived video.

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

As with last year, the Program Planning Committee is taking all proposals electronically through the form below. Deadline? July 31st, 2010. Get your proposals in when you get back from ALA 2010!

Here is how the LITA Board would like to proceed.

1. The LITA Strategic Plan has been posted to ALA Connect http://connect.ala.org/node/105818. Members are encouraged to review the new LITA Strategic Plan and post your feedback to ALA Connect by Friday, June 25th.

2. The last 45-60 minutes of the Saturday LITA Board Meeting will be devoted to the LITA Strategic Plan. The Strategic Planning session of the LITA Board Meeting will be held in the Convention Center room 204A, Saturday, June 26 at approximately 11:30-12:15.  The LITA Board welcomes LITA members to the meeting if they wish to provide feedback in person (if you can’t make the meeting please provide feedback in ALA Connect http://connect.ala.org/node/105818). During the Strategic Planning session at the LITA Board meeting we will also identify which strategies we want to tackle in the next 18 months and assign those strategies to the appropriate committees, interest groups and task forces. The LITA Board will then work with the committees, interest groups and task forces to create action plans on how those groups plan to accomplish the strategy.

3. The LITA Board has asked the committees and interest groups to fill out and submit their completed Action Plans and submit them to the LITA Board two weeks prior to the Midwinter Meeting in January 2011. Board members will be available to assist the committees, interest groups and task forces in the completion of the Action Plans.

4. During the LITA Board session at the ALA Midwinter Meeting 2011, the LITA Board will review the submitted Action Plans to make sure all strategies that were identified as priorities in next 18 months are accounted for and if not how to proceed.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Michelle Frisque
President, Library & Information Technology Association

1. ISO/DIS 30300, Information and documentation–Management system for records–Fundamentals and vocabulary.

“This International Standard establishes the objectives for using a Management System for Records (MSR), provides principles for an MSR, describes a process approach and specifies roles for top management. It also defines terms and definitions applicable to the ISO 30300 series of International Standards.”

2. ISO/DIS 30301, Information and documentation — Management system for records — Requirements

“This Standard specifies requirements for a Management Systems for Records (MSR) to support an organization in the achievement of its mandate, mission, strategy and goals through the development and implementation of a records policy and objectives and the measurement and monitoring of performance.”

If these standards receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, they can go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

As is usual with ISO standards, the documents are not available openly but must be requested through Cindy. Your request, sent to HSLcindy@buffalo.edu, must include a statement that you are an ALA member. Please also copy your request to me at metadata.maven@gmail.com, so that I can track LITA interest.

Deadline for comments concerning both ballots are due to Cindy by Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

1. TC46/SC9 New Work Item Proposal Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies – Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.

“This ballot is to approve a new work item for Part 2 of ISO 25964, which will deal with thesauri and other types of vocabulary that are commonly used for information retrieval. Part 1 of ISO 25964 is a merger and revision of two existing ISO standards — ISO 2788, Documentation — Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri, and ISO 5964, Documentation — Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. The whole of Part 2 will cover new ground not previously covered in any international standard. A working draft of Part 2 is included with the proposal. It is proposed that the same working group currently developing Part 1 will also develop Part 2. (They are the developers of the working draft.) … This part of ISO 25964 deals with thesauri and other types of vocabulary that are commonly used for information retrieval. It describes, compares and contrasts the elements and features of these vocabularies that are implicated when interoperability is needed. It gives recommendations for the establishment and maintenance of mappings between multiple thesauri, or between thesauri and other types of vocabularies.”

From Cindy: “The U.S. representative on that working group is Marcia Zeng. If anyone would like to nominate someone else to also work on the project, please include the name and contact information in your comments.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is Friday, July 9, 2010.

2. New project to revise ISO 11620:2008, Information and documentation-Library performance indicators.

“This ballot is to approve a new project to revise ISO 11620:2008 … the revision is proposed due to recent updates in related standards, both nationally and internationally, and to address new developments in digital library services.”

From Cindy. “If we vote to approve this standard, we need to identify a U.S. expert for the working group. If anyone would like to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate, please include the name and contact information in your comments.”

The deadline for comments to Cindy is Friday, Aug. 6, 2010.

3. A new project to develop a new TC46/SC8 standard on Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries.

“The proposed standard is intended to complement the existing set of standards for statistics and quality measures in libraries and information services. The intent is to define and describe methods for assessing and measuring the impact of libraries and library services. Though the methodology for assessing impact will be the main issue, a selection of tested “impact indicators” for specified services shall be added.”

From Cindy: “If we vote to approve this standard, we need to identify a U.S. expert for the working group. If anyone would like to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate, please include the name and contact information in your comments.”

The deadline for comments to Cindy is Friday, Aug. 6, 2010.

As is usual with ISO standards, the documents are not available openly but must be requested through Cindy. Your request, sent to HSLcindy@buffalo.edu, must include a statement that you are an ALA member. Please also copy your request to me at metadata.maven@gmail.com, so that I can track LITA interest.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

1. ISO/DIS 27730, Information and documentation — International standard collection identifier (ISCI)

“This International Standard establishes the specifications for the International Standard Collection Identifier (ISCI) as a unique international identification system for each collection, fond and (archival) series, and part(s) of collections, fonds and series. This International Standard establishes the specifications for the structure of an identifier and promotes the use of the identifier with regard to identifying systems that already exist. It also gives a list of recommended metadata elements that describe a collection. If this standard receives 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC9, it can go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is Monday, Sept. 20, 2010.

2. Liaison ballot for New Work Item proposal for Language resources management – Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX)

“This ballot is for a new work item proposal to develop a standard on Language resources management. Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX) defines an XML formalism for describing how language-processing tools segment text (e.g., into sentences or paragraphs) based on a series of sequentially applied pattern (regular expression)-based rules. In addition to enhancing interoperability between tools such as computer-aided translation, SRX would also allow the definition of standard language- or country-specific rules.” NISO Note: Although not explicitly called out in the proposal, this standard could potentially be useful in Knowledge Organization Systems (classification, thesaurus, ontology) work, for example, interoperability between multilingual thesauri. This is a liaison ballot from TC37 Terminology and other language and content resources / SC4 Language resource management.”

From Cindy: “NISO can only submit a vote recommendation and any comments. We can, however, nominate an expert to work on this project (if approved). If there is interest in applying this standard to Knowledge Organization Systems, it is strongly recommended that someone from the NISO community participate in the standard’s development, as it is unlikely that the experts coming from the TC37 community will have an understanding of that viewpoint. If you wish to nominate an expert, please provide the name and contact information in your comments.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is Monday, Sept. 20, 2010.

As is usual with ISO ballots, ALA recommends a voting position to NISO but does not vote directly. Since the reference document is in a password-protected area of the NISO web site, ALA members must contact Cindy for a copy. Cindy can be contacted directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu and requests must include confirmation of ALA membership. Please copy me on the request (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so I can track LITA interest.

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

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.

One week before the conference, check the Showcase page for links to author bios and to actually view the presentations prior to the Showcase!  Presenters won’t be giving their presentation at ALA, but rather you’ll have an opportunity to get an overview and engage in small group conversation with presenters and other attendees.

Topics:

• Libraries MUST Have A New Electronic Content Access and Distribution Infrastructure  (Michael Porter)
• User Research on a Shoestring (Erin White and Susan Teague-Rector)
• Information Overload & Personal Information Management (Bohyun Kim)
• iPad and Tablet computers (David Lee King)
• Teaching with Twitter (Ellen Filgo)
• Qrcodes & Mobile Knowledge Networks (Bonnie Rosalen and Kelly Sattler)

This will be an expansion of LITA’s current standards initiatives which includes the work of the Standards Interest Group and the Standard’s Coordinator.

Charge:
To explore and recommend strategies and initiatives LITA can implement to become more active in the creation and adoption of new technology related standards that align with the library community. Propose an organizational structure that will support and sustain LITA’s increased involvement in the standards arena both within ALA and beyond.

To summarize the task force needs to determine:

• which standard organizations LITA should participate in examples include NISO, ISO, W3C, etc.
• how LITA can become actively involved in each of the identified organizations
• what kind of support LITA members would need to increase their involvement in standards creation
• how this new initiative can be sustained in the LITA organizational structure

Time Frame:
The task force should submit their final report before the ALA Midwinter Meeting in 2011.  A preliminary report should be submitted to the LITA Executive Board by October 15th, 2010.

Members:
A big thank you to the following members who have agreed to serve on this Task Force. They are:

• Yan Han, Chair
• Todd Carpenter
• Margaret Hazel
• Janel White
• George Fray
• Jennifer Hawkins
• Diane Hillman, LITA Standards Coordinator
• Colby Riggs, LITA OITP Representative
• David Nutty, current chair LITA Technology and Access
• Elena Soltau, incoming chair LITA Technology and Access
• Judy Jeng, co-chair Standards Interest Group
• Mona Couts, LITA Board Liaison

1. Systematic Review: ISO 9230:2007, Determination of price indexes for print and electronic media purchased by libraries.

“This International Standard specifies a method for the determination of price indexes relating to the prices of print and electronic media acquired by libraries. It is not meant for calculating a price index of the national media production. The media included are restricted to books, serials and databases. This second edition has been expanded to cover electronic as well as printed books and serials, and electronic databases.”

2. Systematic Review: ISO 15706-2:2007, International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN)–Part 2: Version identifier

“This part of ISO 15706 establishes a voluntary system for the identification of versions of audiovisual works and other content derived from or closely related to an audiovisual work. It is based on the International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN) system defined in ISO 15706. An ISAN combined with the version segment specified in Clause 4 of this part of ISO 15706 constitutes an ISAN version identifier, hereinafter referred to as a V-ISAN. A V-ISAN is a registered, globally unique identifier for versions of an audiovisual work and related content.”

As usual, Cindy can provide access to the relevant documents only to ALA members interested in providing comment on the standards—please contact her directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (please copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com so I can track LITA interest).

Deadline for comments to Cindy on both reviews is: Aug. 25, 2010.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

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.

There are some great topics in the running, but we need your help to pick the top ones. VOTE today!

You can also suggest a topic that’s not on the list. It can be anything related to libraries and emerging technology, from social media to discovery platforms to open-source tools to using tech tools in new or innovative ways. Use your imagination!

Also, if you are interested in presenting on a topic yourself, please indicate that in the comments and you will be contacted with details following  the voting.

Don’t forget to VOTE by Friday, May 14, 2010.

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

1. Liaison ballot for ISO/FDIS 29383, Terminology policies — Development and implementation.

“This International Standard provides policy makers in governments, administration, non-profit and commercial organizations with guidelines and a methodology for the development and implementation of a comprehensive policy or strategy concerning the planning and management of terminology. This International Standard is designed for policy makers working in different environments, from language planning to for-profit companies.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is May 18, 2010 .

2. ISO/NP 14641-1 , Electronic archiving – Specifications concerning the design and the operation of an information system for electronic information preservation.

This is a short turn-around ballot to provide comments for a liaison new work item proposal. Deadline for comments to Cindy is May 11, 2010.

“This proposal is to develop a standard providing a set of technical specifications and organizational policies to be implemented for capture, archival and access of Electronically Stored Information (ESI); ensuring legibility, integrity and traceability of this information for the duration of their preservation and use. This standard is applicable to permanent archives and therefore does not refer to systems in which users have the ability to substitute or alter ESI after capture.”

Since these are liaison ballots, NISO can only “recommend” a U.S. vote and provide comments. Feedback from ALA members will be provided to NISO, who will review and consider our feedback along with that received from numerous other voting members. Cindy can provide access to the documents only to ALA members—please contact her directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (please copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com so I can track LITA interest).

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Colleen Cuddy has been elected as 2010 LITA President-Elect; Jason Griffey and Cindi Trainor have been elected to serve 3 year terms as LITA Directors-at-large; Adriene Lim has been elected as Councilor.

In addition, the following LITA members have been elected to ALA Council: Michael Porter, Lauren Pressley, and Patrick Sweeney.

Visit the LITA web site for more information.

“This standard provides generic advice on how to create content of classification systems and how to express that content in multilingual environments. It primarily specifies the factors that need to be considered when creating and populating a classification system that will be used in diverse linguistic environments. These factors include the specification of principles for incorporating internationalization aspects into classification systems, and maintaining and using those aspects for the structuring of activities, products, services, agents, and other entities of a company or organization.”

Cindy is looking for feedback from ALA members on the topic of whether ALA believes that NISO should approve or disapprove the standard. Any ALA member who wishes to see a copy of the draft standard for the purpose of offering comments prior to the deadline should contact Cindy directly (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu). To save time (yours and Cindy’s), please include a statement in your message to her that you ARE a current ALA member, and please copy me on the message as well (metadata.maven@gmail.com).

Comments are due to Cindy by June 10, 2010.

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The first issue concerns a proposed change in scope for ISO TC46/SC11/WG11 – Risk identification and management for records.

The committee resolved to make this change at its meeting in October 2009 in Orlando, Florida because the project, ISO 13069 (N874) did not address the specific needs of the recordkeeping industry. The new scope, and the new standards proposed, fit better with the Management Systems for Records series of standards.

The earlier draft for this project was using the DRAMBORA repository audit method as the basis for the standard. ISO received a number of comments that the working draft was too repository-oriented and not records-oriented. This is one of the issues that the committee is trying to address in re-working the scope and starting fresh.

Cindy notes: “If any ALA member would like to see the full document in question (Decision to Establish a Subcommittee) OR **if you would like to volunteer or nominate someone for the working group,** (there is currently no US member on the group) please contact me directly at: hslcindy@buffalo.edu. If I hear nothing by this coming Friday, I will vote to agree to the new scope.”

The second issue concerns ISO/IEC/WD 27037 – Guidelines for identification, collection and/or acquisition and preservation of digital evidence.

From the working draft document:

“This International Standard provides guidelines for digital evidence management. It describes the processes of identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of potential digital evidence that may be of evidentiary value. The objective is to assist organizations in their disciplinary procedures, and to facilitate the exchange of potential digital evidence between jurisdictions. This standard deals with common situations encountered throughout the digital management process. The potential digital evidence may be sourced from any type of media, and refers to data that is already in a digital format. This International Standard does not attempt to cover the conversion of analog data into digital format.

The International Standard intends to provide guidance to those individuals responsible for the identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of potential digital evidence. These individuals include DEFRs, Digital Evidence Specialists, incident response specialists and forensic laboratory managers. This International Standard intends to inform decision-makers that need to determine the reliability of digital evidence presented to them. This International Standard can be adopted and used by organizations needing to collect, protect, analyze and present potential digital evidence. It is relevant to policy-making bodies that create and evaluate procedures relating to digital evidence, often as part of a larger body of evidence.

Application of this International Standard requires compliance with national laws, rules and regulations. The International Standard outlines the minimum requirements necessary for enabling transfer of digital evidence between jurisdictions. It provides a framework for the development of processes and procedures for the identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence.”

The ballot in question is designed to solicit comments on a second working draft, not to enter a final vote on the standard. ALA members can contact Cindy at hslcindy@buffalo.edu to see the full (42 p.) document in question. Please confirm that you are a member of the American Library Association in your request.

As an additional note, Cynthia Hodgson from NISO is soliciting nominees to work on a revision to ISO 2789, International Library Statistics. If you would like to volunteer yourself or nominate someone else from the U.S. for this working group, please email Cynthia directly (chodgson@niso.org) no later than March 31, 2010. She will need full contact information.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

LITA’s Top Tech Trends session will also be part of PLA’s Virtual Conference, consisting of live programming chosen from among the highest rated in PLA’s session preference survey. The Virtual Conference will feature panel discussions, author interviews, interactive workshops, and chats with colleagues, all from the comfort of your computer.

• Check out the LITA web site for information on LITA Happy Hour and Exhibit Booth hours at PLA.
• Visit the PLA Conference site for more information and registration.

Dr. John Willinsky is Khosla Family Professor of Education at Stanford University and founder of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP). The Award committee chose Dr. Willinsky from a strong field of nominated leaders in the field.

The Public Knowledge Project (http://pkp.sfu.ca/) is dedicated to improving the scholarly and public quality of research. It operates through a partnership among the School of Education at Stanford University, the Simon Fraser University Library, the Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing at Simon Fraser University, and the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia.

The Award Committee was impressed with the impact that the Project has had in the open access movement and in providing the leading open source software for journal and conference management publishing. The public Knowledge Project has the enviable distinction of having moved beyond R&D to become a highly successful suite of open source software (Open Journals System – OJS; Open Conference System – OCS; PKP Metadata Harvester, and, soon, Open Monograph Press – OMP). Over five thousand scholarly journals, for instance, use the Open Journals System (OJS). Dr. Willinsky is a tireless advocate for the role of libraries in supporting academic publishing in new ways and for the values of open access.

“I’m honored and delighted to be the recipient of the 2010 Frederick G. Kilgour Award” said Dr. Willinsky. “It is one of the great pleasures of my life to be able to work so closely with a terrific team of academic librarians on the Project and it means a great deal to me to make a small contribution to the libraries that have meant so much to me and my work.”

Members of the 2010 LITA/OCLC Kilgour Award committee are: Patrick J. Mullin, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chair); Michael Gorman, university librarian emeritus, California State University, Fresno (past chair); Rene J. Erlandson, University of Nebraska at Omaha; William C. Kurt, University of Nevada – Reno; Andrea Tomlinson, Chemical Heritage Foundation; Mary Alice Ball, LITA board liaison; and Roy Tennant, OCLC liaison.

The purpose of the award is to recognize superior student writing and to enhance the professional development of students. The manuscript can be written on any aspect of libraries and information technology. Examples include digital libraries, metadata, authorization and authentication, electronic journals and electronic publishing, telecommunications, distributed systems and networks, computer security, intellectual property rights, technical standards, desktop applications, online catalogs and bibliographic systems, universal access to technology, library consortia and others.

At the time the unpublished manuscript is submitted, the applicant(s) must be enrolled in an ALA-accredited program in library and information studies at the masters or Ph.D. level.

To be eligible, applicants must follow the detailed guidelines and fill out the application form. Send the signed, completed forms by March 24, 2010, to Krista Clumpner, LITA/Ex Libris Student Writing Award Committee chair, Northern Michigan University, Lydia M. Olson Library, 1401 Presque Isle Ave., Marquette, MI 49855-5305. Submit the manuscript to Krista electronically at kclumpne@nmu.edu by March 24, 2010. The award will be presented at the LITA President’s Program during the 2010 ALA Annual Conference in Washington, DC.

New this year: submit a proposal for full 70 minute sessions OR “half” session slots as well as posters and preconferences.

The Committee is looking forward to reading your ideas on “The Cloud and the Crowd.”

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lita2010/

The 2010 Forum Planning Committee will review proposals starting in February 2010. You will be contacted about the status of your proposal by the end of March.

View the complete call for proposals for more info.

This ballot is in three parts:

Part 1: Overview and statement of principles
Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments
Part 3: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in business systems

As a reminder of the process: ALA is a voting member of NISO, while NISO is the official US voting member of other International Organization for Standardization (ISO) groups. On behalf of ALA, Cindy will be providing feedback to NISO as to whether ALA believes that NISO should approve or disapprove the standard. NISO staff will review and consider our feedback along with that received from numerous other voting members.

Because this is an ISO standard, access to the text for review is only available via Cindy (her email is: HSLcindy@buffalo.edu). Any ALA member who wishes to see a copy of the draft standard must explicitly state to Cindy that he/she is a current ALA member. (It helps me to provide activity information to LITA if you also copy me on your request at metadata.maven@gmail.com).

Deadline for comments to Cindy is Monday, May 17, 2010.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

At today’s LITA Town Meeting we are going to review the the existing strategies and identifying missing strategies. During the Town Meeting we will break out into groups and each group will review one section. Each group will then perform the following tasks for their assigned section:

1. add possible strategies that are missing
2. identify which strategies are worth developing and incorporating into the future strategic plan and give them a time frame (can be complete in 1 year, 2-3 years or 3+ years)
3. identify the possible strategies that are essential to the future of LITA

The groups will reconvene and share the results of their discussion. The rest of the board can provide their thoughts as well.

You can also follow us via Twitter using #litath.

The draft strategic plan is on ALA Connect.

1/24/10 update – Alas, we did not manage to capture the audio, as we had intended, but you can read an abridged summary of the conversation and see all the links shared during the session thanks to one of our committee members. The live blog, comments, and tweets tagged #alamwttt can be viewed below.

Join the LITA Top Technology Trends Committee on Sunday, January 17, 2010, 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. E.S.T. for a lively discussion of top technology trends in librarianship, with panelists Amanda Etches-Johnson, Jason Griffey, Joe Murphy, Lauren Pressley, and David Walker. The discussion will be moderated by Gregg Silvis.

Popout | RSS

Will you be in Boston? Join us in person: Boston Convention Center (BCEC-162A/B).

WHERE: Boston Convention Center (BCEC-162A/B), here at litablog.org, from ustream.tv, or via Twitter (#alamwttt) links to follow soon!
WHEN: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. E.S.T.

The start of the second decade of the century starts with five Trendsters who are new to the Top Tech Table:

Amanda Etches-Johnson, User Experience Librarian at McMaster University
Jason Griffey, Head of Library Information Technology at University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
Joe Murphy, Science Librarian, Yale University
Lauren Pressley, Instructional Design Librarian, Wake Forest University
David Walker, Web Services Librarian, California State University System

Join us for a fun and casual discussion, moderated by Gregg Silvis, LITA Top Tech Trends Committee chair.

1. ISO/FDIS 690, Information and documentation — Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources, ballot for final draft standard.

“This International Standard gives guidelines for the preparation of bibliographic references. It is applicable to bibliographic references and citations to all kinds of information resources, including but not limited to monographs, serials, contributions, patents, cartographic materials, electronic information resources (including computer software and databases), music, recorded sound, prints, photographs, graphic and audiovisual works, and moving images. It is not applicable to machine-parsable citations. It is also not applicable to legal citations, which have their own standards. This will be the third edition of the standard merging and revising ISO 690:1987 and ISO 690-2:1997.”

Also noted: “There were quite a few edits made between the previous draft and this one to address comments and particularly for consistency (especially in examples). Most of these were editorial, rather than substantive in nature. A link provided in the ballot references the final voting report for the previous draft, which includes a response to all of the comments. When voting and commenting keep in mind that at this final stage a “Yes” vote can only have editorial, non-substantive comments. If a sufficient number of Yes votes are obtained, the standard will proceed to publication.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Tuesday Jan. 12, 2010.

2. ISO/DIS 24616, Linguistic resources management — Multilingual information framework, liaison ballot.

“This standard describes a metamodel and data categories for a Multilingual information framework (MLIF) that provides a generic platform for modeling and managing multilingual information in various domains: localization, translation, multimedia, document management, digital library, and information or business modeling applications. MLIF provides a metamodel and a set of generic data categories for various application domains. MLIF also provides strategies for the interoperability and/or linking of models including, but not limited to: XLIFF, TMX, SMILText and ITS.”

This is a ballot for a standard developed by the ISO subcommittee on language resource management (TC37/SC4). As a liaison to this committee, we can only recommend a vote and supply comments. The US vote on this standard will be submitted by ASTM International, the U.S. administrator for this committee.

Deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Mar. 31, 2010.

3. The third announced item is a bit more complicated, and concerns the AFNOR Appeal of ISO/DIS 26324, Digital object identifier system.

This ballot is to obtain a US position on the question:
“Do you support the AFNOR appeal [for ISO/DIS 26324, Digital object identifier system] based on the information provided in document ISO/TC 46 N2232?” [Note: AFNOR is the French standards body -- equivalent to ANSI in the U.S.]

NISO is recommending a NO vote on this ballot. Todd Carpenter, Director of NISO, has announced the following:

“To help educate the community–both nationally and internationally–, NISO will be hosting an open teleconference on January 6th at 10:00 am EST with Norman Paskin (International DOI Foundation) and Brian Green (International ISBN Agency) to discuss the working group’s activities and the potential benefits to using the DOI in conjunction with other SC 9 identifiers.”

Cindy notes: “I have not yet received information from Todd about the open teleconference on Jan. 6, but such events are generally listed on NISO’s events page.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Jan. 6, 2010.

The standard in question, ISO/DIS 26324, is currently at ballot and can be accessed directly at this URL: http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/tc46ballots/ballot.php?id=139

In the absence of other recommendations, ALA will recommend that NISO vote NO on this appeal.

On behalf of ALA, Cindy will be providing feedback to NISO as to whether ALA believes that NISO should approve or disapprove the ballots or questions at issue. NISO staff will review and consider our feedback along with that received from numerous other voting members.

ALA members who wish to see a copy of the documents noted above for the purpose of offering comments prior to the deadline should contact Cindy directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. (If possible, copy me on requests as well — metadata.maven@gmail.com). Please be sure to let Cindy know that you ARE a current ALA member – she cannot send you a document without this assurance. Keep in mind that the holidays may delay responses, and be sure and make you requests for documents well before the deadlines.

Best wishes to all this holiday season!

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Capiz Bar

Inspired by the waterfront, the décor is awash with vibrant hues of blue and gold. At the bar enjoy a perfectly mixed martini, a freshly muddled mojito, classic drinks, local beers and wines and appetizers such as a salumi platter or creamy crab dip.

We have the area they call the library reserved for us.

Renaissance® Boston Waterfront Hotel
606 Congress Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
617-338-4111

In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. The first four standards are recommended for reaffirmation by NISO’s Content and Collection Management Topic Committee (Disclosure: I’m a member of that Committee). The last standard is recommended for reaffirmation by NISO’s Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee. When either committee has included some contextual information along with that recommendation, I’ve included it below.

NISO encourages us to provide comments with ALA’s vote that might provide the Topic Committees with additional information regarding use of the standards. The deadline for feedback to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) regarding these ballots is Jan. 6, 2010. Wouldn’t reading and commenting on one (or more) of these standards be a great thing to do for your community this holiday season?

1. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005, Scientific and Technical Reports – Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation.

URL for download: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-18-2005

2. ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005, Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies.

URL for download: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-19-2005

“This recommendation is made based on feedback of current use of this standard; the openness and availability of NISO standards; and because of the current activity in this area, particularly as relates to interoperability, with SKOS, and at the ISO level. At the ISO level, this standard relates to ISO 2788, Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri. There is also ISO 5864, Documentation — Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. There is currently work underway to merge these two standards, into a new revised ISO standard, ISO 25964-1, Information and documentation — Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies — Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval. This is currently at DIS ballot, to close March 26, 2010. There is also a part 2 being developed, Information and documentation — Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies — Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies. This is still in development.”

3. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005, Bibliographic References.

URL for download: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-29-2005

4. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.84-2005, Syntax for the Digital Object Identifier.

URL for download: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-84-2005

“This recommendation is made based on current activity related to this standard. At this time, the whole DOI system (syntax, resolution, metadata, and unifying infrastructures) is proceeding through ISO, with an expected publication in 2010. Following reaffirmation and upon finalization of the ISO effort, the Topic Committee will be studying the standard more closely to determine if revision might be needed for Z39.84. Feedback from the Z39.84 Maintenance Agency (the International DOI Foundation) regarding some changes needed to the standard has already been received. You are encouraged to provide comments with your vote that might provide the TC with additional information regarding needs for a revision or about current use of the standard. Please note that a revision can begin at any time following the reaffirmation of the current standard.”

5. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services.

URL for download: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-88-2004

I hope that some of you will take up the challenge here and take a new look at some of these standards and make comments to Cindy (feel free to start discussions on the LITA-L list about any concerns you might have).

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

“This part of ISO 3166 establishes codes that represent the current names of countries, dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical interest, on the basis of lists of country names obtained from the United Nations. It is intended for use in any application requiring the expression of current country names in coded form; it also includes basic guidelines for its implementation and maintenance.”

“This standard is managed differently from other ISO standards due to the ongoing changes to or additions of country codes. The maintenance agency regularly issues a newsletter with new or changed codes. Those codes are added to the standard’s country code database and become usable when the newsletter is issued. So it is not necessary to revise the standard just to incorporate those new codes. The main reason for voting for a revision would be if the “principles” for establishing the codes, as defined in the standard, need to be changed or updated. There is already a corrigendum (correction supplement) for the standard, which is also included as a reference to this ballot. If the standard were to be revised, these corrections would be merged to the revision. For more information on the ISO 3166-1 standard and how it is managed, see: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes.htm“

As usual, these ISO standards documents are not openly available, but ALA members can request documents for the purpose of review and comment from Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (please copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com). Please be sure to state explicitly that you ARE a current ALA member — Cindy cannot send you a document without this assurance.

Deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Monday, Feb. 15, 2010.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

1. Systematic Review, IS0 9706:1994, Paper for documents – Requirements for permanence.

“The purpose of this International Standard is to provide a means of specifying and identifying paper that, according to the present state of knowledge, has a high degree of permanence and is likely to undergo little or no change in properties that influence readability and handling when stored in a protected environment for long periods of time.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010.

2. IS0 11108:1996, Archival paper – Requirements for permanence and durability.

“This International Standard specifies the requirements for archival paper. It is applicable to unprinted papers intended for documents and publications required for permanent retention and frequent use. For these documents and publications, paper of high permanence and high durability is required.”

Deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010.

As usual, these ISO standards documents are not openly available, but ALA members can request documents for the purpose of review and comment from Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (please copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com). Be sure to state explicitly that you ARE a current ALA member — Cindy cannot send you a document without this assurance.

In the absence of other recommendations, ALA will recommend that NISO vote to confirm these standards. If you believe ALA should recommend another option, you must provide comments for Cindy to pass along with ALA’s recommendation.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Karen Coombs is presenting Creating Library Web Services: Mashups and APIs: del.icio.us subject guides, Flickr library displays, YouTube library orientation; with mashups and APIs, it’s easier to bring pieces of the web together with library data. Learn what an API is and what it does, the components of web services, how to build a mashup, how to work with PHP, and how to create web services for your library. Participants should be comfortable with HTML markup and have an interest in learning about web scripting and programming and are encouraged to bring a laptop for hands-on participation.

In addition, Brenda Reeb of the University of Rochester is presenting Writing for the Web:
Participants will learn how to present text and words on a webpage in ways that enhance findability and readability of webpage content. Participants will have the opportunity to receive feedback on writing during the workshop and critique web copy on sites selected by the presenter. Leave the workshop with quick-fixes you can apply to your site immediately as well as strategies for tackling long range projects that will enhance the quality of your library website.

Visit the ALA Midwinter Meeting registration page to register for these events.

Please note, you do not have to register for the ALA Midwinter Meeting in order to attend these workshops.

You may also add a workshop to your existing Midwinter registration by calling ALA Registration at 1-800-974-3084.

The first group of announcements has to do with special character sets and transliteration.

1. Systematic Review ISO 10754:1996, Extension of the Cyrillic alphabet coded character set for non-Slavic languages for bibliographic information interchange.

“This is version three of the standard that specifies a set of 93 graphic characters with their coded representations. It consists of a code table and a legend showing each graphic, its use and its name. Explanatory notes are also included. The character set is primarily intended for the interchange of information among data processing systems and within message transmission systems.”

The deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Monday, Feb. 22, 2010.

2. Systematic Review ISO 233-3:1999, Transliteration of Persian characters into Latin characters.

“This part of ISO 233 establishes a simplified system for the transliteration of Persian characters into Latin characters. This simplification of the stringent rules established by ISO 233:1984 is especially intended to facilitate the processing of bibliographic information (e.g. catalogues, indices, citations, etc.”

The deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Friday, Feb. 19, 2010.

3. Systematic Review IS0 9984:1996, Transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters.

“This International Standard establishes a system for the transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters in accordance with the principles of stringent conversion in order to permit international information exchange, particularly by electronic means.”

The deadline for comments to Cindy is no later than Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010.

ISO standards documents are not openly available, but ALA members can request documents for the purpose of review and comment from Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (please also copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com). Please be sure to state explicitly that you ARE a current ALA member — Cindy will not send you a document without this assurance.

In the absence of other recommendations, ALA will recommend that NISO vote to confirm these standards. If you believe ALA should recommend another option, you must provide comments for Cindy to pass along with ALA’s recommendation.

More announcements to come …

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Feedback welcome!

The first is for ISO/DIS 27729, International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI). The ISNI “… specifies the International Standard name identifier (ISNI) for the identification of public identities of parties; that is, the identities used publicly by parties involved throughout the media content industries in the creation, production, management, and content distribution chains.”

This standard could be of particular interest to those librarians interested in the future of external name files in the cataloging world and prospects for using non-library data.

The second ballot is for ISO/DIS 25964-1, Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies, Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval (Revision of ISO 2788:1986 and of ISO 5964:1985). The announcement says, in part:

“This part of ISO 25964 gives recommendations for the development and maintenance of thesauri intended for information retrieval applications. The document also provides a data model and recommended format for import and export of thesaurus data. This part of this International Standard applies to monolingual and multilingual thesauri.”

As usual, ALA doesn’t vote directly on these, but provides feedback to NISO for their vote (along with other NISO voting members).

Cindy is authorized to provide a draft to ALA members who wish to comment on either standard—she can be contacted directly via email at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Be sure to include in the message a statement that you are a current ALA member (and please also copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com, thanks!)

Comments on ISNI are due to Cindy by Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010, and for ISO/DIS 25964 are due by Friday, Mar. 5, 2010.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Enjoy the small version here, or, if you really want to see the HD, grab the large version here (warning: file is just over a gig in size).

The announcement states:

“This International Standard specifies the syntax, description and resolution functional components of the digital object identifier (DOI®) system, and the general principles for the creation, registration and administration of DOI names. This standard also describes how the DOI system can be used with existing ISO identification systems, including the provision of additional functionality (such as resolution) where this is not already available.”

Cindy points out that this may be our last opportunity to make substantive comments to this standard. If there is 100% approval, the standard can go directly to publication. Comments from ALA members can influence the NISO vote (ALA does not vote on ISO standards directly).

Cindy is authorized to provide a draft to ALA members who wish to comment—she can be contacted directly via email at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Be sure to include in the message a statement that you are a current ALA member (and please also copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com, thanks!) Comments are due to Cindy by Friday, Feb. 12, 2010.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

In any case, I hope you enjoy! The embed is to a web-friendly version, but we do have the HD version as well…at least until our hosting decides to kill us for the massive filesize (seriously, I plan to move these over to archive.org for permanent storage, but for now, go easy on the HD, please).

HD m4v download

Joan Lippincott

Liz Lawley

Keep an eye on these pages for video, coming as quickly as my little mac will render it.

David Weinberger

Joan Lippincott

I’ll apologize in advance for the delay on the video…we recorded the keynotes in 1080 HD, and I had forgotten how very, very long that takes to render down to web-watchable sizes.

So, watch this space over the next few days for the audio files of the LITA Forum 2009 Keynotes!

30+ presentations that have been posted online at ALA Connect.

Update: Link above corrected – was missing one number at the end, oops!

Not to mention: Liz Lawley’s Keynote address on Slideshare!

Let’s keep the discussion going!

As you can see, many have already begun.

• Pics of the conference on Flickr
• Vibrant conversation on Twitter
• (or better, an overview of Forum tweets by AL Inside Scoop)
• American Libraries on Cloud Computing
• ALA techsource reviewing Forum 2009
• OITP on

If you know of more – or have blogged about Forum yourself – please repost here, or send to jondblackburn @ gmail.com, and I will repost.

From the announcement:

“The scope of this International Standard is to present requirements when including resolvable persistent identifiers (PID) with references to and citations of language resources in documents as well as in language resources themselves. This standard addresses issues of persistence and granularity of references to resources, by first requiring that persistent references be implemented by using a PID framework and further imposing requirements on any PID frameworks used for this purpose.”

“Note that this standard makes reference to ISO 690-2 (bibliographic citations for electronic resources), which is in the process of revision and merger with 690-1. The standard at ballot also mentions its relationship to DOI, ARK, and PURL (among others). The ISO DOI System standard will be issued for a DIS ballot shortly.”

For the purposes of reviewing this standard at ballot (and only for that purpose), the draft versions of the new ISO 690 standard and the DOI system standard will be made available.

ALA members who wish to see a copy of the draft standard for the purpose of offering comments prior to the deadline (Jan. 11, 2010) should contact Cindy directly (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu). Please be sure to let her know explicitly in your message that you are a current ALA member. Please also copy me on your request (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so that I can keep track of interest of LITA members.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

There’s still time to register for the National Forum, October 1-4 in Salt Lake City! Don’t miss out on:

• Keynote speakers: Joan Lippincott, David Weinberger, and Liz Lawley.
• Preconferences: The Future of Mobile, presented by Jason Griffey and Accessibility Update: Section 508 and WCAG in a Library 2.0 World, presented by Nina McHale.
• Lightning Talks
• Sponsor Showcase

Visit the LITA Web site for more information on the Forum.

1. ISO/FDIS 16245, Boxes, file covers and other enclosures, made from cellulosic materials, for storage. This ballot is for the final draft standard, described thusly:

“This International Standard specifies requirements for boxes and file covers, made of cellulosic material, to be used for long term storage of documents on paper or parchment. It is applicable to boxes made of solid or corrugated board and to file covers made of paper or board. It can also be applicable to other types of enclosure for long-term storage such as cases, portfolios, tubes and envelopes made of cellulosic material. It is NOT applicable to storage of photographic materials.”

When commenting to Cindy keep in mind that at this final stage a “Yes” vote can only have editorial non-substantive comments. Cindy’s deadline for comments is Friday, Oct. 9, 2009. The draft is available from Cindy (you must be an ALA member and tell her so). Her email is: HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (please copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com so that we can keep track of interest from these announcements).

2. New Work Item (NWI) Proposal: Simplified natural language – Part 1: Basic concepts and general principles (simpL-1). This is a proposal from the liaison committee TC37/SC4 (Terminology and other language and content resources / Language resource management) for a new work item.

In the 3-page work item proposal, the scope of the proposed project is given as follows:

Basic concepts and general principles concerning simplified natural languages facilitate:
-Reducing ambiguity;
-Speeding up reading;
-Improving comprehension for people whose first language is not the language of the document at hand;
-Improving comprehension for people with different domain or application background;
-Making human translation and localization easier, faster and more cost effective;
-Computer-assisted translation and machine translation.

In addition these general rules and principles constitute a systematic approach that can make cross-language and cross-domain applications of simplified natural languages more effective.

Since this is a liaison ballot, NISO can provide only a vote “recommendation” and comments. ALA is also permitted to nominate an expert to participate on the WG, if the project is approved. If anyone would like to nominate someone, please include the name and contact information in your comments to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu). She can also provide the work item proposal to ALA members interested in providing comments. Cindy’s deadline for comments is Friday, Nov. 6, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Call for experts document available from:
http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/tc46sc8interest/download.php/2772/N274_Information_on_the_establishment_of_a_new.pdf

Original project description and justification available from:
http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/tc46ballots/members/standards/new160/manage/modify_document.php

Cindy notes: “If anyone knows an ALA member who has the expertise required to serve on this project and who would be willing to put in the necessary time/effort, please send me that individual’s name and contact information to forward to NISO. This will be a terrific opportunity for the right person!”

The initial meeting of the working group will be in early December, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

1. New Work Item: ISO/WD 32000-2, Document management — Portable document format: Part 2: PDF 2.0. This is a liaison ballot from TC171/SC2 to approve a new work item and the working draft for the standard. This part of the PDF standard will add new features to ISO 32000-1 including support for geospatial data to images, support SWF navigation for collections, adds general rich media annotation type, support for barcodes, adds PRC to list of supported 3D models, adds structure elements for MathML, and enhances the accessibility.

US TAG members may “recommend” a US vote and provide comments. We may also nominate an expert to participate on this project. If anyone is interested in working on this project, please indicate the name and contact information in your comments.

The deadline for feedback to Cindy is Friday, Sept. 11, 2009 (that’s today folks, sorry!)

2. ISO/CD 19005-2, Electronic document file format for long-term preservation — Part 2: (PDF/A-2). This is a liaison ballot, and the earliest, committee draft stage, and the best opportunity to get any substantive changes to the standard. This part of ISO 19005 extends the capabilities of PDF/A described in Part 1 of ISO 19005 and is based on PDF version 1.7 (as defined in ISO 32000-1) rather than PDF version 1.4 which is used as the basis of Part 1. The added capabilities provided by this part of ISO 19005 are through compliance with PDF version 1.7 and many of the features enabled by that version include: 1) Improvements to tagged PDF (for enhanced accessibility; 2) Compressed Object and XRef streams (for smaller file sizes; 3) PDF/A-compliant file attachments, portable collections and PDF packages; 4) Transparency; and 5) JPEG 2000 compression.

Deadline for ALA member comments to Cindy is Monday, Sept. 14, 2009.

3. ISO/CD 14289, Electronic document file format enhancement for accessibility (PDF/UA). This is another liaison ballot, as well as the best opportunity to get any substantive changes to the standard. The primary purpose of this International Standard is to define an implementation of ISO 32000-2, known as PDF/UA (Universal Accessibility) that provides a mechanism for representing electronic documents rendered in the PDF format in a manner that allows the file to be accessible. These goals are accomplished by identifying the set of PDF components that may be used, as well as restrictions on the form of their use, within conforming PDF/UA files. PDF/UA is intended as a companion standard, to be used in conjunction with ISO 32000, ISO 19005, ISO 15930, and other standards as may apply for the purpose of achieving accessibility.

Deadline for ALA member comments to Cindy is Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009.

4. ISO/CD 14641, Specifications concerning the design and the operation of an information system for electronic document preservation. This is again a liaison ballot and the earliest, committee draft stage, the best opportunity to get any substantive changes to the standard. This standard provides a set of technical specifications and organizational policies to be implemented for capture, archival and access of digital documents; ensuring legibility, integrity and traceability of these documents for the duration of their preservation and use. This standard is applicable to fixed-content documents and therefore does not refer to systems in which users have the ability to substitute or alter documents after capture.

Deadline for ALA member comments to Cindy is Friday, Sept. 25, 2009.

Since the reference documents for these standards are in a password protected area of the NISO web site, ALA members should request the document directly from Cindy, at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Please also copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so we can keep track of interest in these standards announcements.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The LITA National Forum, held October 1-4 in Salt Lake City, is a great educational opportunity for those involved in new and leading edge technologies in the library and information technology field; here are just a few reasons why this year’s National Forum is not to be missed:

• Dynamic keynote speakers, Joan Lippincott, David Weinberger, and Liz Lawley.
• Two full-day preconferences: The Future of Mobile, presented by Jason Griffey and Accessibility Update: Section 508 and WCAG in a Library 2.0 World, presented by Nina McHale.
• Many networking opportunities, including the informal Friday evening reception and Saturday evening networking dinners to get to know LITA leaders, Forum speakers, and peers.
• Two sessions of Lightning Talks on Friday and Saturday. Lightning talks are snappy presentations that are great fun for attendees and an opportunity for presenters to showcase late-breaking ideas, trends, and achievements.
• In addition, up to twelve sponsors will be on hand to discuss their latest products and services during the Sponsor Showcase.

Don’t take our word for it – see why LITA Past President Andrew Pace calls the Forum one of his favorite conferences.

Visit the LITA Web site for more information on the Forum.

Lightning talks are snappy presentations that are great fun for attendees and an opportunity for presenters to showcase late-breaking ideas, trends, and achievements. Speakers are strictly held to five minutes (we sound the gong at 4:59). There is a Q&A period for all speakers at the end.

Want to continue the conversations after the lightning talks? Sessions are conveniently scheduled right before Friday’s Vendor Showcase Reception and Saturday’s lunch.

Lightning talks are first-come, first-serve. We will assign the first 18 people who reply, and once these slots are full, the other names will go on a waiting list. We assume you’re registered for LITA Forum!
http://www.lita.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaevents/forum2009/registration.cfm

TO SIGN UP:

1. Send an email to kgs@esilibrary.com with your name, email, organization, title for your lightning talk, and preferred session (October 2 or October 3). Please put LITA Forum Lightning Talk in the subject of your message. Use the Conference Schedule to help you select your preferred session time.
http://www.lita.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaevents/forum2009/schedule.cfm

2. We will notify the lightning-talkers and the first few runners-up by September 15, 2009.

3. If your plans change, please let us know so we can reassign your slot!

BE SCHOOLED ON THE RULES:

1. LITA Forum attendees from companies are welcome to participate, but the content must relate to technology and libraries and should not be a sales pitch.

2. People who already have programs, papers, posters accepted at LITA Forum are requested to give others a chance (unless they are burning with a completely different idea they are absolutely dying to share).

3. These are quick, fun, low-barrier talks. Extensive slides and handouts are not required or expected. Remember, when the gong strikes, you’re outta there.

4. If you use slides, please bring them in a format compatible with MS PowerPoint on a thumb drive for loading onto the computer in the room during the break preceding the session (or load them to a slidesharing site and advise us of the URL). We will ensure that they are forwarded to the LITA office for inclusion on the Forum website.

Starr has served as a member of the LITA Board of Directors. She has experience in international relations having served on the LITA International Relations Committee and in various roles with the ALA International Relations Round Table. In addition to the IRC, Karen has served LITA on the Program Planning Committee and the Nominating Committee, “Creative change comes with long term investment, commitment, and patience. Every 10 years of the last 30, the library field has passed a milestone in its use of technology including online searching (1970s), CDROMs (1980s), and the Internet (1990s). Now we are involved with the digital world. Everyone is struggling with the sustainability of the structure we have and trying to take the next step into the future. We are not quite sure where that step will take us. The innovators and leaders of tomorrow are the LITA members of today. It is refreshing to work with a dynamic group on the national level who care, who want to define that future and who come together to work on what the big picture should look like. I look forward to the opportunity to work with LITA’s members to collaboratively implement the vision that sustains our country’s 21st century information infrastructure,” said Starr.

Newly elected board members, who will serve for three years, are Aaron W. Dobbs, Systems & Electronic Resources Librarian, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania; and Maurice York, Head, Information Technology, NCSU Libraries, North Carolina State University.

1. Systematic Review ISO 21127:2006, a ballot for the published standard, ISO 21127:2006, Information and documentation — A reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. This is the first edition of the standard that is intended to facilitate the exchange of information between cultural heritage institutions by defining a domain ontology for cultural heritage information. (Cindy’s deadline for comments is Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2009).

2. Systematic Review ISO 12083:1994, a ballot for the published standard, ISO 12083:1994, Information and documentation — Electronic manuscript preparation and markup. This is the first edition of the International Standard that presents four document type definitions and additional facilities conforming to ISO 8879, Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). (Cindy’s deadline for comments is Monday, Nov. 23, 2009).

3. Systematic Review ISO 2789:2006, a ballot for the published standard, ISO 2789:2006, Information and documentation — International library statistics. This is the 4th edition of the International Standard that specifies rules for the library and information services community on the collection and reporting of statistics for the purposes of international reporting. (Cindy’s deadline for comments is Friday, Nov. 20, 2009).

4. ISO/CD 13390, Records management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary. This is a new standard developed to be the basis of the framework for the ISO 30200 family of standards: Management System for Records. It describes fundamentals of a Management System for Records, which form the subject of the ISO 30200 family, and defines related terms. All other standards in the family use the vocabulary defined in this standard. (Cindy’s deadline for comments is Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009).

5. ISO/CD 13391, Management system for records – Requirements. This is a new standard that specifies requirements for a Management System for Records where an organizations needs to demonstrate its ability to create and control records from its business activities for as long as they are required. It is part of the ISO 30200 family of standards, which is being developed within the management system standards framework to be compatible and to share elements and methodology with other Management System Standards. (Cindy’s deadline for comments is Monday, Sept. 21, 2009).

Any ALA member who wishes to see a copy of the draft standards for the purpose of offering comments prior to the deadline may contact Cindy directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (I’d appreciate it if you’d copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com so I can keep track of interest). Please be sure to let Cindy know you are a current ALA member. In the absence of other recommendations, ALA will recommend that NISO vote to confirm the ISO standards noted above.

The remaining requests for comment are for two new proposed NISO work items:

1. Physical Delivery of Library Resources.
The goal of this work item is to develop a statement of best practices related to the delivery of library materials. To achieve this objective, this proposal is to convene a NISO Working Group to explore the problem and deliver a Recommended Practice document describing possible solutions and to implement an education and adoption plan for encouraging implementation of the solution(s). The proposal was approved by the Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee on July 24, 2009, and is now being sent to the NISO voting membership for agreement to begin a new work project and to elicit expressions of interest in participating in the work.
If you are interested in reviewing the proposal, you can access it via the following link:
http://www.niso.org/news/pr/view?item_key=e8326f4b6682b07a4cca85967a6cbb0808bf7723 or from the NISO homepage.

Deadline for your comments/feedback to Cindy is Friday, Aug. 21, 2009.

2. Standardized Markup for Journal Articles
The goal of this work item is to take the currently existing National Library of Medicine (NLM) Journal Archiving and Interchange Tag Suite version 3.0, the three journal article schemas, and the documentation and shepherd it through the NISO standardization process. The intent of this proposal is for the Tag Suite to be a NISO standard and each of the schemas to be a “sub-standard” or appendix to the Tag Suite standard. To achieve this objective, this proposal is to convene a NISO Working Group with the intention of proposing that the Tag Suite, as it currently stands, be accepted as a Draft Standard following a brief period of review within the group.
If you are interested in reviewing the proposal, you can access it via the following link:
http://www.niso.org/standards/ballots/#nlm> or from the NISO Homepage.

Deadline for your comments/feedback to Cindy is Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Keynote Sessions Feature Dynamic Speakers:

On Friday Joan Lippincott of Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) will kick off the Forum with her talk Mobile Technologies, Mobile Users: Will Libraries Mobilize? Lippincott will discuss what roles libraries can and should play in delivering content for mobile devices, developing services for mobile device users and configuring physical spaces to respond to their needs.

Saturday, David Weinberger will present Knowledge in the Age of Abundance. Weinberger will examine how our new connected age is one of abundant and ready access to knowledge and how this is bringing a change in the nature, shape, value and role of knowledge itself.

Liz Lawley of the Lab for Social Computing at the Rochester Institute of Technology will close the Forum on Sunday with Technical/Tangible/Social. Lawley’s talk will cover the growing importance of “social objects” in technology implementation, and how those objects serve as a focal point for cohesive social interactions.

Preconferences Offer In-Depth Examination of Topics:

Choose between two full-day workshops, spanning Thursday afternoon and Friday morning:
Jason Griffey of University of Tennessee, Chattanooga will present The Future of Mobile. The workshop will examine the future of mobile technologies and their impact on libraries, including how service models in libraries change with ubiquitous computing and how content delivery becomes different. Attendees will look at specific tools that are currently available that model the direction that mobile is moving.

Accessibility Update: Section 508 and WCAG in a Library 2.0 World, presented by Nina McHale of the University of Colorado, Denver will provide an introduction to Section 508 and WCAG Web accessibility guidelines and how they relate to online library tools. The workshop will include demonstrations of popular assistive technologies and guidelines for optimizing library resources to comply with Section 508 and WCAG.

Visit the LITA Web site for more information on the Forum including concurrent and poster sessions, travel and lodging, and complete Forum schedule.

Be sure to Connect with Forum participants on Facebook and the Forum wiki.

The EL program kicks off with a daylong session during the ALA Midwinter Meeting. Afterward, it grows and develops in an online learning and networking environment for six months. The program culminates with a poster session presentation to display the results of the project planning work of each group at the ALA Annual Conference.

LITA will sponsor 2 Emerging Leaders this year. LITA will contribute $1000 towards expenses ($500 for each conference). The LITA sponsored EL’s will also be paired with the LITA Vice President and will be appointed to a LITA Committee once they complete the EL program. Those interested in being sponsored by LITA, should check the LITA box on their application.

Sponsorship is not required for participation in the program. Anyone who is selected to participate in the program but not sponsored, will be expected to pay their own expenses.

Apply now for the 2010 class of Emerging Leaders. Deadline for submission of online application and all references is EXTENDED to AUGUST 7, 2009

You can find more information including requirements at the ALA Emerging Leader Program website.

Moderated by: Anne Houston

Date time place: Saturday July 11, 2009 from 10:30am – 12:00pm at McCormick Place South, S105 a-d

Sponsor: Reference User Services Association, Machine Assisted Reference Section   (RUSA MARS)

The first speaker was Stephanie Rosenblatt Education Librarian, California State University, Fullerton.

• once she had created her screencast (i.e. video) tutorials she began to wonder if her students were really learning. In the classroom she is interactive and uses various techniques to get her point across and yet it seemed like it was supposed to be okay that she only used one technique to get her point across in the video tutorial. She is looking for better pedagogical approaches to incorporate into the tutorials. She is still not sure how much learning they can support due to the medium.

Eric Frierson, Education and Political Science Librarian, University of Texas at Arlington

• His focus was creating a sense of community through screencasts.
• His University is using LibGuides for their subject Guides and although they find them very useful they are still very wordy. He has created a You Tube video that he places prominently in the top left hand corner of the LibGuides that is a basic hello and encouragement to contact if they still have questions. He wants them to know there is a human being behind all of those links.
• He is more interested in the placement of the screencasts than there construction.

Carmen Kazakoff-Lane, Head – Extension and Inter-Library Loans, Brandon University

• She was representing the Animated Tutorial Sharing (ANTS) project and talking about their collaborative uses.
• ANTS wants to collaborate across institutions by syndicating screencasts
• They disseminate their information through a wiki
• For better syndication they are now using blip.tv with a channel called LION: Library Information Literacy Online Network “Participants in this project agree to make these episodes openly available for others to link to, embed, share, download, or edit, provided the appropriate credit is assigned to the author”
• They are using blip.tv because it has better resolution than You Tube
• From the LION site you can share to FaceBook, embed videos into your blog, course management system or LibGuide. Basically they want you to be able to put them anywhere you think your users will be. You get the code and you can put it where you’d like.
• She recommended using embedr with this service you can take videos from any site such as You Tube, Vimeo or Daily Motion and embed them into a playlist that streams from their site into another for example a course management system.
• She mentioned that in 2009 You Tube will be doing HD videos which may make them a more viable service for the videos that need better definition

Mick Jacobsen- Skokie Public Library

• He had tips for better screencasts
• Patrons only want to know about resources when they know it will answer their question. With that in mind you may want to put their question into the name of the screencast for example “how to get an A on your next research paper” or “how to answer your medical questions”.
• Additionally he warns not to put jargon in your screencasts or titles. You want to answer their question in their language.
• Make your screencasts more interesting by telling a story instead of just giving information, take them on a journey.
• Understand that your screencast is not forever, our site and databases change and so will your videos.
• Try to put screencasts at a patrons point of need for example, adding them into subject guides.
• Two free screencasting tools he mentioned were: Jing which takes loading onto your computer and Screenjelly which does not need to be loaded on your computer but you do need a Twitter account.
• Keep your screencasts short. Anything that is unnecessary should be out of the video.
• Give the audience one way to get their answer not three. It is like giving directions to your house. If you need to convey three different ways then you need to make three different videos.
• He noted to look up the screencasts at Westlake Porter Public Library, Orange County Library System, Nashville Public Library , Enoch Pratt Free Library, Pierce County Library System .

Q&A Portion of the presentation

• One presenter mentioned that in MERLOT there are screencasts that have learning objects added to them where people can for example manipulate things on a screen for citation correction or other ways to practice what they have learned.
• One presenter brought out the JUST DO IT philosophy. Just get something made and put it out there. Look at what others have done to help you but go ahead and make the world’s worst screen cast. That is better then nothing just get to learning.  Making = learning.
• Evaluation of screencasts should not be forgotten. Can put a link at the end of the screencast that goes to a survey that allows you to find out what works and what doesn’t work.

Mobile Websites and Applications

This session was presented by Cody Hanson of University of Minnesota Libraries. Check out his presentation: The Library as Any Place. He discussed the creation of a mobile interface to the library’s catalog through a simple PHP application. The library targeted iPhone and iPod touch initially, because it is about the most forgiving of mobile browsers. This makes it a good place to start, and the group can move on to other cases later. Currently, the site includes a web search interface for MnCat; it defaults to a search using the Primo interface, but also provides the ability to use a classic search. There is also a search for scholarly databases, which conducts an article search using MetaLib X-Server. Using MetaLib allowed them to create their own interfaces for search and search results, since most databases are not optimized for mobile. The site also allows users to see what items are available and what is on hold.

After building the website, they also started creating a native app for the iPhone. Currently, the application displays the mobile website using web views, which allows them to hide the browser chrome and use their own buttons. There was a question as to whether creating an app from the mobile site adds value: if it’s just a skinned website, why not just view the website in the phone’s browser? Someone asked if there are any problems authenticating users; Cody said they currently use central authentication. The authentication site isn’t mobile optimized but works on iPhone. As we move forward into mobile applications–and, in general, for other tech–my question is: why is each individual library developing a mobile site/app instead of having a customizable, general application from the OPAC companies that can then be deployed across multiple schools/locations?

Information mashups with government information

This session was presented by Rebecca Blakeley of McNeese State University Library. Check out her presentation: Gov Info Mashups. The session started off with a definition of mashups, which are web pages or apps that combine raw data from multiple locations to provide a new service. They often use APIs, rss feeds, and XML to bring multiple types of data together. For government information, data can be from data.gov, which includes information from NASA, EPA, BLS, and many other organizations. The current hot trend is the bailout, with many applications that allow the user to click on a map and see where and how money has been used. For example, the Sunlight Foundation’s Sunlight Labs had an Apps for America contest with the goal of apps that use data from Sunlight and their partners to makes Congress more accountable, interactive and transparent. They currently have an Apps for America 2 contest and apps submitted must use data from data.gov.

Having so much information available means that libraries can team up with tech people to bring new data to patrons. Libraries can’t always rely on everyone else to do it – if you have an idea about something your local patrons can use, talk about it, and you may find someone willing to work with you on it. It will also be interesting to see how the census data will be available, and whether it can be easily used in mashups–but keep in mind that some of the data won’t be comparable to the same 2000 data.

Some examples of government information mashups include:

• recovery.gov, which shows where stimulus money is being used
• opencongress.org, which provides government docs and information; it tries to make it fun and social, allowing the ability to support your favorite bill on Facebook, comment on bills, and aggregate bills by bills most blogged, bills in the news, etc.
• The Right-to-Know Network, which provides access to environmental information

A group has been created on ALA Connect to explore this: Government Information Interest Group. The session also briefly touched on online tools for creating your own mashups, such as Yahoo! Pipes and MapBuilder.

Cloud Computing

This session was presented by Matt Hamilton of Boulder Public Library and Cindi Trainor of Eastern Kentucky University Libraries. Check out their presentation: Libraries in the Cloud: Starting the Conversation.

Cloud computing is power drawn from the network rather than embedded in the device. An analogous example is plugging into a grid for electricity versus generating your own. Some of the benefits of cloud computing include configuring the types of resources you have access to, and the ability to pull power on-demand, as needed. One participant asked how this was different from a thin-client model. Cloud computing model is very similar; thin client is about the same thing in that you could either host a private cloud within your own data center or draw power from the web. For example, Userful and Open Sense use a thin client model. Cloud computing is like virtualization: creating a virtual machine from a pool of available large resources.

A big benefit of cloud computing is that an organization doesn’t have to have an on-site data center. Some cloud services which are focused on libraries include WorldCat and OCLC Copy Cataloging. There are available cloud computing applications, such as Google Applications. However, with cloud computing, organizations must be concerned with privacy and access. If your data lives elsewhere, you need to know the terms of service and consider the different implications. It must be treated as a risk to manage: figure out what you want to do, and then figure out the implications. Recently there has been the Cloud Computing Manifesto, which discusses the importance of security, open data standards, and application portability; libraries should be involved in these discussions.

Google Wave

This session was presented by Jason Griffey of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Check out his presentation: How Google Wave Changes Everything. To start off, Jason said that taking a look at the Google Wave video will help his presentation make more sense. Google Wave was announced about 3 months ago by Google and is designed by the people who did Google Maps. The idea is that it would be email if it was designed today, since the two main ways we communicate online (email and IM) were designed 30 or more years ago. Google Wave is both a synchronous and asynchronous and both a public and private way to communicate.

For example: Joe and I need to decide where to go to dinner. Get on Google Wave and ask a question. If we’re online, it pops up like a chat, if not it presents like email. It’s flexibly synchronous/asynchronous, depending on if people are online or not. He said this would literally be real time, showing as you type–in my opinion, that could get awkward! To continue the example, someone else could be brought into the wave – they can see what others have done, can interact with what has already happened. Sort of like collaborative documents. There’s also the ability to rewind – version it back to see what was added/removed before, and alter it again. Also the ability to replay back and forth in real time, to see the information flow happening.

Why do libraries care?

• Google has said it will be open source. Won’t have to be used at Google – could use it locally.
• Waves are embeddable objects. Don’t have to use a client to interact with the information flow.
• Imagine a reference wave, monitored by all reference libraries. If they’re online, interact in real time, if not interact as if email. Students ask questions publically and get responses depending on who is online in real time.
• Multiple libraries can manage the system because the protocol is open. Monitor same wave, collaborative wave reference happening transparently.
• Architecture is pluggable – write plug-ins. Write robots that will parse and interact with the information being given to them.
• Common question: “I’m a freshman in Sociology 102. I need resources in….” Write robot that does keywords – automatically return social resources (subject guide, databases, encyclopedia). Identify subject, push to database, return subject.
• Parse name of the book, send research results.

I think in particular the automatic results idea is great, but why do we have to wait for Google Wave to do that? Can’t we make bots that monitor IM and parse questions automatically, make a monitored email address or a twitterbot that automatically answers these kinds of questions? The hard part isn’t the automation — it’s the parsing of the questions and the keywords. It’s not clear to me that Google Wave will do more than just the automation and availability aspects, which means that the hard part — parsing — could be done now, and hooked up to currently available interactions such as IM or email without waiting for Google Wave.

Summary

I’m really glad that I was able to attend the Social Software Showcase, because technology–and using new technology to make information easier to access and use–is exciting to me. I like the point that Rebecca made, which is if you talk about ideas and think about new ways to present information, you might be able to find someone to put something together for you. Even if you’re not a programmer, applications like Yahoo! Pipes can make mashups easier–and why do we need to wait for other companies to innovate for us, such as through Google Wave, when we might be able to do some of those things already?

Thanks to LITA’s BIGWIG for all the time and effort they put into organizing this, and to the presenters for putting together great presentations. To see all of the presentations, visit the Social Software Showcase page.

This is the audio capture from the Ultimate Debate 2009, from ALA Annual in Chicago. Great discussion, good questions, and an awesome program put on by IRSIG this year (and, frankly, every year).

From the ballot text;

“An ISIL identifies an organization, i.e. a library, an archive, a museum or a related organization, or one of its subordinate units, which is responsible for an action or service in an informational environment (e.g. creation of machine-readable information), throughout its life. It can be used to identify the originator or holder of a resource (e.g. library material or collection in an archive). It is intended to have a minimum impact on already existing systems.”

As usual, ALA is not voting on the standard itself but rather is providing feedback to NISO as to whether to approve or disapprove the standard. NISO will review and consider this feedback prior to submitting the US vote. Permission is granted by the American National Standards Institute to reproduce this International Standard for the purpose of review and comment related to the preparation of a US position, PROVIDED THIS NOTICE IS INCLUDED. ALL OTHER RIGHTS ARE RESERVED.

Any ALA member wishing to see a copy of this draft standard for the purpose of offering comments prior to the deadline may contact Cindy directly (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) — please be sure to let her know you are an ALA member. I’d appreciate it if you’d also copy me on your request, so we know how much interest there is in this standard (metadata.maven@gmail.com). Your deadline for comments to Cindy is Monday, Aug. 24, 2009.

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

You can find the slides, handout, and follow-up Q&A at the ALA Presentations page.

All of the panelists touched on some common themes:

• Tracking – Electronic data is easier to manage and parse for usage statistics. Even if registration or logging isn’t in the cards, a small database or even spreadsheet is a big help for keeping staff administrative tasks organized. Well-structured data is a great way to glean statistics for LSTA justifications and the like
• Apprehension- whether it be staff with doubts about difficulty and usefulness, or a perception that patrons would not buy into an online component as much as hoped. The consensus was that online registration/tracking was easy-to-use and productive, and that staff bought in after a short while
• Paper – It is possible to eliminate paper registration and logs altogether with an all-online program; however, the panelists still had varying degrees of paper usage. In this sense, online programs are additive to the traditional SRP. As Irmgarde Brown said:
  

  It’s not about either/or, it’s about ‘and.’

  Paper provides access to those without computers or computer skills, and log printouts are a simple way to manage redeeming prizes

• Scale – commercial products can be a poor organizational fit for both small and large applications. Small libraries cannot afford the software, while consortia may have needs greater than the scale of some commercial designs. Luckily, homebrew systems proved possible and capable in both scenarios, though with sacrifices of features or support

Altogether, the introduction of online components correlated to increased participation at all four panelists’ libraries/systems. Among the many benefits:

• Resource sharing – one or more libraries can invest in an online Summer Reading Program and spread the benefit to other libraries
• Less paper and other overhead
• Simplicity lends to choice in programming language and DBMS. Choices ranged from ColdFusion to PHP, and from Access to MySQL
• Ease and incentive for increased community partnership (ie. Maureen Ambrosino’s example of cooperating with the Boston Bruins to the satisfaction of all)

I was surprised by one positive side-effect of the efficient online systems: possible non-summer programs:
Short video explaining Winter Reading Program

This was an excellent session, and the supplemental materials are great. I’m grateful that
Carole D. Fiore of Training and Library Consulting
Eric Sisler from Westminster Public Library
Maureen Ambrosino of Central Massachusetts Regional Library System
Rosanne Cerny from Queens Library
Irmgarde Brown of Harford County Public Library
put such effort into informing us about their impressive successes.

I will follow up with an Online Summer Reading round-up for those interested in the various software packages available. In the mean time, I’d be happy to track down answers to any questions in the comments. Likewise, if you know of some great free or commercial OSRP software packages, please also make note of them in the comments as well. Thanks!

This program was presented as a debate, with Roy posing questions for the panel.

The room for this presentation was huge, and the room was packed with librarians!  We were seated shoulder to shoulder, with nary an open chair in the room.

Roy’s first question was “What does Library 2.0 mean to you?”  Here are the panelists’ responses:

Cindi:

• it’s not only a set of tools, but also a philosophy
• helps create space that welcome participation by users

Michael:

• it’s what libraries do to fulfill our roles as community and information anchors
• it’s a plethora of tools that can help libraries become more relevant

Meredith:

• it’s about being user-focused
• seeing the creation of library services as an iterative process
• constantly assessing services to make sure they meet the needs of our customers

David:

• not just new tools, but also…
• a new philosophy, a new way to do things

Michael:

• let’s not focus on brands (like Twitter or wikis), lets focus on what these tools can do for us
• Michael read some of the tweets he received as replies to his tweet http://twitter.com/libraryman/status/2617070771

Second question: what is a Library 2.0 technology?

Meredith:

• technology that allows us to build communities and communicate with each other
• technology that allows us to form relationships with people who are bits and bytes online

David:

• a way to move content from one place to another, like RSS
• “made to connect me to you”
• “if the technology works, it doesn’t get in the way”

Michael:

• a problem with 2.0 technology is “it’s hard to know what to use”
• it’s hard to track the success of your institution’s success with 2.0 tools, in the report formats libraries typically have to submit
• Michael is working to put together something to help libraries track the success of their use of 2.0 tools

David:

• stated we have stats from blogs, and can see the number of Facebook friends/fans
• some of these tools will track stats, show engagement — but these tools cost money; he mentioned Radian6 as one of these for-fee tools

Cindi:

• how can you track engagement, how can you track the impact your library has on a person’s life?

Meredith:

• it’s important to look at how to do an assessment of 2.0 tool usage at your library

Michael:

• reports to supervisors are primarily numbers; anecdotal evidence and emotional impact is difficult to report

Third question: what are some of the barriers you to see to libraries adopting some of these Library 2.0 tools?

Meredith:

• “we’re entrusting our knowledge our hard work to 3rd party sites that might not be there in the future”
• companies that exist now, might not in the future
• she cited ma.gnolia as an example of a social bookmarking service that’s no longer in existence
• libraries aren’t planning for how they can have backup copies of their stuff
• they need to ask if the company is stable, and if their info will still be there a couple of years from now

Cindi:

• don’t be afraid to experiment, but take a risk-management approach

David:

• it’s very easy to set up a free blog, but the bigger barrier is you need to immerse yourself in a tool to learn it
• having a person in charge of a 2.0 tool, but when that person leaves, what to do about the orphaned blog or wiki that’s left behind

Michael:

• concerned that libraries are being usurped by commercial companies
• libraries don’t have the money to compete with content and delivery suppliers like NetFlix
• the relevance of libraries is at risk
• as an industry, we need to do something to not get cut out of the market share

Meredith:

• time is a challenge — we’re being asked to do new stuff, but none of our other tasks have been taken away
• just because they’re free tools doesn’t mean we don’t need to plan for them

Michael:

• “use these tools to show how awesome you are” and share that with your community

Meredith:

• admins should be gviing staff time to staff to do these things at work, not on your own personal time

Fourth question: Can we point to some successes of 2.0 technologies and principles?

Michael:

• Lester Public Library in Two Rivers, WI uses Flickr
• photos of library events and community events

Meredith:

• Chad Boeninger of Ohio University
• Business Blog and Biz Wiki
• when he knows an assignment is coming up, he puts the info up on his blog
• a photo of his face is all over his blog and wiki, so students recognize him and know they can apporoach him

• Skokie PL’s SkokieNet: a community-driven online portal for people who live in and care about Skokie

Roy:

• John Blyberg of Darien (CT) Library

Cindi:

• pockets of innovation within a library are using Flickr, wikis, etc.

David:

• encouraged supervisors to “let your staff go with it”

Meredith:

• “these technogies are not a magic wand”
• avoid technolust; stick with the tools that will give your customers what they need

Michael:

• if you stick with your mssion and role in your community, you can use 2.0 tools to support it

Cindi:

• it’s important to have awareness of the tools so when a need arises, you have a 2.0 tool that can fit a situation

Program Description: In today’s complex information environment, users have come to expect evaluative information and interactive capabilities when searching for information resources. A panel of experts will address various aspects of providing links to external information in library catalogs, implementing user-contributed functionality, and using computational data to support bibliographic control.

Next Generation Metadata

Renee Register, OCLC Senior Product Manager, spoke about the OCLC’s Next Generation Cataloging pilot.

Renee focused on metadata and its relevancy and visibility, in particular information produced early in the cycle by publishers for which there is no mechanism for later update. Renee explained that the time and money spent on metadata continues to rise, but that large gaps in the chain increase cost and create redundancies. Her vision for metadata is “an environment where metadata is exchanged seamlessly between different stakeholder systems” and “reduced cost of metadata creation, transformation and exchange for all participants”. To move in this direction, Renee argues that systems should homogenize data sharing, encourage interoperability, and encourage data flow that allows metadata to “grow up” over time–that is, participate in the process as data changes, from data before the publication is available through an item’s release process.

Renee then explained the “Next Generation” work, which is a seemingly complicated process involving conversion of publisher metadata from ONIX to MARC that is enriched in WorldCat, then converted back and supplied back to the publisher. The process was made to seem even more complicated with the graphic showing the process, but the essential purpose is to allow publishers to share their information earlier, and for catalogers to add value through terminology and authority work that then becomes visible in the publisher’s environment. OCLC is currently running a pilot of this process, and wants to incorporate additional information. They are working with publishers, vendors, libraries, and other partners on this project.

The Public Library OPAC – Not Resuscitating. Re-Thinking.

Beth Jefferson, president of BiblioCommons, discussed seven principles used in re-thinking and improving public library catalogs:

• Less is More. Information scarcity led to the idea that more resources are better, but users want to find the best choice. To provide a better search experience, two levels of search are done: one search on author, subject, and title, which will meet 99% of search needs; then access to a second search in all fields, displaying how many results would be available.
• Putting metadata to work where users expect it. Use authority information to inform type-ahead search. Enhance metadata – if 60% of the collection is fiction, subject headings don’t help. Let users add tags.
• Enabling “true” discovery. Number one searches: dvd, dvds. Among top 16 searches, 9 are format searches. For certain words, try treating the search box as a format search.
• Making it “truly” social. Adding reviews isn’t social, it’s individual. Add a way for users to comment, see others’ collections, follow users.
• It’s a space – not a database. See what the closest copy is to me, don’t want a long list of every copy (but can make that available with “view details” button).
• Making it practical – and personal. Create a username in place of a barcode. Most people want to keep track, so allow them to. See comments by trusted sources to inform decisions. If a user has added tags, button should be “edit tags” not “add tags”; similar with holds, “remove hold” if already have one. Allow users to use the collection to build conversations.

Lipstick on a Dinosaur? Keeping an Old-Gen OPAC “With It” in a Next-Gen World.

David Flaxbart from University of Texas Austin talked about adding features to an out-of-the-box system to make it more applicable to the needs of today’s users. In discussing the name of his presentation, he explained: “It’s hard to put lipstick on a dinosaur. Someone also might ask ‘Why bother? What are you doing this for?’” He described the work they did to customize their Millenium OPAC, including adding cover image (first Syndetics, then Amazon), Google Books info, SFX, links to e-books, local review blog link, and LibraryThing information (tag cloud, recommended books, other editions). Some concern about page loading times due to amount of information being displayed, but mostly okay since it’s just for one item on the full record view. Also talked about paths into the OPAC: new books list, search on external pages, and browser widgets. Assumptions going forward are that system is in perpetual beta, that it’s a bridge to the next system, that people won’t like change but won’t really remember the change later.

Installing an OPAC Discovery Layer

Ellen Safley from University of Texas Dallas discussed adding Encore to the library’s OPAC. The goal is to make a system that users don’t need training to use, allowing users to find things rather than search for them. The method for this include losing the jargon (“holdings”, acronyms, abbreviations), making it simple (show one box), and improving navigation by adding layers and facets. The basics are one box without drop downs, so there’s no confusion about type of search. The results are based on relevancy, and tag clouds/facets make it possible for searches to be refined. The catalog needs to speak English, not acronym: books instead of PRINTED MATL. To focus on the customer, add a spellchecker (one that doesn’t have an attitude): Did you mean ___? Show electronic books and print books together, link with other search results, provide more visuals. There are some issues in including all this information: complicated to display print and electronic titles together, some elements can be changed while others cannot, new system versions ay change functionality. The system continues to evolve, but working on such a project brings library units together.

My thoughts

It’s amazing to me that each individual library, even in the same university system (UT), goes through this level of extra work to customize something out of the box. Why don’t we have more open source, component sharing? After you’ve done the work for your library, share your whole, step-by-step process with someone else, so they don’t have to replicate work. I heard someone as I was leaving the session say something along the lines of, “I would love to use Encore, but I can’t afford it and we don’t have the tech resources to implement it.” I don’t know how expensive Encore is, but is it cheaper to hire a programmer who could make changes to an open source catalog (and then make those changes available to other libraries), than it is to have opac + discovery layer + changes? Either way, we need to share more–and not just principles and basics, but details and code.

Jonathan Blackburn

Jonathan Blackburn was formerly employed as the “web guy” at Florida State University (FSU). He currently is the Product Analyst at OCLC. Blackburn explained why a content management system (CMS) would be useful to create library websites: They’re good for collaboration and efficiency, though they can result in an incoherent representation due to collaborative work. CMSs matter to libraries because they can leverage library staff and potentially reduce costs.

Uses and applications of a CMS include a public-facing website, staff intranet, digital library (asset management), and one-off projects (events, programs). If your library wants to try out a CMS for the first time, events or programs are a great excuse to see if a CMS is the right fit for your organization.

CMSs create unique challenges for libraries. They need to allow for different “types” of content (hours, events, databases), to be usable for people at different levels of expertise (different comfort levels in regards to technology), to be interoperable between systems (catalog, course management software, etc.), and to remain consistent for institutional branding or navigation (to follow guidelines set by the parent institution).

Jonathan Blackburn went on to illustrate FSU’s use of dynamic content on their website and their switch to content management systems.

• 2005: Static HTML and custom PHP/MySQL
• 2006: Drupal and custom PHP/MySQL
• 2007: Redesign and MediaWiki subject guides
• 2008: Staff intranet (Drupal)
• 2009: Migration to Drupal (unfinished) and LibGuides

He offers 6 lessons from his experience with content management systems at FSU:

1. Start with a content management plan: who does what, when, and how often (and how are they accountable)
2. Get staff input: find out what your content creators want
3. Secure support from administration: if they’re not behind it, it will never happen
4. Choose right tool(s) for the job: if it doesn’t meet the organization needs, don’t use it, no matter how “cool” it is
5. Be flexible and embrace workarounds
6. Outsource when possible

Lastly, Blackburn offers future opportunities for content management systems.

• Library “profiles”: CMSs built specifically for libraries and their needs
• Hosted solutions: “putting stuff in the cloud”
• Interoperability: “glue that can tie stuff together”

Eli Neiburger

Eli Neiburger is the Associate Director, IT and Product Development at Ann Arbor District Library (AADL). The AADL website first adopted Drupal in 2005, and in 2007, the library added SOPAC (Social Online Public Access Catalog) to their CMS.

During the presentation, we delved into the website, exploring all the neat things it can do. Because of SOPAC, their catalog allows the users to search as well as tag, rate, and review the items displayed (among other things). It’s completely customizable, unlike traditional catalog interfaces.

AADL’s Drupal implementation allows the library employees to make “rich posts” that display automatically resized images and linked text on the library website without having to know how to use HTML or CSS.

The library has a collection of recipes, Ann Arbor Cooks, that is fully searchable and browsable. It also has a blog that is seamlessly integrated into the collection (if you scroll down the main page).

Additionally, they have scanned 100 years of Ann Arbor City Council Minutes that is also fully searchable and browsable.

They even have an AADL Image Gallery where library users can upload their pictures of the town, new or old. If a patron would like to contribute a photo but does not have a way to digitize it, the library will scan it and upload it for them.

AADL uses the CMS to keep a Video Collection (an alternative URL for this is aadl.tv) of library events and programs.

As if all that isn’t awesome enough, AADL keeps a Game Tournament Leaderboard that allows users to create profiles and link to their stats. They also have a site devoted to the game tournament events at gtsystem.org.

The usability and richness of the site creates extended value for the items therein. For instance, the programs and events that were recorded at the library and uploaded to their video collection are continually viewed long after it took place.

Neiburger stressed that AADL would not have been able to do all they did with Drupal if they didn’t have programmers to make it work.

Last but not least, Eli Neiburger presented for Karen Coombs, Head of Web Services at the University of Houston Libraries. Through her presentation, she demonstrated that there is no perfect CMS. The CMSs that are currently available tend to require difficult tradeoffs:

• flexibility vs simplicity
• customization vs staff resources
• staff skill set vs ease of use
• empowerment vs responsibility
• support vs functionality
• one tool vs many tools

As an example, she offered that Wordpress is a simple tool that is easy to use, whereas Drupal is extremely flexible and complicated.

There is also the option of building a custom CMS, but it would not have a support base like Drupal or Wordpress.

There are many questions to ask when choosing a CMS.

• What tech resources do you have in house?
• What programming languages do you know?
• What systems do you already support?
• Who is going to maintain the content?
• How tech savvy are your content creators?
• What kind of content is part of your site?

The takeaway of these presentations is that there is no one-size-fits-all CMS appropriate to every library. Each library’s personnel and patron requirements will influence the choice of which CMS to use, if any. While CMSs can be powerful tools for institutions that want to support them, they may have hidden costs.

Robert Charles Wilson spoke first.  He used his latest novel, Julian Comstock, A Story of 22nd Century America, to illustrate his belief in the power of knowledge over ignorance and the idea that information “wants to be free.”  He argues science fiction requires participation in the questions of society, culture and technology.

Ken Scholls analogized science fiction and fantasy as a tent show performed by the likes of Tom Bombadil, Paul Atreides and Dorothy Gale.  He spoke of the power of science fiction and fantasy to transport and transform.

Margaret Weiss spoke of the author’s place in society.  An author should tell stories, the people’s stories.  She believes fantasy especially allows her to tell the stories of real people in extraordinary situations.  She offered the example of a character in her fantasy world who is an alcoholic in a culture where the tavern is the primary gathering place.  He lost his family, his home and his livelihood due to his alcoholism.  In the course of the novel he tries to recover some of what he has lost.  Weiss hopes this character’s story may help a young person better understand his alcoholic parent.

John Brown followed Margaret Weiss positing that reading is a drug.  Readers thirst and hunger for reading and that the physical response resulting from reading is not just analogous but the same as the physical response a drug user feels.  He hopes that his work gives young people a first taste of the reading drug and that they will be hooked for life.

Eric Flint approached the subject differently. He argued Contemporary Literary Fiction has lost its way.  Modern literary fiction requires extreme realism with “ordinary people in ordinary circumstances that they handle extremely badly.”  He argues that true literary tradition extends through Homer and Shakespeare who were not bound to realism and engaged in thought experiments with “ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances they handle well.”  He expressed disdain for the need felt by some to defend science fiction and fantasy and commented that if the definitions of genre fiction were applied to Moby Dick it would be in the science fiction section because “no whale that ever lived would act like that.”

The entire session was engaging.  The authors gave us some food for thought and plenty of encouragement.  I thoroughly enjoyed the session.

Saturday, 7/11/09

This 20th anniversary meeting of the Imagineering Interest Group was a well-run affair featuring free books, entertaining stories, and good-humored pandering towards librarians. The packed house thoroughly enjoyed themselves listening to TOR authors speak about metaphor, imagination, the state of the Science Fiction and Fantasy genres, and the power of libraries.

Robert Charles Wilson gave an intriguing synopsis of his upcoming book set in a world run by a theological governing body. His protagonist, in the process of attempting to promote a sense of secularism, ends up creating a free library. While writing the book he said he needed to re-invent religion in America, a process he says “made me into a theologian, although I never volunteered for the post.” Wilson said that a recurring and powerful theme in Science Fiction is the “persistence of the book as well as the liberating power of information.”

Ken Scholes writes across many genres but was most influenced by Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons. He said that as a boy Science Fiction and Fantasy gave him a foster home, something to dream of, and essentially raised him. He recounted how as a young teenager he attempted to work in the local library repeatedly until he was finally of the legal age to work (16 in Washington state) at which point he was hired immediately. He also presented a mashed up narration with multiple characters, themes, and story lines from the readings of his youth saying this was how he was raised. He said he grew up reaching for heaven and found Oz, Middle Earth, and Mars among other worlds.

Margaret Weis told the story about how she got started in writing back when TSR first began Dungeons and Dragons. She realized “I could write those stories” and did so. She told her favorite anecdote about being a five year old in the public library who wandered into the adult section and found a copy of The Doll’s House. But the librarian wouldn’t let her check it out by saying “this isn’t about what you think it’s about.” She also related the story about how “writer’s are the ones who put on the bear skin and dance around the fire telling the people’s stories” which is all she’s ever wanted to do. For her, Science Fiction and Fantasy is not escapism, but a way to think about real life issues, but from a different perspective.

John Brown presented a compelling argument that Science Fiction and Fantasy is a “gateway drug” to literacy for youth. He related that the NEA has shown that in 2008 reading rates have increased and by the most in the 18-24 age group. Asking Bookscan if they had data to  go along with that, they provided the intriguing statistic that Science Fiction and Fantasy reading soared by 144% in roughly the same time period for juvenile readers. He said that for the young Science Fiction and Fantasy allows encounters with the “strange, weird, and wonderful.” He also said that the genre was big enough that it’s allowed him to explore more adult themes as he’s aged.

Eric Flint explored the reasons “Science Fiction and Fantasy” authors (and presumably readers) feel compelled to justify themselves in a “hostile literary world.” He maintained that the genre deals with “ordinary people placed into extraordinary circumstances which they deal with very well.” He contrasted this with a more literary view of storytelling that consists of “ordinary people placed into extraordinary circumstances which they deal with very poorly.” He wondered why Moby Dick isn’t placed into the fantasy genre because “no whales act like that.” But in the end he admitted that he, and other authors, depend on librarians to a large degree for his living because new authors are found through sharing and from libraries.

There were no questions from the audience as folks hurriedly lined up for author signatures. A line that extended out into the hall.

Author Biographies:

John Brown

Eric Flint

Ken Scholes

Margaret Weis

Robert Charles Wilson

Discovery Interfaces Expand Scope

The genre of Discovery Interfaces has been an ongoing trend for the last few years. These interfaces aim to replace the traditional, stodgy OPAC with a modern interface, delivering library content through an interface more consistent with what patrons experience elsewhere on the Web. They offer visually appealing design, relevancy ranking, faceted navigation, and other standard Web navigation techniques. These products offer an attractive replacement for the online catalogs delivered with the ILS.

The initial phase of this genre of products delivered a new interface. Yet, they remained largely tied to the content managed in the ILS, despite the ever increasing investments in electronic content. In many cases, a federated search component would aim to supplement the primarily print content of the ILS with a clumsy mechanism for accessing e-journals and database.

We’re now seeing a new wave of discovery products that deliver pre-populated indexes of e-journal content, providing access to the individual articles represented in the library’s body of subscriptions on equal footing with the print materials managed within the ILS. Products in this genre include Summon from Serials Solutions, WorldCat Local from OCLC, EBSCO Discovery Service, and Primo Central.

The technology for a new-generation library interface with Google and Amazon-like features has become increasingly commonplace. Every library automation vendor offers one – Innovative Interfaces’ Encore, Ex Libris’ Primo, AquaBrowser now owned by R.R. Bowker, LS2 PAC from The Library Corporation, VTLS Visualizer, SirsiDynix Enterprise etc, and open source versions prosper as well: VuFind and Blacklight. Open source components such as Apache Lucene and SOLR, make the construction of a modern interface less of a technical feat.

Today, it’s the scope of content addressed that differentiates discovery interfaces. It’s now within reach to produce discovery interfaces that address the full breadth of a library’s collection through a single consolidated index, spanning print, articles within e-journals, and each of the individual objects within the digital collections, institutional repositories.

The major change that enables this breakthrough involves a relenting of the stranglehold of publishers and providers of content. Until recently, few were willing to allow wholesale access to the content held within their information products. That left the primary means of discovery outside their native interfaces the far-from-elegant approach of metasearch that incessantly hammered their servers with a very low possibility of connecting a user to their content. The new paradigm of pre-populated indexes involves the risk of wholesale exposure of their key assets, yet stands to increase the use of their products through a more efficient search model.

Social networking powers library discovery

Web 2.0 concepts have been churning in the library technology space for half a decade, but have yet to become part of the core infrastructure that power libraries. Tags, ratings, and reviews have been an expected feature in new discovery interfaces, but have yet to make a substantial impact on the way that patrons interact with library collections.

Library Thing for Libraries and ChiliFresh have become popular add-ins to help existing library catalogs and discovery interfaces add a measure of user-generated content.

BiblioCommons aims to bring social networking into the patron’s basic experience of the library. An interesting new approach to discovery interfaces, BiblioCommons brings user-generated content, social interactions among library patrons, and other Web 2.0 concepts into the process of selecting reading materials. Following a longish period of development, a dozen or so libraries expect to launch BiblioCommons catalogs by the end of the year.

I anticipate that social networking components will increasingly become embedded into the inner fabric of library products and not merely add-ons and afterthoughts.

These interesting products have yet to displace the legacy catalog. Despite a plethora of products available to replace them with more modern interfaces, the vast majority of libraries continue to offer vintage OPACs. Even in the best of times, the replacement cycles of automation products in libraries turn extremely slowly.

The demise of the single-library ILS

In today’s environment of highly-scalable computer platforms and increased interest in resource sharing, the concept of each library operating its own ILS becomes less defensible. We’re seeing a trend toward larger-scale implementations that serve many libraries:

• Vendor-hosted Software-as-a-service offerings that aggregate many instances of their products.
• Consortial, Regional and state-wide implementations that aggregate many libraries into a single instance of an ILS platform.
• OCLC’s WorldCat Local cooperative library system that aims to provide a global platform for library automation to its member libraries.

Web Services and SOA advance

Development of technology products for libraries increasingly embraces SOA or at least offers legacy functionality through Web services. Projects such as the Mellon-funded OLE Project and Ex Libris URM aim to build new frameworks for library automation through a service-oriented architecture. Existing products increasingly use Web services to provide access to internal functionality and data. Today’s environment that fully embraces the concept of openness and holds distain for closed systems. Open source, open APIs, and open access content continue to advance into the mainstream of library technology.

Join us in person at the Intercontinental Grand Ballroom, Sunday afternoon at 1:30, or remotely via CoverItLive below.

Pop-out

RSS

Clifford Lynch tells Cool History. Thinks Net Neutrality is a relatively new phrase, says it happened within last 10 years–but is an old idea. Monopolies, natural or otherwise.

Once upon a time, there was a thing called the Bell System aka “Ma Bell”. It was a natural monopoly that took care of all those wires and knew what was good and appropriate for the network and for innovation. Only Bell standard equipment was attached to the network. There were no answering machines.

Innovations we saw in telephony starting in the 70s were all largely illegal. Court cases against Bell’s monopoly broke the pricey monopoly for long-distance service. Some of this ties into the evolution of Net Neutrality. To what extent was the phone company a neutral decision maker in the carrying of signals?

Now, mid 1990s, when the internet was moving from research institutions to a consumer service of interest, enormous price competition and price variation between providers. You didn’t hear a lot of concern about ‘altered internet’ access. The low barrier to entry for an ISP led to expansion, all you had to have was a bank of modems. If you didn’t like the policies from one ISP, you had a lot of choice in switching. Problem: Modem tech reached its limits. Ouch. To REALLY do what you wanted with a MM rich network, you had to have more power. Either you could do something with the existing phone system, cable, perhaps radio, or cable it yourself drag a wire into your home (expensive). Viability, you come down to 2 options in bband, telephone or cable. Most homes have only one choice though, either get it from your telco or your cable. So now we have a monopoly or duopoly.

So what are they doing? Formerly, all you can use, now rate limiting is common, or not letting you access some sites (like high-bandwidth gaming sites) unless they pay a tariff. Some sites they may not LIKE, and so they may shape your activities by slowing to certain sites. Pay extra, or else.

These are the network neutrality issues that are turning up all over again, deja Bell. Blurry lines exist between filtering and Net Neutrality. Cultural memory orgs and others might get crowded out in this scenario. So a major mediaco might be able to pay the ISP to provide, but something like Public TV might not. In fact, tactics of networks may be to ‘hold up’ the ISP, you can’t have our content unless you pay these licensing fees. Number of mobile providers has diminished, very few choices, and where will these issues be emergent? Mobile!

Carrie Lowe for ALA says, “Network Neutrality is a principle of online non-discrimination”. Users should be able to access any content they need and attach any devices they can. A neutral network is one where no provider could establish exclusive deals and charge the ISP. It IS an intellectual freedom issue. Libraries are creating a role for themselves as PROVIDERS of online info. Who is to say that ISPs would not give libraries, typically unable to pay, lowest priority to distribute content. 2005 ended the idea of NN as a central guiding principle of the Internet. The SC ruled that cable ISPs did not have to maintain neutrality because they were not “telecoms” or communication services. (WooHoo! or BooHoo! depending on your side in issue.)

AT&T agreed in the merger with BS to strong network neutrality with specific language against rate limiting and non-neutral practices).2008 Comcast is blocking p2p on their network.

President Obama, what will happen? Spoke of Net Neutrality and support. FCC is in flux at this time, and the stimulus package is where you will see this play out. Some language was included for these projects. Also, it includes a portion that the FCC will develop a national broadband plan. This FCC will likely take a stand on this issue. She is excited!

Gregory Jackson says, “Why we call it the internet.” We call it that because it is a network of networks, not something that just reaches out and touches us, every one.

Proposes that you must look at local network management to see how it all will play out because local networks must make the same hard choices on a smaller scale. Tells stories. Good stories! U of Chicago. Larry Lessig influenced President Obama re: Net Neutrality.

Story 1

Hypothetical. If a member of your law school decides to run for president, while he is a faculty member, there are lots of things he can do with the college network. Publish, for instance. So library might decide to biblio a collection of this person’s thinking. There might be fans of this person’s thinking, advocacy groups, etc. But the moment he becomes a candidate, it is now no longer possible to offer this, as a non-profit maintaining status. So now you have a tension, what do you do?

Story 2

The library (great library of the world, great collecting library) is making lots available to the world. But a lot of stuff is restricted in one way or another, and these restrictions are increasing, depending upon who you are, student or alumnus. Applying principles of this discrimination is loss of neutrality.

Story 3

Research, instruction, and community service are the principles of the U of C. But our network is a finite resource. Some uses compromise other uses. We must ‘tune’ the network, moving certain traffics at higher priority to allow streaming education. In a way, this is just what Comcast is doing. Who gets to decide? It is our network, and we get to decide. (Oops, that is just what Comcast did.)

Raises issues

What is a network for? You can’t afford to provide everything for everybody.

The way that intellectual property is licensed has not kept pace with the way that people use networks in the modern age.

Ultimately, all of this is about Risk Management. If you clamp it down, your faculty will go elsewhere, taking that Nobel prize with them. How do you balance? This is not about right and wrong, it is about managing risk.

Q&A

Q: Discovery Tools–they may not be neutral. How do they fit in here?

A: New fed procedure rules, the e-discovery thicket. Think about prevalence of largest search engine and the barriers to entry that are set up for new search players.

Building an ILS for Service Oriented Architecture Structure

Beth Forrest-Warner, University of Kansas; Robert H. McDonald, Indiana University; John Little, Duke University; Carlen Ruschoff, University of Maryland.
Really, this has as much of a positive implication for public and special libraries as it does for academics, especially as regards financial and HR management integration (think payroll and acquisitions). Not initially, but wait and watch for the trickle-down.

Hmmm. Completely different lineup than advertised.
Doing the tweet poll. Thanking OLE and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s Research in Information Technology Program.

What is OLE? Carla says, “the project will produce an ILS that is better suited to work with the workflow of libraries” (and will play well with other software and projects. Not just open source, COMMUNITY source. Why OLE? ILS now are too expensive and too inefficient for what libraries need to do now. Libraries need to be able to mod the technologies to adapt quickly. ILS systems don’t work with commercial systems for education and finance.
We want mobile, we want connected, we don’t want archaic.

The OLE Framework:
Flexibility
Community Ownership
Service Oriented Architecture
Enterprise-level Integration
Efficiency
Sustainability.
In poll, FLEXIBILITY ran HIGHEST for what is critical for the ‘future of your library’.
Hey. They had workshops. 11 Regional workshops. And webcasts.
They have developed a scope document here.

Robert says: “Slowed down by consolidation in Library ILS Marketplace.” Koha was not ready for them and if the big three did not have what was needed, oh well…least progress made is ERM components.
Community Source Aspect
Fits the academic model, and want to build the community up front, and then build the product to support the community.

KUALI Why not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a system that does what you need instead of one that doesn’t. Institutions don’t like to be locked in by vendors.

Beth says, “SOA”. Interesting point is that academics need the curation and management of internally produced content to be integral. And why is there not just one system, and integrated, for say, student info. We should be taking advantage of already installed financial and course management systems. End result, more secure data, more efficiency.
Define SOA Applications should do it once, and reach across the network to other processes. Instead of programming for each system, build it (a service) once and let other apps use it–example is a purchase order system.
Shared Processes which might need services. How do you find out what they are? BPM. (Business Process Model)
John says, “Theory and Reality”. How are we going to build this thing? 30 months is the build time that they have. They are going to have to build on existing good work, and Kuali has much of what they need. I really think this part should be an entire program, exposing the modularity and scalability of using Kuali. They will start with ERM.
Risks of Participation include failure to achieve consensus. Can they acquire the resources to do this affordably? Indications are that pricing can be made very competitive. They must also build a sufficiently large vendor services community. So interested academics willing to stake should open discussions with the presenters.

Truly, I vote this the presentation most likely to make libraries say, “Hey, I think I will outsource my scanning to Clemson University”. Loving care is evident in the selection, installation, and use of their equipment.

Put on by the Digital Library Technology Interest Group

Tricked us by putting business mtg. first–Good Idea! Call to the floor–what ideas do you have for programs for next year. No answer–she will try again.

Mike 8:00am–we need an idea 51 weeks before the next ALA. Program developed from specific types of hardware into “how to set up a scanning center”

Emily Gore and Mandy Mastrovita from Clemson University. Emily says: North Carolina was late in starting a statewide cooperative for digitization. They divided the state into 4 regions, and they have a lab to scan for libraries.

Brief overview of what you need to ask if you want to scan:

Budget, staffing, expertise, facilities adequate to house equipment?

What materials? Precious and rare?

Would you consider outsourcing?

Clemson had about $100,000 for equipment, much from a grant. Knew they had to get at least one full-time librarian to manage the scanning project. She combined the IT staff with the digital project staff–because she knew that they could scan.

equipment–

Had no space for a Zeutschel A0, needing 8 foot or more. Settled for a “Better Light” and a different room. In the basement. But it had no outside lighting. But it had nasty flourescent lights so they use another ambient light source. It gets hot in there, though.

Selected materials, they expected to do their large maps, manuscripts, photographs and negatives, and expected to scan those. Did not expect to scan bound materials which other large digital projects including Google would have covered already. (Note-They have Strom Thurmond’s pajamas.)

However, lots of libraries in the area have bound items, including old country store ledgers, etc. that have value that they needed scanned. Scrapbooks. Yearbooks. It’s a donor relationship thing. You scan what they give you. They would like another solution for bound items. So do you outsource that? You should always think about that first thing and approach it as a hybrid solution.

Disadvantages of outsourcing

You are removed (can’t change or adjust in middle of process)

Is it an experienced vendor?

Contracts need to be set up prior which clearly articulate needs from the beginning.

Disadvantages of in-house

large investment–especially because each type

retooling staff-complex skills to be developed.

difficult to set prices per digitized/encoded items.

$2.00 per item to scan–there is a difference between archival quality scanning & what some vendors will offer.

Mandy, Digital Production Librarian, will now offer specifics:

workstations

multi-platform, some programs work better with Macs, Better Light is really designed for use with Macs. However, most of library is a PC shop.Batch processing programs are on PC.

(Server-ContentDM) Dual/side by side comparison monitors are set up because lots of comparisons must be made.

Task Lighting, Ott lights make it look a little creepy, but daylight balanced.Redundant central storage with campus IT, and local RAID 5 attached drives.

Fave Scanner:

Epson Expression 100000XL, probably is THE scanner in use. read area of 12.2×17.2, negatives and doc feeder available can scan up to 100 pages at time.

Also a Kodak iQ3 scanner, and can scan glass plates, transparencies and negatives. But has not been as good in terms of support and software upgrades. But is a fast and beautiful machine, with templates to arrange your negatives, 4×5’s, etc., and you can cut templates yourself with an Xacto knife.

The setup of their lab for large format scanning was labor intensive, but just like Christmas, and an engineering student did some of the setup, and their qualified vendor set up their HID copy lights. The tripod itself was just under 8 feet. It fit, whew.

A very heavy crossarm, weighted–they had to pad that with some bubble wrap to prevent injury.

For shooting on the easel, they are using a parallelism tool, the Zig-Align to ensure focus across the plane of the image.

They highly desired a Planetary Scanner for bound items. Currently they use the Bookeye and the Zeutschel. She likes the Bookeye with its hydraulic lift.

You do still need to deal with analog film. But younger students may not understand negatives, or have even ever seen it–really, it is supposed to be backwards and reverse. “Us old folks had to chuckle.”

Q &A -

What about using LCD instead of CRT?

They do a lot of color calibration with cards, and take care.They try to move forward, and the LED monitors are quite good with color matching, new Mac monitors are coming out. Mandy: “The IT person in me says, O God I don’t want to see another CRT.”

Part 2

Better, cheaper faster, or down and dirty Evaluating Consumer-Grade Digitization Equipment

Professional grade, over $10,000, purchase direct from vendor. This is not the stuff you see in SkyMall.

Are you scanning for preservation or access qualities?

What are your available resources, including hardware, software and STAFF.

cost of proposed solution divided by benefits of proposed solution=cost-benefit.

A Tale of Three Scanners

In places they say: “My IT Department wanted me to buy this scanner.” (for $179.99) but that is not right for a digitization center.

Look at the technical details. Do not interpolate. Pixels for free!

One for $657, 48 bit color, larger format maybe for “access quality” scanner.

The Epson Expression is the only one that anyone is seriously considering and is available for about $2,400. 48-bit color, 16-bit b&w. 2400×4800dpi resolution. You may not use it, but you will wish you had it.

Camera Mount or 3 dimensional. Heavier is BETTER. It should be hard to move. Manfroto makes some prosumer grade overhead camera mount and lights. What kind of camera? Prices have come down and we are getting there on quality. She has a Canon Digital Rebel XSI and purchased better 50mm lens. Full-frame cameras will be more expensive, and the concept is relatively new in the digital world. These cameras may not be right for preservation level, because many of these don’t get up to the baseline of 400ppi recommended for archival–so something as large as an original which is 11×17 may only give you access grade images. Also, these all have CMOS sensors.

Bound item scanning-A Consumer grade alternative!

Plustek Opticbook 3600 Plus A4 Book Edge pdf OCR Scanner. For around $350, this scanner will work for ‘Bread and Butter’ scanning for access grade.

The benefits of outsourcing.

Large format, maps–someone who specializes in a type of format can give you a cheaper per unit cost than you can do yourself, or than a scanning generalist can do.

We want to know what you want to know! Please vote in the topics poll.

http://poll.fm/11sb2

This year’s discussion will be held Sunday, July 12, 1:30 – 3:00 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom of the Intercontinental.

This is a list of Top Tech Trends for the ALA Annual Meeting, Summer 2009.

Green computing

The amount of computing that gets done on our planet has a measurable carbon footprint, and many of us, myself included, do not know exactly how much heat our computers put off and how much energy they consume. With the help from some folks from the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Research Computing, I learned my laptop computer spikes at 30 watts on boot, slows down to 20 watts during normal use, idles at 2 watts during sleep, and zooms up to 34 watts when the screen saver kicks in. Just think how much energy and heat your computer consumes and generates while waiting for the nightly update from your systems department. But realistically, it is our servers that make the biggest impact, and while energy consumption is one way to be more green, another is to figure out ways to harness the heat the computers generate. One trend is to put computers in places that need to be heated up, like green houses in the winter. Another idea is to put them in places where cool air is exhausted, like building ventilation ducks. What can you do? Turn your computer off when it is not in use since the computer electronics and such are not as sensitive to power on, power off cycles as they used to be.

“Digital Humanities”

There seems to be a growing number of humanities scholars who understand that computers can be applied to their research. See the Digital Humanities Manifesto as an example. With the advent of all the electronic texts being made available, it is not possible to read each and every text individually. In an effort to analyze large copra more quickly, people can create word clouds against these documents to summarize them. They can extract the statistically significant words and phrases to determine their “aboutness”. They can easily compute Fog, Flesch, and Flesch-Kincaid scores denoting the complexity of documents. (“Remember, ‘Why Johnny can’t read’?”) These people understand that humanities scholarship is not necessarily done in isolation, and the codex is not necessarily the medium of the day. They understand the advantages of open access publishing. For our profession, it is difficult to overstate the number of opportunities this trend affords librarianship. Anybody can find information. What people need now are tools to make information easier to analyze and use.

Tweeting with Twitter

Microblogging (think Twitter) is definitely hot. In some situations it can be a really useful application of computer technology. Frankly, I think the fascination will wear off and its functionality will become similar to the use of cellphone photographs at news-breaking events. Tweet, tweet, tweet.

Discovery interfaces and mega-indexes

If I were to pick the hottest trend in library technology, it would be fledgling implementation of large, all-encompassing indexes of journal and book content — integrating mega-indexes into the “discovery” interface. This is exemplified by Serials Solutions’ Summa, hinted at by an OCLC/EBSCO collaboration, and thought about by other library vendors. Google Scholar comes close but could benefit by adding more complete bibliographic data of books. OAIster worked for OAI-accessible content but needed to be indexed with a less proprietary tool. The folks at Index Data created something similar and included additional content, but the idea never seemed to catch on. Federated (broadcast) search tried and has yet to fulfill the promise. The driver behind this idea is the knowledge that many data silos don’t meet the needs of our users. Instead people want one box, one button, and one data set. Combine journal bibliographic data with book bibliographic data into a single index (not database). Sort search results by relevance. Provide a set of time-saving services against the result. In order for this technological technique to work each data set must be normalized into a single data structure and indexed (probably with an open source indexer called Lucene). In other words, there will be a large set of core elements such a title, author, note, subject, etc. All bibliographic data from all sets will be mapped to these fields and what doesn’t fall neatly into any one of them will be mapped to free text fields. Not perfect, not 100 percent, but hugely functional, and it meets user’s expectations. To see how this can be done with the volumes and volumes of medically-related open access content see the good work done by OpenPHIand their HealthLibrarian.

The conference wiki is the source to check at:
http://litacamp.pbworks.com/

Experience is showing that attendees interest, contributions and level of participation really makes a “camp”. The LITACamp had a diverse, lively, eager, and really flexible group that contributed to a great experience for all. We were able to utilize a number of un-conference techniques to allow everyone to share and discover want they came to camp for.

Each day began with a kick off speaker. Joan Frye Williams the first day and John Blyberg the second. Both provided important thought provoking ideas on the nature and futures of technology and libraries. There were stimulating ideas and conversations that urged but did not dominate or overshadow attendees ideas and concerns.

The theme that quickly emerged from the campers and continued in many variations for the whole un-conference was “User Experience”. That theme colored almost every other topic as for example how can libraries improve UX, deliver the patron expectations of UX and convince our colleagues of the importance of UX.

For full reports in all manner of methods check out the conference sessions notes at:
http://litacamp.pbworks.com/Session-Notes

Some random thoughts and general notes about LITACamp
The OCLC Conference facilities were excellent, the was staff great, good wifi everywhere, and when power strips were requested they showed up almost instantly. There were loads of rooms of various sizes, all well equipped, to meet all our diverse needs. An especially big thanks to Eric Childress who so generously arranged with LITA the conference facilities.
Holly Tomren and Lisa Thomas did a super job with Twitter and the camp. They made sure there was a universal hashtag and that everyone knew about it. Then they made sure Twitter was used. Finally they made sure the archive was captures. Check the Session Notes page. Holly and Lisa have written up their Twitter experiments and experience, in particular from LITACamp, as part of their ALA Emerging Leader project. It describes techniques and procedures which will be used by LITA.
uStream videos were made of short interviews. Just a laptop and a wireless connection were needed. These are on the Session Notes page too.
Thanks to Sheila Zillner of WiLS for the LITACamp graphic.
Large thanks to the LITA staff for loads of support and encouragement.
Excellent local arranging from Peter Murray and Zoe Marshall, with a great deal of flexibility to include the opening night of the new Star Trek and then due to family and other commitment neither of them were able to attend.
My personal thanks to David Ward, Michelle Frisque, Jennifer Ward and Maurice York for stepping up and really keeping the process moving forward at several different times during the planning and production of the event. Among so many other things David was the wiki master, Jennifer the Facebook group and Michelle wrangled sponsors.
If you’re looking for someone to blame, it’s all my, Mark Beatty, fault (grin).

Friday, July 10, 2009
LITA Happy Hour
5:30 pm – 8:00 pm, Potter’s Lounge, Palmer House
Please join the LITA Membership Development Committee and members from around the country for networking, good cheer, and great fun! Expect lively conversation and excellent drinks. Cash bar.

Friday Evening with LITA
Friday, July 10, 2009
LITA 101: Open House
4:00 pm – 5:30 pm, Water Tower Place in the Palmer House Hotel
LITA Open House is a great opportunity for current and prospective members to talk with Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) leaders and learn how to make connections and become more involved in LITA activities.
Andrew Pace, LITA President; Donald Lemke, LITA Membership Development Committee Chair; Holly Yu, LITA Interest Group Coordinator; and Scott Muir, LITA Committee Coordinator and many other LITA leaders will be present.

(and the reason we all get to annual on Friday night)
LITA Happy Hour
5:30 pm – 8:00 pm, Potter’s Lounge, Palmer House
Please join the LITA Membership Development Committee and members from around the country for networking, good cheer, and great fun! Expect lively conversation and excellent drinks. Cash bar.

Sunday Afternoon with LITA
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Top Technology Trends
1:30 pm – 3:00 pm, the Grand Ballroom at the InterContinental Hotel
This program features our ongoing roundtable discussion about trends and advances in library technology by a panel of LITA technology experts. The panelists will describe changes and advances in technology that they see having an impact on the library world, and suggest what libraries might do to take advantage of these trends.

LITA Awards and Scholarships Reception/Ceremony
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm, the Empire Ballroom at the InterContinental
Presentation of LITA Awards and Scholarships. John Blyberg will receive the Brett Butler Award for entrepreneurship, Bill Misho will receive the Frederick G. Kilgour Award for research, Meredith Farkas will receive the Library High Tech award for communications in continuing education, and Michael Silver will receive the Student Writing Award.

LITA President’s Program: Make Stories, Tell Stories, Keep Stories
4:00 pm – 5:30 pm, the Grand Ballroom at the InterContinental
In 2007, Erik Boekesteijn, Jaap van de Geer, and Geert van den Boogaard took off from DOK Delft Public Library to embark on a North American tour of libraries en route to the Internet Librarian Conference. Their popular video tour captured the passion and enthusiasm of the people working on library innovation in the States, a theme that they have recently repeated in Australia. Now it’s time to tell their story. Come learn about innovations from our library colleagues in the Netherlands and join Erik Boekesteijn (DOK Delft Public Library), Jenny Levine (The Shifted Librarian), and Michael Stephens (Tame the Web) as they discuss the current state and future of library innovation and the opportunities to learn from the vast network of international stories about library innovation. The panel discussion will be followed by a book signing, Shanachie Tour – a library roadtrip across America, with all three authors present.
Speakers: Erik Boekesteijn, Jaap van de Geer, Geert van den Boogaard, Jenny Levine, and Michael Stephens

Many other excellent programs are being offered as well. Get a complete list with descriptions and locations provided.

Annual Conference Highlights for Those Attending or Not
LITA is offering two pre-conferences on Friday, July 10, from 9:00am to 5:00pm in Chicago. You do not need to attend Annual Conference to register for a LITA preconference. Also, please note that LITA will accept registrations on site. The registration rate for each is: LITA Member $235, ALA Member $315, or Non-Member $380.

A Thousand Words: Taking Better Photos for Telling Stories in Your Library
9:00am to 5:00pm, McCormick Place, W-475
Speaker: Helene Blowers and Michael Porter are joining Cindi Trainor
In this hands-on workshop, learn techniques for shooting and editing better photos, camera settings that make for the best photos, and basics of editing an image. Learn how to capture library events more effectively and artistically, take and select better photos for websites and promotional materials. Licensing work and finding others via Creative Commons will also be covered. Participants should bring a digital camera and laptop; familiarity with moving photos from camera to computer is a must.

Creating Library Web Services: Mashups and APIs
9:00am to 5:00pm, McCormick Place, W470a
Speaker: Karen Coombs, University of Houston
del.icio.us subject guides, Flickr library displays, YouTube library orientation; with mashups and APIs, it’s easier to bring pieces of the web together with library data. Learn what an API is and what it does, the components of web services, how to build a mashup, how to work with PHP, and how to create web services for your library. Participants should be comfortable with HTML markup and have an interest in learning about web scripting and programming and are encouraged to bring a laptop for hands-on participation.

[cribbed from LITA Update on 6/19]

• Identify the types of programs that are presented and which are most appropriate for online posting
• Identify other organizations such as ACRL, PLA, WebJunction, etc, who are currently providing this service to learn about their experiences
• How should the content be delivered online i.e. live webcast, produced in a studio, screencast, etc.
• Identify, evaluate, and analyze available systems
• Identify which systems are best for delivering each type of program
• Determine who should have access to what types of programs and how. This should include:
  • Identifying the appropriate delivery method
  • Who should have access. Should it be available to all LITA members, available to everyone, etc.?,
  • Should access be different for different user communities?
  • Should their be a registration fee for certain types of programming

• LITA Program Planning Committee
• LITA National Forum Committee 2009
• LITA National Forum Committee 2010
• LITA Web Coordinating Committee
• LITA Education Committee
• LITA BIGWIG

Thanks to the following people for agreeing to serve on this task force:

• Aaron Dobbs, chair
• Melissa Shepard
• Anne Graham
• Cody Hanson
• Michael Witt
• Jenny Emanuel
• Kristine Feery
• David Ward

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

The text of this ballot says in part:

“This is the third edition of the Standard that establishes the basic principles and methods for preparing and compiling terminologies both inside and outside the framework of standardization, and describes the links between objects, concepts, and their terminological representations. It also establishes general principles governing the formation of designations and the formulation of definitions. This International Standard does not stipulate procedures for the layout of international terminology standards, which are treated in ISO 10241.”

As usual, ALA is not voting on the standard itself but rather is providing feedback to NISO as to whether to approve or disapprove the standard. NISO will review and consider this feedback prior to submitting the U.S. vote.

Since the document is in a restricted area of the NISO website, ALA members who wish to review the standard and provide comment must apply directly to Cindy (hslcindy@buffalo.edu) for a copy of the document. I’d appreciate it if you could copy me as well (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so I can keep track of general interest in standards review for LITA.

Cindy’s deadline for comment is July 16, 2009 (right after ALA Annual).

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator