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

See you in Chicago!

We would like coverage for as many of the sessions as possible, so see the current Blog Schedule and pick one (or more) and join the LITA Blogging Community.

Interested? Sign up HERE, 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 Michele Mizejewski.

A Thousand Words: Taking Better Photos for Telling Stories in Your Library
Presented by: Helene Blowers, Michael Porter, and Cindi Trainor

If you want to learn how to capture library events more effectively and artistically, don’t miss this hands-on workshop in Chicago this July. Learn the Who, What and Why of shooting, sharing and reusing your library photos, and see how to use widgets and other tools to tell stories and engage your users in your digital space. Learn techniques for shooting and editing better photos, camera settings that make for the best photos, and the basics of editing an image. Privacy policies and Creative Commons will also be covered. The hands-on portion of this workshop will involve using flickr, getting to know your camera, and using desktop and online image editing tools.

Participants should bring a camera and laptop. Be sure to bring your camera’s cable or a card reader for downloading photos to your computer.

Creating Library Web Services: Mashups and APIs
Presented by Karen Coombs

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
-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.

More information is available at the LITA Web site.

You do NOT need to attend Annual Conference to register for a LITA preconference. Visit the 2009 ALA Annual Conference registration page to register for these events.

To add a workshop to your existing Annual Conference registration:
Call ALA Registration at 1-800-974-3084
OR
use your log in and password to access your existing registration using the online registration form:
Add events in the “Your Events” section; check out and pay for the events you’ve added.

John Blyberg
Joan Frye Williams
Star Trek (2009)
You set the agenda and control the conference
Register on site
OCLC campus Dublin, OH

Get all the information at the LITACamp Wiki

“The Everywhere Library: Creating, Communicating, Integrating” and our award winning keynote speakers, John Blyberg and Joan Frye Williams are perfect for the wide range of unconference possible presentations and discussions about the new and ever changing landscape we work in.

LITAcamp is THE library technology unconference for lib-techies by lib-techies. We understand the power of technology to expand reach, share information, and build community. LITACamp is a place to discuss and explore the latest in library technology topics and speculate on what might be to come.

Stirring up. Mix. Options and opportunities. New alternatives. Web- scale. All the very best of reasons to go to LITACamp.

It is not too late to register for LITA Camp. Registration forms are still being accepted via fax or email AND registration will be accepted onsite. So just show up.

Follow us at:

LITACamp wiki
LITACamp blog
LITACamp on Twitter Tweet #litacamp09

Karen J. Starr has been elected as 2009 LITA President-Elect; Aaron Dobbs and Maurice York have been elected to serve 3 year terms as LITA Directors-at-large.

Visit the LITA web site for more information.

Our theme, “The Everywhere Library: Creating, Communicating, Integrating” and our award winning keynote speakers, John Blyberg and Joan Frye Williams are perfect for the wide range of unconference possible presentations and discussions about the new and ever changing landscape we work in.

For example OCLC just announced WorldCat Local Quickstart. Marshall Breeding has said of the announcement: “I see this move stirring up the mix of options and opportunities for libraries. Anything that provides new alternatives to libraries is welcome relative to the state of affairs of recent times where libraries feel frustrated by too few options. So we’ve seen open source come in to challenge proprietary systems; we’re seeing initiatives to fundamentally rebuild library automation systems. Now OCLC adds Web-scale, WorldCat-based library automation to the mix. The library automation scene is getting to be more interesting.”

Stirring up. Mix. Options and opportunities. New alternatives. Web- scale. All the very best of reasons to go to LITACamp.

It is not too late to register for LITA Camp. Registration forms are still being accepted via fax or email AND registration will be accepted onsite.

1. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39-41-1997 (R2002), Printed Information on Spines. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39-41-1997 (R2002), Printed Information on Spines. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-41-1997r2002/.

NISO’s Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee recommends a vote of REAFFIRM WITH TITLE AND ABSTRACT CHANGE. The CCM is recommending the following title and abstract change to better reflect the content of the standard. Such a change can be made as part of the reaffirmation and does not constitute a revision to the content of the standard.

CURRENT TITLE: Printed Information on Spines
NEW PROPOSED TITLE: Placement Guidelines for Information on Spines
CURRENT ABSTRACT: Describes how to format information on the spines of printed bindings, covers, containers, or other protective enclosures. It describes both the kinds of information to be printed on spines and the order and placement of the information.
NEW PROPOSED ABSTRACT: Describes and allocates areas on the spines of printed bindings, covers, containers, or other protective enclosures. It describes, at a high level, both the kinds of information to be printed on spines and the order and placement of the information.

Cindy’s deadline for comment is May 27, 2009.

————————————–

2. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.47-1993 (R2003), ANSEL. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.47-1993 (R2003), Extended Latin Alphabet Coded Character Set for Bibliographic Use (ANSEL). It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-47-1993r2003/.

NISO’s Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of WITHDRAW. The Topic Committee recommends this vote for the following reasons:

1. MARC records currently used by libraries are converted to the encoding standards supported by systems such as Windows and UNIX.
2. UNIMARC has already moved to full Unicode, and US MARC distributed using marcxml is also in Unicode.
3. ANSEL cannot support software developments that support language-sensitive search and retrieve, and requires programming to map ANSEL-based data to newer standards in order to be processed by computer operating system and database systems.

ANSEL had an important role in making it possible for bibliographic utilities to exchange data that contained diacritics characters that were not covered by ANSI ASCII at a time when no standard existed outside of the library community. However, since then ISO and NISO have developed several standards for character encoding (e.g., ISO 8859-1 [Latin-1], ISO 8859-2, and ISO 10646 [Unicode]) that have been widely adopted and accepted by many communities, including libraries.
The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee therefore believes that the Z39.47 standard should be referenced only when there is a need to map or convert old data, something that can be done by referencing the withdrawn standard, and that it would not be in the best interests of the information community to maintain it as an active NISO/ANSI standard any longer.

If withdrawal is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years.)

The deadline for comments to Cindy is May 28, 2009. Cindy has indicated that if she does not hear from anyone within ALA, she will vote on behalf of ALA to withdraw: ANSI/NISO Z39.47-1993 (R2003), Extended Latin Alphabet Coded Character Set for Bibliographic Use (ANSEL).

——————————-

3. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R2002), Permanence of Paper for Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R2002), available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-48-1992r2002/.

NISO’s Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of REAFFIRM WITH ABSTRACT CHANGE. An additional final sentence to the abstract is proposed. The proposed abstract change is considered editorial and can be done as part of a reaffirmation; it does not constitute a revision to the standard.

CURRENT ABSTRACT: This standard establishes criteria for coated and uncoated paper that will last several hundred years without significant deterioration under normal use and storage conditions in libraries and archives. This standard identifies the specific properties of such paper and specifies the tests required to demonstrate these properties.

PROPOSED NEW ABSTRACT: This standard establishes criteria for coated and uncoated paper that will last several hundred years without significant deterioration under normal use and storage conditions in libraries and archives. This standard identifies the specific properties of such paper and specifies the tests required to demonstrate these properties. The standard does not address environmental impact issues of manufacturing.

Cindy’s deadline for comments on this ballot is May 26, 2009.

————————————

4. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1996 (R2002), Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI). This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-56-1996r2002/.

NISO’s Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of REAFFIRM. If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee will be studying the standard more closely to determine if a revision might be needed for Z39.56 in the near future, particularly with regard to larger issues of identification and existing applications using SICI. You are encouraged to provide comments with your vote that might provide the Topic Committee with additional information regarding needs for a future revision. Please note that a revision can begin at any time, with the Voting Members approval, following the reaffirmation of a standard; it need not wait for the next 5-year periodic review.

Cindy’s deadline for comments on this ballot is May 22, 2009.

——————————-

5. Registration Authority for the soon to be issued revision of ISO 10957, The International Standard Music Number.

Cindy notes:

“The TC46/SC9 committee has asked the ISO Technical Management Board to approve continuation of the International ISMN Agency as the Registration Authority for the soon to be issued revision of ISO 10957, The International Standard Music Number. The ISMN Agency is located in Berlin; additional information about them can be found here: http://www.ismn-international.org/international.html. ISO is now asking the national standards bodies’ members for their approval of this recommendation. Since NISO is the Technical Advisory Group for TC46, we need to provide the U.S. vote to ANSI.”

From NISO:

“Since SC9, for which NISO is the Secretariat, has already approved this appointment, because it is not a new appointment, and because there is a very short turn-around to respond to this matter, we are not issuing a formal ballot on this appointment. Instead we are asking any voting members who have any objection to this appointment or comments on it to notify NISO no later than close of business on Wednesday, April 29, 2009. If we do not hear from you by then, we will assume you have no objection to this appointment.”

Cindy asks that, should any member have a problem with an ALA voting affirmatively, she needs to hear no later than Monday, April 27, 2009. NISO will assume ALA’s approval if they do not hear otherwise.
Cindy can be contacted at: HSLcindy@buffalo.edu.

That’s all for now, but keep alert for new waves of activity!

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

So here, in the order I got them, with deadlines in bold:

1. ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2002), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup.

This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2002), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup. This standard is a national adoption of the international standard ISO 12083:1994. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/iso12083-1995r2002/.

Comments on this standard are due to Cindy by May 13, 2009.

——————————–

2. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2001), Information Interchange Format. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2001), Information Interchange Format. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-2-1994R2001/.

The international version of this standard ISO 2709, Information and documentation — Format for information exchange, was revised in 2008 to clarify the use of Unicode with UTF-8 encoding for records employing this standard. In appropriate places the term “octet” was used in place of “character”.

In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. NISO’s Content and Collection Topic Committee recommends a vote of “Withdrawal” for ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2001), in favor of the use of ISO 2709. The NISO version (Z39.2) would continue to be available on the NISO website as a withdrawn standard.

Cindy’s deadline for comments on this review is May 12, 2009.

———————————–

3. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997 (R2002), Guidelines for Abstracts. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997 (R2002), Guidelines for Abstracts. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-14-1997R2002/.

NISO’s Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997 (R2002). If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee will then study the standard more closely to determine if and why a revision might be needed for Z39.14. A reaffirmation now will provide additional time to do a more thorough study of this standard. You are encouraged to provide comments with your vote that might provide the Topic Committee with additional information regarding the possible need for a future revision. Please note that a revision can begin at any time after the reaffirmation of the current standard (with NISO voting member approval); it is not necessary to wait until the next 5-year periodic review.

Cindy’s deadline for comments on this review is May 11, 2009.

—————————————-

4. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.23-1997 (R2002), Standard Technical Report Number Format and Creation. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, and is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-23-1997r2002/.

If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee will then study the standard more closely to determine if and why a revision might be needed. A reaffirmation now will provide additional time to do a more thorough study of this standard. You are encouraged to provide comments with your vote that might provide the Topic Committee with additional information regarding the possible need for a future revision. Please note that a revision can begin at any time after the reaffirmation of the current standard (with NISO voting member approval); it is not necessary to wait until the next 5-year periodic review.

The deadline for comments to Cindy on this review is May 21, 2009.

—————————————-

5. Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.26-1997 (R2002), Micropublishing Product Information. This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, which is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-26-1997r2002/.

In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. NISO’s Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of REAFFIRM.

The deadline for comments to Cindy on this ballot is May 19, 2009.

——————————————

All comments to Cindy can be sent to her at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Expect another wave of announcements shortly …

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Cindy Hepfer, the ALA Voting Representative to NISO notes: “In accordance with NISO’s Operating Procedures, all review ballots are accompanied with a recommended action from the leadership group managing the review. NISO’s Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee recommends a vote of ‘Reaffirm’ for ANSI/NISO Z39.89-2003, The U.S. National Z39.50 Profile for Library Applications. As a member of the voting pool, we are required to vote on this ballot.”

ALA’s options are:
• Reaffirm with no change
• Revise (If this action is approved, NISO will appoint a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved.)
• Withdraw (If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years.)

Cindy adds: “Unless I hear otherwise from ALA members, I will vote on the organization’s behalf to reaffirm this important standard with no change. However, if anyone within ALA has revisions to suggest or believes that the standard should be withdrawn, please contact me (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) and be prepared with very solid reasons. The deadline for you to respond to me is May 7.”

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

A Thousand Words: Taking Better Photos for Telling Stories in Your Library
If you want to learn how to capture library events more effectively and artistically, don’t miss this hands-on workshop in Chicago this July. You will learn techniques for shooting and editing better photos, camera settings that make for the best photos, and basics of editing an image. You will also learn how to 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.
Presented by: Cindi Trainor, Michael Porter, and Helene Blowers Friday, July 10, 2009 in Chicago

Creating Library Web Services: Mashups and APIs
Presented by 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
-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.

More information is available at the LITA Web site

You do NOT need to attend Annual Conference to register for a LITA preconference. Visit the 2009 ALA Annual Conference registration page to register for these events.

To add a workshop to your existing Annual Conference registration:
Call ALA Registration at 1-800-974-3084
OR
use your log in and password to access your existing registration using the online registration form: Add events in the “Your Events” section; check out and pay for the events you’ve added.

• Posts (like blog posts)
• Online docs (collaborative, wiki-like pages or Google Docs)
• Group calendar
• Surveys
• Polls
• Chat room
• Discussion forums

Members who log in to Connect using their regular ALA Web site username and
password will find that their records are automatically synchronized with ALA’s membership database, so their affiliations with committees, divisions, events, round tables and sections are displayed. In addition to the formal working groups, members can also create their own communities.

If you encounter any problems or have any questions, please contact the LITA office lita@ala.org

“This year NISO has launched a new Chair’s Initiative–a project of the chair of NISO’s Board of Directors, focusing on a specific issue that would benefit from study and the development of a recommended practice or standard. Oliver Pesch, NISO’s current Board of Directors Chair, has chosen the issue of perfecting a seamless, item-level linking through single sign-on authentication technologies in a networked information environment. This Work Item Proposal follows NISO’s February 11, 2009 webinar “SSO Authentication: Understanding the Pieces of the Puzzle.” The proposal was approved by the Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee on March 16, 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. NISO Working Group participation is not limited to NISO members.

The goal of this work item is to explore practical solutions for improving the success of SSO authentication technologies for providing a seamless experience for the user and to promote the adoption of one or more of these solutions to make the access improvements a reality. To achieve this objective, this proposal is to convene a NISO working group to explore the problem and deliver one or more Recommended Practice documents describing possible solutions and to implement an education and adoption plan for encouraging implementation of the solution(s).”

A three page proposal is available at http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/1504/NISOProposedWorkItem_SSO6feb09.doc.

Cindy explains that the voting options are “Yes” (approve the project), “No” (do not approve the project), “Abstain” (from voting). Comments are required for No votes. She adds, “If ALA would like to nominate someone to participate on the working group (if the project is approved), I can provide a name and contact information. So please let me know if there are individuals I should nominate, and please provide their contact information and perhaps a brief statement regarding their interest/expertise in this area. If you have any questions, please contact me. If I do not hear a darned good reason to vote otherwise, I intend to vote YES on behalf of ALA on the proposed SSO Authentication work item.” The deadline for comments to Cindy on this work item is Wednesday, April 15.

The second item in this group from Cindy involves a review ballot for ANSI/NISO Z39.50-2003, Information Retrieval: Application Service Definition & Protocol Specification. A copy of this standard can be found in the list of NISO standards at http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards/. Z39.50-2003 is currently available — for free — by going to page 3, clicking on View Details area beside Z39.50 and then clicking on the PDF link from that page.

In accordance with NISO’s Operating Procedures, all review ballots distributed are accompanied with a recommended action from the leadership group managing the review. NISO’s Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee is managing this review, and recommends a vote of “Reaffirm” for ANSI/NISO Z39.50-2003, Information Retrieval: Application Service Definition & Protocol Specification.

As a member of the voting pool, ALA is required to vote on this ballot, with one of the following voting options:
–Reaffirm with no change
–Revise (If this action is approved, NISO will appoint a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved)
–Withdraw (If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years)

Recommendations to vote either Revise or Withdraw should be accompanied by comments.
Cindy adds: “Unless I hear otherwise from ALA members, I will vote on the organization’s behalf to reaffirm this important standard with no change. However, if anyone within ALA has revisions to suggest or believes that the standard should be withdrawn, please contact me (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) and be prepared with very solid reasons. The deadline for you to respond to me is April 27. I will be leaving town on April 29 for several days and will be away from email. So if you have any negative feedback, reaching me even earlier than April 27 would be extremely helpful.”

The third item in this group of announcements is one from ISO, containing the ballot for ISO/DIS 29383, Terminology policies — Development and implementation. The text of this ballot is as follows:

“This is a liaison standard from ISO/TC 37, Terminology and other language and content resources, Subcommittee SC 1, Principles and methods. This standard was previously issued in two parts when it was a Committee Draft (CD). The Draft International Standard (DIS) version has now merged those parts into one standard. This International Standard provides campaigners, policy-makers and other decision makers in governments and administration, non-profit and commercial organizations with guidelines and a methodology for developing and implementing a comprehensive strategic plan for stating a terminology policy, i.e. a conscious, systematic and managed approach to the creation, maintenance and use of terminology in, and for, defined user communities.”

Because this is ISO, not NISO, those interested in reviewing the proposed standard and providing feedback to NISO (via Cindy) as to whether to vote to approve or disapprove the standard must apply to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) for a copy of the text. Please include a statement of ALA membership when applying to Cindy for a copy, as she’s not authorized to supply copies to anyone other than ALA members. Cindy’s deadline for comments is a bit more generous for this one: July 22, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Joining the voting pools allows ALA to vote on the standard and provide comments once the review process has begun. Once the voting pools have been formed, separate ballots for each standard will be issued only to those who have joined the pool. If ALA does not join the pool for a particular standard, we are considered to be “abstaining” from any decision made regarding this standard’s reaffirmation ballot.
NISO needs at least 15% of the voting membership to join the pool. If less than 15% express interest in the standard, it may be referred to the NISO Board for administrative withdrawal.

The three standards in this Group 5 voting pool are:
1) ANSI/NISO Z39.9-1992 (R2001), International Standard Serial Numbering (ISSN)
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-9-1992/

2) ANSI/NISO Z39.76-1996 (R2002), Data Elements for Binding Library Materials
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-76-1996R2002/

3) ANSI/NISO Z39.20-1999, Criteria for Price Indexes for Print Library Materials
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-20-1999/

The ballot to select which voting pools ALA should opt into closes April 23. Cindy would like to have feedback from anyone who wishes to comment no later than April 16.

The second voting pool, not designated with a number, includes five additional NISO standards that are due to begin their reaffirmation reviews in 2009. The first four are the responsibility of the Content & Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee. The fifth standard is the responsibility of the Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee.

The five standards in this second voting pool are:
1) ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005, Scientific and Technical Reports - Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation
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
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-19-2005/

3) ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005, Bibliographic References
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-29-2005/

4) ANSI/NISO Z39.84-2005, Syntax for the Digital Object Identifier
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-84-2005/

5) ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-88-2004/

This second ballot to select which voting pools ALA should opt into closes April 30. Cindy would like to have feedback from anyone who wishes to comment no later than April 23. Unless she is presented with a compelling case not to opt ALA into these voting pools, she plans to opt the organization into the review process for all of these standards, all of which most definitely are of interest to libraries.

Please send comments to Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Note that since these are NISO — not ISO — standards, you CAN review the documents in question directly at the URLs listed above.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

GROUP: Assessment and Research Committee

CHAIRS: Diane Bisom, Bonnie Postlethwaite

REPORTER: Bonnie Postlethwaite

CONFERENCE: Midwinter

MEETING: Committee meeting

ATTENDEES: 12

CURRENT ACTIVITIES: Discussion Items & Actions:

1. Approved minutes from prior meeting.
2. Mary Taylor presented data files on LITA membership (available on Committee’s Google docs site).  Available data points cover various parameters, such as membership in other divisions; number of programs; etc.  Data seems to reflect a recurring trend of membership increases and decreases over time.  Personal membership trends over the past few years are:
   • 2003: 3907
   • 2004: 3776
   • 2005: 3423
   • 2006: 3500
   • 2007: 3752
   • 2008: 3447

   Mary also indicated that ALA will have a data dashboard later in the spring which may provide data and trends over time.  She also mentioned that ALA is doing a mailing to all people who have dropped membership in the last three years.

3. Reasons for membership attrition were discussed, with speculation that some decreases could be due to increased LITA and ALA dues.  However, it is hard to read the tea leaves, so maybe some direct data from former members could be collected by conducting an exit interview.  The idea of making personal phone calls to former members was suggested and passed on the Membership Committee liaison, Mike Bolam, for consideration.  Mary will also check resources available through the Association of Associations to find any available best practices or tools for conducting exit interviews.
4. The Education Committee reported on its survey to determine LITA members’ interests.  They are also looking at evaluation forms for various LITA programs (ALA conference, Forum, LITA camp).  And they are considering best ways to share data on what worked with a program to improve operations within LITA.
5. Bonnie mentioned the 7 Measures suvey of LITA Committee/IG Chairs that was conducted at ALA Midwinter.  The results are still being compiled and will be posted to the Committee’s Google docs site.
6. Co-chairs asked Committee to think about the LITA Research agenda in order to be able to advise the LITA Board on next steps and budget needs.  We need to work with other LITA units to determine what data might be needed.  Priority questions needing to be addressed are membership recruitment and retention and programming.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES: Action Items:

1. Action item: Develop a template for what this committee could do for the other units.
2. Action item: Committee members should go to Town Hall Meeting to hear about both member and outsider perceptions of LITA.
3. Action item: Review survey results that Bonnie is compiling and be prepared to discuss by email.
4. Action item: Committee members with terms expiring in June 2009 who are interested in renewing or joining this committee need to fill in the volunteer form on the LITA website.  The new appointment would begin after ALA Annual in July 2009.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Present: Diane Bisom (Co-Chair); Bonnie Postlethwaite (Co-Chair); Frank Cervone; Gail Clement; Michelle Kowalsky; Mike Bolam; Andres Orphanides (via Skype); Stephanie Walker (via Skype); Elizabeth German (Guest); Mary Taylor (LITA Executive Director); Peter Hernon (Guest); Ranti Junus (Guest).

Minutes compiled by Gail Clement.

Charge:
To explore the possibilities for providing technical support to committees which need to include absent members using Internet connectivity.  To develop an implementation plan for the 2009 Annual Conference.

• Identify levels of support needed and appropriate tool for each level;
• Identify existing tools and develop new tools as needed;
• Identify services that might be needed;
• Determine best ways of providing tools and services.

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

• David Lee King, Chair
• Cindi Trainor
• Lauren Pressley
• Derik Badman
• Andreas Orphanides
• Barbara Blummer

GROUP: Technology and Access Committee

CHAIR: David Nutty

REPORTER: David Nutty

CONFERENCE: Midwinter

MEETING: Committee meeting

ATTENDEES: 9

CURRENT ACTIVITIES: Planning for a program at ALA Annual Chicago has been the main focus of the committee prior to and at the Midwinter Meeting in Denver.  The committee has focused the topic to Net Neutrality.  The committee has tentative commitments (later confirmed) from three outstanding speakers.  Due to the quality of the speakers and the timeliness of the topic, we have requested a larger room for ALA Chicago.

Other business at the Midwinter meeting included discussion of the LITA Strategic Planning Meeting; a request from the Board to draft a resolution for Judith Krug on the 40th anniversary of the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the committee’s role in promoting access to LITA conference programming via low-cost or mobile technologies.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES: The committee’s program at ALA Chicago: “Net Neutrality and its Implications for Libraries” is the primary focus for the committee in the next six months.

A committee member will work with the Chair to draft a resolution for Judith Krug.

A committee member will serve on the new e-Participation task force.

The committee will continue to respond to NISO feedback opportunities as appropriate.

The committee will continue to work closely with the LITA Legislation and Regulations Committee.

GROUP: Education Committee

CHAIRS: David Ward, Mandy Havert

REPORTER: David Ward

CONFERENCE: Midwinter

ATTENDEES: 12

CURRENT ACTIVITIES: LITA Education combined with Regional Institutes in the past year.  We spent from Annual 08 - Midwinter 09 reviewing our charge and creating organizational documents to track and help guide the newly combined committee’s role.

Part of this involved assigning committee members as liaisons to all LITA IGs/Committees to gather information on possible educational programming opportunities, including Regional Institutes, Programs/Preconferences at Annual, Midwinter opportunities, and online webinar/tutorial/course planning.

At Midwinter we reviewed liaison reports and decided on the following topics to pursue programming for over the next year:

• Open Source
• Mobile Tech
• RDA
• Extensible Catalog
• SOA (Service Oriented Architecture)
• Semantic Web

Additionally, we are going to work with LITA Forum Committee, Top Tech Trends, PPC, and others to pursue other topics and speakers as opportunities arise.  In particular, we are going to look at ways to build additional educational programming from successful programs and events form other LITA committees.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES: Develop at least 2 education programming opportunities from the following topics:

• Open Source
• Mobile Tech
• RDA
• Extensible Catalog
• SOA (Service Oriented Architecture)
• Semantic Web

Also, put on additional educational programming as opportunities are identified from the work of other committees/IGs/etc.

GROUP: LITA/Brett Butler Entrepreneurship Award

CHAIR: Martin Halbert

REPORTER: Martin Halbert

CONFERENCE: Midwinter

ATTENDEES: 5

CURRENT ACTIVITIES: The LITA Brett Butler Award Committee met on Saturday, January 24, 2009, at 1:30 PM in the Colorado Convention Center room 712.  Several members were absent because of budget cuts in travel at their institutions.  Attending were: Nancy Colyar (Past Chair), Martin Halbert (Current Chair), Ronald Peterson, Mary Alice Ball (Board Liaison), and Helen Wilbur (Awards Representative).  Absent were: Emily Ford and Billy Kwan.

The committee selected this year’s recipient of the award, and will write this up together with the citation for presentation at the awards ceremony at annual.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES: The group noted again the small number of nominations this year (3), and discussed ways of increasing the awareness of the award.

Publicizing the award on additional listservs was the first priority:

• CNI-Announce (Martin)
• DLF-Announce (Martin)
• MLIS program listservs (Nancy) or school by school (Ronald)
• PLA Directors listservs (we will contact Mary Taylor)
• Statewide listservs (Helen, perhaps through LSTA listservs)

We also thought presentations at other non-ALA conferences might help:

• CNI (Martin and Helen will contact Cliff Lynch)

Next Steps:

• We will have Mary Taylor coordinate with other committees on publicity.
• We will engage Cliff Lynch with other thought leaders in nominating process.
• Get the word out at the beginning of the Fall circa September.
• Post on Gale website.
• Martin and Helen will coordinate this at the end of the summer (contact her right after Labor Day).

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: We discussed membership and will be in touch on either renewals or recruitment of new members.

http://yourbigwig.com/proposals/forum09

The survey will be open until Sunday, March 22nd for your input.

Survey Tips:

* You are not required to login to participate.
* Please rate the proposals from 1 star (least interesting) to 5 stars (most interesting). There are 65 sessions total. You can rank all or only some.
* The order in which the proposals display is randomized on an individual session basis, so the order will differ if you return more than once.
* You do not have to be a LITA member to participate - just an interest in helping LITA have the Forum you’d like to see.

Thanks go to the LITA BIGWIG Interest Group for providing space in their sandbox for the committee to run this experiment.

Comments on this experimental feedback survey are welcome and should be sent to the Forum Committee via zoe@ohiolink.edu

Participants determine the topic and format of the sessions on-site, sign up for time slots and pitch session ideas to all. This format encourages collaboration, interaction, discussion and real-time innovation. You get to be both a participant and a presenter, discussing and learning about topics you really care about.

Visit the LITA web site for registration and housing information and the LITACamp wiki and LITACamp blog for the most up-to-date information on the Camp. Registration includes Thursday lunch, continental breakfasts, parking and wifi at the conference center. Registration will be accepted online and onsite; deadline to receive LITA housing rate is April 10.

LITACamp will be ideal for anyone interested in using technology to improve services and access for patrons. Librarians, information technologists, students and trustees from the user-centered information community are all encouraged to attend this un-conference focused on timely discussions of current library issues as determined by the participants themselves.

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.
Karen Coombs of the University of Houston is presenting.

A Thousand Words: Taking Better Photos for Telling Stories in Your Library 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.
Cindi Trainor, Michael Porter, and Helene Blowers are presenting

The LITA web site has more information about these and other LITA programs at Annual.

Visit the 2009 ALA Annual Conference registration page to register for these events.

Charge: 
In support of implementing a centralized system to gather, evaluate and select programs, the LITA Program Process System Task Force will identify systems to determine the most appropriate systems and recommend what they determine to be the best choice(s). 

• Gather system requirements
• Identify common elements for all committees as well as unique elements for each committee
• Identify, evaluate, and analyze available systems

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

• Ranti Junus, Chair (LITA Program Planning Committee)
• Dale Poulter (LITA Program Planning Committee)
• Zoe Steward-Marshall (LITA National Forum Committee 2009)
• Jennifer Reiswig  (LITA National Forum Committee 2010)
• Lauren Pressley  (LITA Web Coordinating Committee)
• Danielle Plumer  (LITA Education Committee)
• Paul Bracke  (LITA Publications Committee)

Check out the LITA WIKI for updates from the task force.

The text associated with this announcement is as follows:

“In accordance with NISO procedures, we are offering you the option of joining the voting pool for five NISO standards that are due for reviews. All five standards are under the responsibility of the Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee.
…
Joining the voting pool will allow you to vote on the standard and provide comments. Once the voting pools have been formed, separate ballots for each standard will be issued only to those who have joined the pool. If you do not join the voting pool for a particular standard, you are in essence “abstaining” from any decision made regarding this standard’s reaffirmation ballot.”

NISO needs at least 15% of the voting membership to join the pool. If less than 15% express interest in the standards, they may be considered by the Board for administrative withdrawal.

The five standards in this voting pool (with the URL to the PDF files for the standard) are listed below:

1) ANSI/NISO Z39.53-2001, Codes for the Representation of Languages for Information Interchange
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-53-2001/

2) ANSI/NISO Z39.64-1989 (R2002), East Asian Character Code for Bibliographic Use Bibliographic Use
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-64-1989R2002/

3) ANSI/NISO Z39.77-2000, Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-77-2001/

4) ANSI/NISO Z39.79-2001, Environmental Conditions for Exhibiting Library and Archival Materials
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-79-2001/

5) ANSI/NISO Z39.82-2001, Title Pages for Conference Publications
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-82-2001/

Cindy adds: “The ballot to select which voting pools ALA should opt into closes April 15. I therefore would like to have feedback from anyone who wishes to comment no later than April 8. Since these are NISO and not ISO standards, you can review the documents in question yourself (without me having to send you copies) at the URLs listed above. Unless I am presented a compelling case not to opt ALA into these voting pools, I plan to opt the organization into the review process for all of these standards, none of which are outside the range of library expertise.”

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The text supplied with this ballot explains:

“This is the first ballot on a new standard, ISO/CD 13028, Information and documentation — Implementation guidelines for digitisation of records. This Standard provides guidance for maintaining records in digital format only, where the original paper, or other non-digital source record, has been copied by digitising or other means. It sets out the best practice guidelines for digitisation processes to meet the requirements for trustworthiness and reliability of records.”

Cindy reminds us that this is not a NISO standard, but is being balloted by ISO. 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 the feedback that it receives prior to submitting the US vote. ALA members can acquire a copy for review purposes by applying directly to Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Please confirm in your request that you are an ALA member (and if possible copy me as well, at metadata.maven@gmail.com).

Comments are due to Cindy by April 24, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Submit proposals by February 20, 2009 online at:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lita2009/

The 2009 Forum Planning Committee will review proposals starting in February 2009. You will be contacted about the status of your proposal by the end of March.

View the complete call for proposals for more info.

Information provided about this activity by NISO:

(1) “This is a proposal to initiate a new project within TC46/SC11 (Archives/Records Management) to develop a standard for Information and documentation - Management system for records - Fundamentals and vocabulary. This standard will describe fundamentals of a management system for records and define related terms. This standard is needed to form the basis of the “family” of management system for records standards by presenting the structure of the standards family and relationship to other management system standards.”
(2) “This standard will specify business requirements for a management system for records to enable an organization to fulfill its mandate, mission, strategy, and goals through the development and implementation of a records policy and objectives and the measurement and monitoring of performance. A records policy and objectives enable organizations to create and maintain records as evidence and information of their activities for as long as they are needed. This standard is needed to provide a basis for a “family” of records management standards as part of an overall management standards system (MSS).”

If you have an interest in either or both parts of this work, please let Cindy know by April 14, 2009. Your vote options are: Yes (approve the new project), No (do not approve the project), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for No and Abstain votes. If you vote Yes, please indicate, in the comments, any recommendation you may have for a U.S. expert to work on the standard’s development and provide contact information for the individual (an email and/or phone number at a minimum).

The draft of the proposal is available to ALA members by applying directly to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) and confirming your ALA membership. If you can, please copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com) on your request.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

NISO has forwarded the following about this draft standard:

“This is a ballot for the draft standard, ISO/DIS 26162, Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content - Design, implementation and maintenance of terminology management systems. This ballot is from TC37 / SC3 (Terminology and other language and content resources / Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content).“

“ISO/DIS 26162 is one of a family of standards to facilitate the exchange of terminological data. This standard gives guidance on choosing the relevant data categories, designing and implementing a data model and a user interface of a terminology management system (TMS) with a view to the intended user group. The phases described here are indispensable for the successful development of a TMS and for avoiding costly errors. The standard may be used for choosing the appropriate TMS for a certain purpose. This standard is intended for terminologists, software developers and others who are involved in the process of developing or acquiring a TMS.”

As Cindy reminds us, ALA is a voting member of NISO, and NISO is the official U.S. voting member for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee 46 on Information and Documentation. This is not a NISO standard, but is being balloted by ISO’s TC46. ALA 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.

If you have an interest in commenting on this work and recommending a vote, please let Cindy know by May 15, 2009. Your vote options are: Yes (approve the new project), No (do not approve the project), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for No and Abstain votes.

The draft standard is available to ALA members by applying directly to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) and confirming your ALA membership. If you can, please copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com) on your request.

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

From the ballot itself:

“This is a systematic review ballot of the published standard, ISO 23081-1, Information and documentation: Records management processes –Metadata for records –Part 1: Principles.”

If you’re thinking that this description isn’t very helpful, you’re not alone! I had, in fact, heard about this standard via another channel, and it sounds like one of those superficially boring but actually quite critical efforts, particularly if one thinks that “packaging” and sharing metadata in future is going to be quite different than it is in our current environment. This is essentially administrative or meta-metadata we’re talking about.

As usual, access to the proposed standard is only available by applying directly to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) –please don’t forget to confirm your ALA membership. Her deadline is no later than: Monday, May 25, 2009. Please also copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com).

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

First: “ISO/DIS 28560-1, RFID in librairies– Part 1: General requirements.” Part 1 establishes an abstract data model for the use of RFID tags.

Second: “ISO/DIS 28560- 2, RFID in librairies –Part 2: Encoding based on ISO/IEC 15962.” Part 2 deals with the encoding rules based on ISO/IEC 15962, which uses an object identifier structure to identify data elements.

Third: “ISO/DIS 28560-3, RFID in librairies– Part 3: Fixed length encoding.” Part 3 specifies how to encode a subset of data elements (taken from the total set of data elements described in part 1) in a straightforward way in a basic block on the RFID tag.

Cindy notes: “This may be your last opportunity to make substantive comments to this standard. If there is 100% approval, the standard can go directly to publication.”

Access to all three of the balloted parts is only available by applying directly to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) –please don’t forget to confirm your ALA membership, and let her know whether you want a particular part or all three. Her deadline for comment is no later than: Friday May 29, 2009. Please also copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com) on your request.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Quoting from the information that comes with the ballot:

“First edition of the standard that merges and revises ISO 8459-1, ISO 8459-2, ISO 8459-3, ISO 8459-4 and ISO 8459-5. It specifies and describes data elements required in the interchange of data between bibliographic systems (i.e. terminal or browser to computer or computer to computer).”

Cindy adds: “This is the last ballot prior to publication. A Yes vote cannot contain any substantive comments (editorial comments are acceptable). If you have substantive comments, you should vote No.“

There’s a relatively short window for input to Cindy to provide advice for voting on this—she needs to have something in hand by Friday, Feb. 27, 2009. Those ALA members interested in reviewing the standard should apply directly to Cindy (HSLcindy@buffalo.edu) –please confirm to her that you are an ALA member (and copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com if you would).

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Anyway: We had five people at the single 2009 ALA Midwinter Meeting session–two committee members (Judy Jeng and Juan Carlos Rodriguez), Board liaison Mark Beatty, ITAL editor Marc Truitt, LITA Executive Director Mary Taylor and me. Given the extent of his advance comments, I’d consider committee member Paul Bracke to be a “virtual attendee.”

Topics:

• ITAL: The December issue is out, enough articles are on hand for the March and June issues, and probably enough for September. New submissions continue to arrive–and, as is typical of a high-value journal, fewer than half of the submissions are accepted. The ITALica blog hasn’t had a lot of activity to date, but it also doesn’t show up in end-of-article blurbs yet. (There aren’t metrics for blog readership yet.) The group discussed ITAL’s print status and OA status (currently a six-month embargo). Apparently, only half of the production budget is print-related, and outside subscriptions almost cover the costs (but not quite). The group suggested a member and subscriber survey to determine current preferences for print vs. e-only. Mary Taylor will look into availability of recycled paper (used by some other divisional journals). (We noted the possibility of an OA e-only journal with optional end-of-year print using PoD, as some journals are now doing.)
• LITA Guides and LITA monographs: We discussed the current Guides contract. One Guide proposal appeared just after Midwinter, and will be routed to committee members for discussion. There’s not a big flow of monographs (or any, actually), and we discussed whether there were loads of ideas out there where LITA could add value and books needed to be written. Opinions differ.
• Technology Electronic Reviews: With a resigning editor, two 2007 issues (the second having only three reviews) and no 2008 issues, TER appears moribund. The general feeling during the meeting was that the best solution might be to revitalize ITAL’s reviews section and invite TER reviewers to submit reviews to ITAL. That discussion may also be ongoing.
• The role of Publications Committee: Some discussion. Is the committee vital as a revenue source? Should members be actively soliciting possible monographs? Should the group take a look at both content that’s out there and appropriate venues? This is probably a long-term discussion, maybe to be moved forward with a younger and more energetic chair.

–Walt Crawford, chair (for now), LITA Publications Committee

I apologize in advance for too much keypress noise on the recording. I was monitoring the sound, but couldn’t hear the fact that my typing was so loud! Sorry if that annoys anyone.

In any case, here we are: LITA Top Tech Trends from ALA Midwinter 2009!

Important stuff first - we are pursuing speakers for educational programming opportunities (i.e Regional Institutes, ALA Programs, Preconferences, and online course/webinar/tutorial/etc. development). The following topics were identified as top priorities (from liaison reports with LITA IGs/Committees and a survey done 18 months ago).
Open Source
Mobile Tech
RDA
Extensible Catalog
SOA (Service Oriented Architecture)
Semantic Web

If you are interest in working with us to develop an educational program in one of these areas, please contact the chairs:
David Ward dh-ward@illinois.edu
Mandy Havert mhavert@nd.edu

You’ll notice some similarities with what is going on at LITA Forum and other LITA activities - one of our goals is to look for ways to take popular/well rated topics/speakers/programs and develop additional educational programming based on them. For example, developing an online course or tutorial based on a popular ALA program or preconference.

Now the more reporty stuff:
LITA Education combined with Regional Institutes in the past year. We spend from Annual 08-Midwinter 09 reviewing our charge and creating organizational documents to track help guide the newly combined committee’s role. Part of this involved assigning committee members as liaisons to all LITA IGs/Committees to gather information on possible educational programming opportunities, including Regional Institutes, Programs/Preconferences at Annual, Midwinter opportunities, and online webinar/tutorial/course planning. At Midwinter we reviewed liaison reports and decided on the following topics to pursue programming for over the next year: Open Source, Mobile Tech, RDA, Extensible Catalog ,SOA (Service Oriented Architecture), and the Semantic Web. Additionally, we are going to work with LITA Forum committee, Top Tech Trends, PPC, and others to pursue other topics and speakers as opportunities arise. In particular, we are going to look at ways to build additional educational programming from successful programs and events from other LITA committees.

–David Ward, on behalf of the LITA Education Committee

Here are the questions we asked during the breakout session:

1. What makes LITA unique inside ALA and in the greater community?
2. Who else is filling the same role as LITA right now?
3. What areas of IT are not be addressed in the community?
4. How do other organizations see LITA?
5. How can LITA work with other organizations?
6. What can LITA learn from peer organizations?

We had 12 tables in the room so 2 tables discussed each question. I posted pictures of the notes from each table and they can be found on Flickr.

I want to thank the following guests for coming to this event and participating in the discussion:

• ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries): Susan Kroll
• ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services): Dina Giambi and Mary Case
• ASIS&T: Nancy Roderer (Past-President)
• BCR (Bibliographical Center for Research): Regan Harper
• Digital Library Federation (DLF): Barrie Howard
• RUSA (Reference and User Services Association): Neal Wyatt
• Taigi: Tom Wilson (Board Member)
• OCLC/WebJunction: Beth Gutsche

I would also like to thank the Twitter table for getting a feed going on the spot! I really enjoyed reading it after the fact and I know those who could not attend enjoyed participating from wherever they were.

Finally, I would like to thank Matt Barnes from R2 Consulting for volunteering his time and facilitating the discussion.

Trendster Roy Tennant rounds out the LJ commentary with an inside perspective on the integration of live blogging, twitter, and streaming video and congratulations to the committee for “getting tech right.”

Pop Out

We’ll also have an audio-only download/Podcast coming in the next few days, for those that want to listen on the go. If you have other suggestions for where this should be posted, or if you embed the video somewhere, let us know!

1. Schedule corrections for Imagineering and Public Libraries & Technology Interest Groups
2. Program planing submission process. We need to streamline the process, remove the manual process and cange it with a web-based form if possible, and have it ready by Annual 2009 for 2010 program submission. At this point, it might be difficult to achieve it in six months if we rely on ALA IT to build the infrastructure for us. A working group would be established to assess and provide recommendations
3. Program proposal work flow. The PPC committee would like to see if individuals could submit a program proposal without going through formal Interest Group channel. Another working group would be created to research and provide recommendations.
4. LITA Manual section 10 on Programs at ALA Annual Conference and how to make the manual more user friendly. A group of PPC members would look into this.
5. Looking at possibility of LITA PPC to sponsor a program, especially to help new members and/or incoming IG chair to organize a program.

We’re getting a new program proposal from the International Relations Committee. They’re planning to bring topics on technology and developing world:

• OLPC (One Laptop per Child) project.
• OACIS (online Access to Consolidated Information on Serials),a project to digitize and make available selected scholarly humanistic Iraqi journals. Also a similar project, AMEEL (A Middle Eastern Electronic Library), to digitize about 100,000 pages of scholarly journal content from ten Middle Eastern countries, as well as providing technological training and infrastructure between those institutions.
• United Nation efforts on bringing new technologies to the developing world.

Tentative schedule is Saturday, 8-10am.

• Should I choose tech things that have changed they way I think about technology this year?
• How specific or narrow should my trends me?
• How accessible to non-techies

Also, I worry about getting a diversity of opinions and people feeling they the trends the trendsters put forward are too general or obvious. Picking trend is hard for all these reasons, plus you don’t want to pick something that turns out to not really be a trend.

So, this time I’m categorizing my trends a bit.

My personal A-HA trend

Web applications which are extremely flexible, versatile and extendable. For me the app that has typified this in my work this year is Drupal. Drupal is a veritable swiss army knife which can be used in a variety of ways. I’m been playing with it for our library’s intranet, writing about using it as a library website CMS, and experimenting with using it for digital library collections. I’ve been nothing but impressed. And while this particular app my come and go, the idea that software should be built in this way is one which has made a distinct impression on me. It is influencing the way in which I’m asking my developers to build and what new software I’m choosing substantially.

The everyone’s going to say it but it needs to be said trend

Mobile technologies are changing society. They are here to stay, they are only going to get better with time, and we need to expect mobile devices to be a significant portions of our usage. Enough said.

The one which scares the sh!t out of me

The waking digital preservation nightmare Whether it is books digitized by Google, videos posted on the web, or Flickr photos the explosion of digital content for which there isn’t a clear curation plan has create a void which few libraries seem to be willing to step up and fill. Getting to know more about about digital libraries in the last year has given me a greater appreciate for just how difficult the job of preservation is. It goes beyond backing stuff up. You have to make sure the bits you started out with are the bits you currently have. You have to migrate file formats and technologies become obsolete and you have to make sure you have the right to migrate formats. There seems to be a serious lack of this taking place in commercial content sharing ventures.

The trend which I think may empower smaller libraries the most

Hosted supported open source software There is an increasing number of companies both in the library and non-library world providing hosting and support for open source software. LibLime and Equinox should be familar to folks now. But companies like CraftySpace (which provides Drupal-based website design and implementation), The Cherry Hill Company (Drupal - demo site), and incsub (which provides support and development for WordpressMU) as well as library consortia are getting in the game. This could change the game for smaller libraires causing a rise in the adoption of open source. Some consortia efforts worth noting in this arena?

• Plinkit for Oregon Public libraries (Plone)
• My Kansas Library on the Web (Wordpress)
• Idaho Commission for Libraries eBranch in a Box (Drupal)

1. The Art of Web Presence Maintenance

With libraries extending their web presences out beyond the borders of their own websites proper, the coordination and successful maintenance of these presences has become a skill in its own right. How to successfully leverage a Facebook page for your library? How to successfully use Wikipedia to promote your library’s services? On which sites should you be present? How to successfully use YouTube for library videocasts? The list goes on and on. The skills include the ability to creatively manage your different presences, updating them when appropriate, keeping information current, participating in new sites when warranted, and deleting outdated presences. More libraries are designating people other than their traditional website managers to manage these extended parts of their web presence. For many libraries it is a decentralized process, while for others it is all done by one person. Managing a library’s extended web presence truly has become an art, and an art that each library needs to (and seems to want to) learn about. I see the future bringing more and more libraries focusing on this aspect, and the real skills that these tasks require, such as customer service, web skills and knowledge, writing skills, etc.

2. Plug-ins, Widgets, and Hacks, Oh My!

Websites are no longer stand-alone entities. They are segmented bits of code, little pieces of functionality, all grouped together to make dynamic and interactive pages. The number of plug-ins, widgets, and hacks in the last year that can be used effectively on library websites has increased dramatically compared to previous years. This has a lot to do with services opening up their APIs, more people interested in creating technology that works for them when they can’t find an existing version. This opens up all sorts of possibilities for any library. Most of these services are free which has resulted in many, many libraries taking advantage of them. The number of libraries taking advantage of these will continue to grow, especially in times of difficult budgets when “free” is the only choice.

3. My Kumpyootur Kan Has a Kloud

Cloud computing has been discussed a lot in the information community in the last few years. Libraries have taken advantage of this already by using services such as Google Docs to offer services or enhance communication. When cloud computing becomes the norm (which I and others think it will in the next few years), this will be a boon for library users. Their services, files, software permissions, etc. will all be stored remotely by their service providers. They can use our computers, which will likely have to be less robust (less software installed, as an example), to access their super-awesome services and get their personalized profile right there in the library. But what about those users who don’t have services? What will the library provide as a standard, and how? Cloud computing will be an amazing development in information access, but it probably won’t end the complains in public libraries about wanting the library to purchase or provide access to obscure services/software. Sorry :/

4. Online Training Has Its Debutante Ball

To date, most libraries (and by libraries I mean library managers and supervisors) treat online learning like it isn’t valid. Not in your library? No? Think of this: does your manager allow/encourage staff to go to in-person classes held by the library staff, your parent organization, etc.? Does your manager equally, if at all, allow/encourage staff to view webcasts, review online tutorials, look at online training materials, etc.? Most libraries that I have visited (a mix of public and academic) have little time for staff to go to training, and little funding at that. However, they will happily pay for an in-person class that also involves an hour of travel time for the attendee, but not give the same person time to watch a webcast on the same topic from his/her desk. It’s almost as though there is an unwritten rule: “If you’re at your desk, it’s not real training.” While as a trainer I completely agree that some topics require in-person classes, most topics can be covered through online screencasts, webcasts, written tutorials, and the like. Fortunately, in the last year I have seen more libraries opening up to online training as a valid training delivery method. I believe that this also has to do with budget difficulties. Less money = a need for creative training approaches. Incidentally, this applies for your users too. Create a screencast of your email basics class and point users to that. With increased demand for classes on email, resume writing, finding a job, etc., it pays to offer an alternative to the waiting list for the in-person class.

5. Less $ = Less eResources (a disturbing trend)

I conducted an informal survey of libraries in my area to see if their eResource budgets were being cut because of the bad budget year (and the many to follow in all likelihood). It seems that eResources (databases and eBooks) budgets are being cut more than the traditional collection budgets are. This could be a San Francisco Bay Area anomaly, but I’m guessing not. And I’m wondering why it became OK to consider eResources less essential than physical ones. Times are tough - which is precisely why eResources make more sense. They have a higher return on investment, examining cost vs. use, (up to 5 times as much in my studies). They are accessible to anyone with a computer and internet connection, any time. And for the bulk of them, there is not a limit to the number of users who can access the information at any given time. Especially for periodicals, eResources make more sense than physical ones. And yet, this year, periodical budgets aren’t being cut but periodical database budgets are. This is disturbing to me as it shows an overall “second class” status for eResources, while in my opinion the return on investment for materials should be what counts most. I am distressed to think that now that we have finally climbed that mountain where most library staff accept the place of eResources in our libraries, we are sliding back and saying that they aren’t as important to us, or our users. And that’s why the trend is disturbing - did we ask the users? What do the users think about this? What would they prefer, if given all of the information?

What can you see as usefulness of a group like PLTIG? We had a lively discussion on some ideas:
Competencies in technology in small & rural libraries … survey being done by Emerging Leaders.
Roving Service model and the types of technologies that would support that development.
This could be a place where the technical and non-technical could connect.
Table talks where you could learn from an expert …
Want to listen to what other libraries are doing.
Look into webinars for sharing the information/content
Training structures for libraries (drop-in training and mobile technology … e.g. I-touch)
ACRL pre-conference on how to set up Facebook Apps; search plug-ins; widget box; Google gadgets; libex toolbar;
Sometimes it’s the little libraries and how they are “making do” with smaller budgets & smaller population density… so how does it affect service models.
Mid-sized libraries can have more flexibility in building something new….
The web has changed what smaller libraries can done, leveling the playing field.
The program aspects of what is available tech-wise that librarians can use right away.
Is there a concern about “fragmentation” vs. “consistency”?
Isn’t just important to have a framework… can IT depts do that for staff?
Some people may be dropping those Internet charges and will that mean that “in-person” activity increase even more?
Digitization projects are becoming more important in building content.
What about consortia and what is the impact of delivering technology services to libraries? Cooperation is key.
It looks like we can spin our business meeting into an Ask the Expert moderated discussion with such topics as I-phone apps; Facebook Apps; Roving service technologies; “Delicious” or Online tagging; Best practices… maybe providing a venue to promote what is already out there such as Tech Notes; Is there any technology smaller libraries should skip?;

Advertise “Ask an Expert” in PLA … and other divisions.
Paul will email everyone who is here to ask who they know could be experts…

Then we discussed the SRP program for Annual… assuming we get our Sunday afternoon slot.
We reviewed the panel participants and decided that screen shots will be best for demonstration purposes.
We should also have a hand-out that shows comparatively what each vendor/system is providing.
5-10 minutes per person and then 20 minutes for questions.
Presenters could include the “end-user” experience, their goals, how they implemented, what worked and what didn’t, evaluation. And how to overcome the password protection issue and/or how to retrieve the information. Perhaps each presenter could just pick 2 or 3 topics out of this list in person but everything would be available in a virtual hand-out.

Great meeting!

Click Here

Please note that we will not be able to post all comments during the session. Before and after the session, please feel free to leave comments or questions in the comments to this post.

Trendsters participating in the session:
Clifford Lynch, Director of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
http://www.cni.org/staff/clifford_index.html
Karen A. Coombs, Head of Web Services, University of Houston Libraries.
“Library Web Chic” blog: http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/
Karen Coyle, librarian and consultant in the area of digital libraries
Blog: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/index.html
Karen Schneider, Community Librarian at Equinox Software.
“Free Range Librarian” blog: http://freerangelibrarian.com/
Marshall Breeding, Director for Innovative Technologies and Research, Vanderbilt University.
http://lib1a.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding/
Roy Tennant, Senior Program Officer, Research, OCLC.
http://roytennant.com/

UPDATE: blogger surferblue posted a nice list of the links mentioned in the session as well as an excellent transcription/summary of what was said by the trendsters. Thank you, surferblue!

All of the speeches and leadership lessons were interesting and dynamic. However, long blog posts sometimes are not, so below you find the key points and lessons from the talks:

Leslie Berger spoke on leadership and what she hoped the Emerging Leaders would gain and also give back to ALA. Her key points included the following:
- Ask and challenge. Then ask and challenge. Ask why, why, why, why? Don’t be afraid to challenge the status quo and constantly ask yourself and others “Why do we do it this way”?
- Be bold - don’t be afraid to speak out and ask “the old guys” questions (a reference to older, more experienced members of ALA that new members may feel intimidated by)
- In ALA it’s not about who’s right, it’s about reaching our goals together as an organization.

Maureen Sullivan drew on her immense experience in library leadership and consulting experience to provide the following leadership insight:
- The five key elements of good leaders are: they challenge the process, they inspire shared vision, they enable others to act, the model the way, and they encourage the heart.
- She recommended the work of Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner for further insight into what makes great leaders.

Peter Bromberg spoke on the key skills that are necessary to successful virtual teamwork - a huge part of the Emerging Leaders program.
- The habits of successful virtual teams include: strong orientation towards results, high levels of communication (some kind of synchronous communication is key), the embracing of technologies that work well for all team members, accountability on behalf of all, and excellent team dynamics.

Keith Fiels stopped by for a few moments and let the Emerging Leaders know the keys to being great leaders within ALA:
- Show up, volunteer when the opportunity arises, and you promise something, deliver on it.

Jim Rettig spoke briefly on the importance of transparent organizations and mentioned that in many ways, the work that the Emerging Leaders do is very much like the work of President Obama - it creates change and if done correctly lends to organizational transparency.

Connie Paul led a variety of activities throughout the day, including goals assessment, identification of team goals and strategies and ice breakers.

Again, for further information and to view the presentations, visit the Emerging Leaders wiki at http://wikis.ala.org/emergingleaders/index.php/2009_Emerging_Leaders_Program

We will have presentations and discussion about two examples of recent next generation catalog endeavors.

Beth Jefferson (Founder of Bibliocommons) will share real world examples and implications of “Transforming online library catalogs from searchable inventory systems into engaging social discovery environments”.

John Mark Ockerbloom, University of Pennsylvania Libraries and chair of the Digital Library Federation’s ILS-DI Task Group will “Outline the DLF ILS-DI recommendations, describe some of the activities inspired by or related to the recommendations, and discuss what fruit they can bear”.

The demand for new ways for users to discover relevant library resources has grown tremendously in the past few years. Application development and deployment has been limited, however, by the need to interoperate with any of a variety of integrated library systems. In 2008, a Digital Library Federation task group published a set of recommendations for standard functions that could be used by discovery applications to obtain metadata and other services from any ILS. They included a basic level of ILS-application interoperability that was endorsed by most ILS vendors, as well as more advanced levels that may allow even richer interactions in the future.

A brief IG business meeting will follow the discussion.

Midwinter 2009’s “What’s Happening“document  is now available [PDF].

View Larger Map

What library issues are most important to ALA members to share with President Obama?  The ALA Town Hall Meeting will discuss this topic on Saturday, Jan. 24, 3 PM to 4:30 PM, in the Four Seasons Ballroom at the Colorado Convention Center. Share your views at the Town Hall Discussion wiki.
http://wikis.ala.org/midwinter2009/index.php/Town_Hall_Discussion

Just click on the day, and you’ll see a list of the LITA events happening in Denver! Easier and faster (I think) than the ALA program planner.

Following the conference, the trends will continue on the LITA blog with a podcast of the session, discussion, and links to resources that expand on the technologies and topics discussed.

So please join us, online or in person, on ***Sunday January 25th from 8-10am (MST)***. Here’s how to join up:

***In-person in Denver***
Crown Plaza hotel, “Office” room
(Please note that seating in the room is limited. We welcome everyone who can come, but we may reach capacity quickly)

***Online via web browser***
Watch this space under the Top Tech Trends category for the Live Blog post on Sunday morning.

***Online via Twitter***
Tag your tweets: #ttt09
Follow along in the BIGWIG friendfeed room:
Watch for our very own Twitter account: toptechtrends

The 2009 National Forum Committee seeks proposals for high quality concurrent sessions and poster sessions for the 12th annual LITA National Forum to be held at the Hilton Salt Lake City Center hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah from October 1-4, 2009.

This year we have switched over to online submissions so it’s quick and easy (see the URL below). Also, we’ve extended the deadline for submitting proposals to February 20, 2009!

Theme: Open and Mobile

The Forum Committee is interested in presentations that highlight specific technology implementations; just over-the-horizon technologies that are almost ready for implementation; or information technology research. We are interested in all types of libraries: public, government, school, academic, special, and corporate. Proposals on any aspect of library and information technology are welcome.

Some possible ideas for proposals might include:

* Handheld Technologies: PDAs, Smartphones, Tablet PCS
* E-learning: Effective e-learning and distance learning for the mobile-optimized Web
* Mobile Devices and Accessibility
* Library-specific open source software (OSS) and other OSS “in” Libraries, technology on a budget
* Exposing Library Services via APIs (or APIs in general)
* Anticipating Change: how libraries can be more mobile/flexible/responsive

* Social Computing: social tools, collaborative software, etc.
* User created content: Book reviews, tagging, etc.
* Virtual worlds
* Gaming in Education and Libraries
* Federated and Meta-Searching: design and management, integrated access to resources, search engines
* Digital Libraries/ Institutional Repositories: developments in resource linking, preservation, maintenance, web services
* Authentication and Authorization: Digital Rights Management (DRM), authentication, privacy, services for remote patrons
* Web design: information architecture, activity-centered design, user-centered design, usability testing
* Technology Management: project management, geek management, budgeting, knowledge sharing applications
* Internet Law: privacy, copyright, filtering
* RFID in libraries

Presentations must have a technological focus and pertain to libraries and/or be of interest to librarians. Concurrent sessions are approximately 75 minutes in length and sessions of all varieties are welcomed from traditional single- or multi-speaker formats to panel discussions, case studies, and demonstrations of projects. Forum 2009 will also accept a limited number of poster session proposals.

For projects that will still be in preliminary development in October 2009, we recommend presentation at a lightning talk or other un-conference-like activity for which time will be reserved at Forum. A call for these types of presentations and discussions will be issued after February 2009.

Presenters are required to submit draft presentation slides and/or handouts three weeks in advance for inclusion on the Forum USB drive, and are required to submit final presentation slides to be made available on the Web site after the event.

Your proposals are welcome and much appreciated! To submit a proposal, enter the following information online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lita2009/ :

* Title
* Summary (a one-sentence description of your presentation) (max. 200 characters)
* Abstract and brief outline
* Level indicator (basic, intermediate, or advanced)
* Brief biographical information. Include experience as a presenter and expertise in the topic
* Full contact information
* Is this proposal for a concurrent session?
* Is this proposal for a poster session?
* If this proposal is for a concurrent session, might it be considered for a poster session?
* If this proposal is for a concurrent session, might it be expanded into a half-day or full-day preconference?
* How did you hear about the 2009 Forum call for proposals?

Submit proposals by February 20, 2009 online at:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lita2009/

The 2009 Forum Planning Committee will review proposals starting in February 2009. You will be contacted about the status of your proposal by the end of March.

As usual, she provides us some text to pique our interest:

‘ISO/CD 25964-1, Thesauri and interoperability…, Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval’

This is the first ballot on a new standard, Information and documentation — Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies — Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval.

This standard is a revision and merger of the two existing standards for monolingual (ISO 2788) and multilingual (ISO 5964) thesauri. The new standard is planned to be issued in two parts. This ballot is for Part 1, which covers the development and maintenance of thesauri, both monolingual and multilingual, including formats and protocols for data exchange. Part 2 is still in development; it will deal with interoperability between different thesauri and with other types of structured vocabulary.

The referenced standard is included with the ballot in two files. The first file is the body of the standard. The second file is the informative annexes. Note that the annexes contain examples from other documents which may be copyrighted and copyright permission has not yet been obtained for the final publication. Therefore, please do no disseminate this annex beyond the voting membership.

Also as usual, ALA may distribute copies of these documents (to ALA members only) for the purpose of review and comment related to the preparation of the U.S. position. Those interested in reviewing the documents should apply directly to Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (confirming their ALA membership with their request).

In the absence of other recommendations, ALA will recommend that NISO vote “yes” on the ballot.

Update 1/19/09: Oops, forgot to include the deadline, it’s March 6, 2009. [dih]

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Indexing with Solr/Lucene works well - Lucene seems to have become the gold standard when it comes to open source indexer/search engine platforms. Solr — a Web Services interface to Lucene — is increasingly the preferred way to read & write Lucene indexes. Librarians love to create lists. Books. Journals. Articles. Movies. Authoritative names and subjects. Websites. Etc. All of these lists beg for the organization. Thus, (relational) databases. But Lists need to be short, easily sortable, and/or searchable in order to be useful as finding aids. Indexers make things searchable, not databases. The library profession needs to get its head around the creation of indexes. The Solr/Lucene combination is a good place to start — er, catch up.

Linked data is a new name for the Semantic Web - The Semantic Web is about creating conceptual relationships between things found on the Internet. Believe it or not, the idea is akin to the ultimate purpose of a traditional library card catalog. Have an item in hand. Give it a unique identifier. Systematically describe it. Put all the descriptions in one place and allow people to navigate the space. By following the tracings it is possible to move from one manifestation of an idea to another ultimately providing the means to the discovery, combination, and creation of new ideas. The Semantic Web is almost the exactly the same thing except the “cards” are manifested using RDF/XML on computers through the Internet. From the beginning RDF has gotten a bad name. “Too difficult to implement, and besides the Semantic Web is a thing of science fiction.” Recently the term “linked data” has been used to denote the same process of creating conceptual relationships between things on the ‘Net. It is the Semantic Web by a different name. There is still hope.

Blogging is peaking - There is no doubt about it. The Blogosphere is here to stay, yet people have discovered that it is not very easy to maintain a blog for the long haul. The technology has made it easier to compose and distribute one’s ideas, much to the chagrin of newspaper publishers. On the other hand, the really hard work is coming up with meaningful things to say on a regular basis. People have figured this out, and consequently many blogs have gone by the wayside. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that the number of new blogs is decreasing, and the number of postings to existing blogs is decreasing as well. Blogging was “kewl” is cool but also hard work. Blogging is peaking. And by the way, I dislike those blogs which are only partial syndicated. They allow you to read the first 256 characters or so of and entry, and then encourage you to go to their home site to read the whole story whereby you are bombarded with loads of advertising.

Word/tag clouds abound - It seems very fashionable to create word/tag clouds now-a-days. When you get right down to it, word/tag clouds are a whole lot like concordances — one of the first types of indexes. Each word (or tag) in a document is itemized and counted. Stop words are removed, and the results are sorted either alphabetically or numerically by count. This process — especially if it were applied to significant phrases — could be a very effective and visual way to describe the “aboutness” of a file (electronic book, article, mailing list archive, etc.). An advanced feature is to hyperlink each word, tag, or phrase to specific locations in the file. Given a set of files on similar themes, it might be interesting to create word/tag clouds against them in order to compare and contrast. Hmmm…

“Next Generation” library catalogs seem to be defined - From my perspective, the profession has stopped asking questions about the definition of “next generation” library catalogs. I base this statement on two things. First, the number of postings and discussion on a mailing list called NGC4Lib has dwindled. There are fewer questions and even less discussion. Second, the applications touting themselves, more or less, as “next generation” library catalog systems all have similar architectures. Ingest content from various sources. Normalize it into an internal data structure. Store the normalized data. Index the normalized data. Provide access to the index as well as services against the index such as tag, review, and Did You Mean? All of this is nice, but it really isn’t very “next generation”. Instead it is slightly more of the same. An index allows people to find, but people are still drinking from the proverbial fire hose. Anybody can find. In my opinion, the current definition of “next generation” does not go far enough. Library catalogs need to provide an increased number services against the content, not just services against the index. Compare & contrast. Do morphology against. Create word cloud from. Translate. Transform. Buy. Review. Discuss. Share. Preserve. Duplicate. Trace idea, citation, and/or author forwards & backwards. It is time to go beyond novel ways to search lists.

SRU is becoming more viable - SRU (Search/Retrieve via URL) is a Web Services-based protocol for searching databases/indexes. Send a specifically shaped URL to a remote HTTP server. Get back a specifically shaped response. SRU has been joined with a no-longer competing standard called OpenSearch in the form of an Abstract Protocol Definition, and the whole is on its way to becoming an OASIS standard. Just as importantly, an increasing number of the APIs supporting the external-facing OCLC Grid Services (WorldCat, Identities, Registries, Terminologies, Metadata Crosswalk) use SRU as the query interface. SRU has many advantages, but some of those advantages are also disadvantages. For example, its query language (CQL) is expressive, especially compared to OpenSearch or Google, but at the same time, it is not easy to implement. Second, the nature of SRU responses can range from rudimentary and simple to obtuse and complicated. More over, the response is always in XML. These factors make transforming the response for human consumption sometimes difficult to implement. Despite all these things, I think SRU is a step in the right direction.

The pendulum of data ownership is swinging - I believe it was Francis Bacon who said, “Knowledge is power”. In my epistemological cosmology, knowledge is based on information, and information is based on data. (Going the other way, knowledge leads to wisdom, but that is another essay.) Therefore, he who owns or has access to the data will ultimately have more power. Google increasingly has more data than just about anybody. They have a lot of power. OCLC increasingly “owns” the bibliographic data created by its membership. Ironically, this data — in both the case of Google and OCLC — is not freely available, even when the data was created for the benefit of the wider whole. I see this movement akin to the movement of a pendulum swinging one way and then the other. On my more pessimistic days I view it as a battle. On my calmer days I see it as a natural tendency, a give and take. Many librarians I know are in the profession, not for the money, but to support some sort of cause. Intellectual freedom. The right to read. Diversity. Preservation of the historical record. If I have a cause it then is about the free and equal access to information. This is why I advocate open access publishing, open source software, and Net Neutrality. When data and information is “owned” and “sold” an environment of information have’s and have not’s manifests itself. Ultimately, this leads to individual gain but not necessarily the improvement of the human condition as a whole.

The Digital Dark Age continues - We, as a society, are continuing to create a Digital Dark Age. Considering all of the aspects of librarianship, the folks who deal with preservation, conservation, and archives have the toughest row to hoe. It is ironic. On one hand there is more data and information available than just about anybody knows what to do with. On the other hand, much of this data and information will not be readable, let alone available, in the foreseeable future. Somebody is going to want to do research on the use of blogs and email. What libraries are archiving this data? We are writing reports and summaries in binary and proprietary formats. Such things are akin to music distributed on 8-track tapes. Where are the gizmos enabling us to read these formats? We increasingly license our most desired content — scholarly journal articles — and in the end we don’t own anything. With the advent of Project Gutenberg, Google Books, and the Open Content Alliance the numbers of freely available electronic books rival the collections of many academic libraries. Who is collecting these things? Do we really want to put all of our eggs into one basket and trust these entities to keep them for the long haul? The HathiTrust understand this phenomonon, and “Lot’s of copies keep stuff safe.” Good. In the current environment of networked information, we need to re-articulate the definition of “collection”.

Finally, regarding change. It manifests itself along a continuum. At one end is evolution. Slow. Many false starts. Incremental. At the other end is revolution. Fast. Violent. Decisive. Institutions and their behaviors change slowly. Otherwise they wouldn’t be the same institutions. Librarianship is an institution. Its behavior changes slowly. This is to be expected.

LITA NATIONAL FORUM 2008 REPORT

I was indeed fortunate to have been the Librarian from the Caribbean who received the 2008 Errol Hill Travel Grant to attend the LITA National Forum that was held in Cincinnati October 15 to 20, 2008. The process of preparing this report on my attendance at the Forum had me spending quite some time reflecting on the journey that led to the LITA National Forum in Cincinnati where I attended three general sessions and six of the concurrent sessions.

It all started back in 1979 with my undergraduate studies at the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, Jamaica when students there were still using punch cards. On graduation in 1982, I started my library career in the Montserrat Public Library which became the local hub for regional initiatives in the use of technology for information management. The software that was then widely in use in Caribbean libraries was CDS ISIS (DOS version) which was developed by UNESCO’s Giampaolo Del Bigio in whose training session, I once sat and whose jokes around the dinner table I enjoyed immensely.

From the mid-80s and right into the 90s, I was very much involved in such information systems and networks as:

CARISPLAN (Caribbean Information System for Social and Economic
Planning)

CEIS (Caribbean Energy Information System)

CAGRIS (Caribbean Agricultural Information System

CARSTIN (Caribbean Science and Technology Information Network)

OECS INFONET (Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, Sub-regional Information Network)

MEDCARIB (Caribbean Health Sciences Information Network)

Those were the days when pioneering work was being done by change agents such as Wilma Primus who was Head of the Documentation Centre at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC) which is based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. Her efforts were ably supported by the work of Carol Collins, who was then Director of Information and Communication for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat, Fay Durrant, now Professor and Head of the Department of Library and Information Studies (DLIS) at UWI, Mona and recently deceased librarian, Audrey Chambers whose last appointment was that of head of the Library at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) UWI, Mona.

These were people with whom I worked closely during those formative years. I was very impressed with their vision and their relentless thrust to get information technology into Caribbean Libraries, to ensure that as many persons as possible were trained in the use of CDS/ISIS and that all efforts were directed at having bibliographic control over information generated in the region.

I accepted unquestioningly their vision of Caribbean libraries working together to maximize on limited resources and when in 2007, I started the process of gathering data on the state of libraries in our region I became all too conscious that there had been a gradual erosion of that vision. I recognized that few of the early initiatives had been sustained and librarians were starved for dialogue with colleagues and missed the kind of networking that was prevalent in the 80s and 90s. There was some reassurance that all was not lost when Sandra John, another of my mentors, who before retiring as Chief, Caribbean Knowledge Management Centre at UNECLAC organized an “Information Specialists Expert Meeting and Content Management Workshop” from May 15 to 16, 2007 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

This workshop covered digital content management, the impact of ICT on Caribbean people and knowledge management in the public sector. This was an attempt to “accelerate progress being made by the Caribbean sub-region towards an information society” and to provide “a practical opportunity for establishing a viable human network, supportive of knowledge sharing.” Workshop participants were also made aware of open source software such as Drupal, Joomla! and Plone that are available for content management.

Since that 2007 survey of libraries, I have been pondering long and hard on the most efficient and effective approach to developing dialogue with persons who have the technical skills so badly needed to assist Caribbean libraries to make far better use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Alongside the dialogue would be the networking that would sustain the deployment of information systems and services that would take our libraries into the 21st century. To a large extent, these concerns determined my choice of sessions at the LITA National Forum. It was difficult but personal interests in institutional repositories and information literacy had to take second place to issues that had wider implications for the region.

The theme of the 2008 Forum “Technology and Community: Building the Techno Community Library” and the presentations that I attended provided a wealth of information as to low cost solutions that could be utilized by libraries in the region to improve their operations. During the 4 days, I experienced a number of Eureka moments as I recognized potential solutions to some of the issues with which I had been concerned.

The Pre-Conference “Innovations in Next Generation Library Management Systems” by Tim Daniels (PINES Programme Manager), Diana Weaver (Northeast Kansas Library System) and Andrew Nagy (Villanova University) showed how open source applications are already being used to deliver integrated library services comparable to those afforded by proprietory systems. Tim spoke about Evergreen which is a library management system for cataloguing and circulation. Diana discussed Koha another open source ILS while Andrew dealt with VuFind an open-source OPAC replacement/Library portal. They were quite convincing about the benefits of this kind of software, benefits that libraries without the financial resources could very well exploit.

The Opening General Session “What is Social Cataloguing and Where is it Going” by Tim Spalding who created LibraryThing.com was welcome information for a number of reasons. Many of the libraries in our region have been trying to get their catalogues online. Not only does LibraryThing provide functionalities for quickly getting library collections on the internet, it also simplifies the whole process of cataloguing and provides an application programming interface (API) for developing social networks. I personally feel that far too many libraries are still doing original cataloguing and while this may be necessary for local publications, it is incomprehensible for material already in other online catalogues. LibraryThing pulls cataloguing data from over 600 library catalogues, including the Library of Congress and could easily eliminate duplication of effort allowing time to be better spent on other information services.

Annette Bailey’s presentation “LiBX: Enhancing User Access to Library Resources” brought yet another award winning piece of open source software to my attention. LiBX is a plug-in that can be used with the Internet Explorer or Firefox browsers. It allows for direct access to the various library resources eg, the online public access catalogue, e-journals, and digital collections without having to change interfaces. Some libraries require users to search through various databases to find information while LiBX apparently allows for federated searches across databases.

The second Concurrent Session that I attended was “Re-Swizzling the IT Enterprise for the Next Generation: Creating a Strategic and Organizational Model for Effective IT Management” presented by Maurice York of North Carolina State University Libraries. He spoke about the various layers of services including security, authentication, licensing, web authoring which systems departments within libraries can provide. Unfortunately, very few Caribbean libraries have a systems librarian much less a systems department. Too often the foundational pillars of support, operations, products and applications about which Maurice spoke are the responsibility of the sole individual, not necessarily trained, with an interest in using IT for the delivery of library services. We will need to find a way to get such persons the kind of exposure and ultimately training that will re-swizzle their libraries.

Having gone to Michael Porter’s web site before his GENERAL SESSION: “Hi-Fi-Sci-Fi-Library: Technology, Convergence, Content Community, Ubiquity and Library” I was able to join in singing the “Hi-Fi-Sci-Fi-Library” song. I also accepted the notion of libraries as providing access to content and spaces for people to be part of a community. While laser keyboards, and photo pen phones may not yet be widely available in the Caribbean, we are all too conscious of how the technology is developing particularly after witnessing flexible screens and the will.I.am holograph during the coverage of the recent elections in the US. Will we ever be able to catch up or will the digital divide remain?

I was able to participate in the “Five Minute Madness” session with my presentation “Incorporating ICT and a New Vision for Caribbean Libraries.” I was rather pleased with the response to my plea for assistance. Several persons provided cards and wanted further information. Discussions have since been held with the Head of the Library School at Mona who is willing to partner in a project to get IT skills into the region to assist with developing information services. The details of this project will soon be shared with those persons who indicated their interest in assisting.

Rachel Vacek from the University of Houston Libraries made a very pertinent presentation entitled “Putting the Library Website in Their Hands: The Advantages and Challenges of a Homegrown Content Management System.” She provided information on the various content management systems eg. Drupal, IGOOGLE, and NetVibes, and brought other open source software for federated searching such as LIBRARYFIND, and sources of copyright free images such as FLICKR to my attention. This sort of information is very valuable to the library operating with scare resources. I also hope that the system she created will be made available as Open Source.

The panel discussion on “Web Site Redesign: Perspectives for the Field Panel Discussion” with Robin Leech (Oklahoma State University Libraries); Amelia Brunskill (Dickinson College), Edward M. Corrado (Binghamton University), Elizabeth Black (Ohio State University Libraries) and Russell Schelby (Ohio State University Libraries) highlighted a variety of research methods used to get feedback from users about web site design. I have an enduring interest in simple but effective web sites and realize that too often designers forget their audience and get carried away with the available technologies.

Nina McHale’s presentation “Optimizing Library Resources for screen Readers” provided an important reminder that library users may have visual impairments and their needs have to be considered when developing web sites and providing access to library resources. JAWS was in use at the Main Library at UWI Mona where I worked up to 2005 but I never thought about the impact of problems in the online catalogue being read by the software and the difficulties that this would present for the visually impaired.

David Lankes presentation “Obligation of Leadership” provided the right note on which to end the Forum. He presented a number of challenges which I took seriously. As leaders we have to be willing to fight for change and stick to the following core principles:

* Service to improve the community in which we find ourselves
* Sharing knowledge since it does not reside in things but in people
* Encourage learning
* Intellectual Freedom
* Access
* Intellectual honesty

I thank David for reminding us that libraries have to be active participants in the conversation which is part of the knowledge business. Too many of us sit and wait rather than being proactive taking the conversation forward. If there is anything that was drummed home at the 2008 LITA National Forum it is that the mission of the Library is to make the world a better place.

Without the generosity of Mrs. Grace Hope Hill in providing the grant for Caribbean librarians to experience the LITA National Forum, the kind of exposure that I had over the period would not have been possible. This kind of assistance speaks of a vision for the Caribbean which I recognized in the region’s library pioneers. Needless to say, there were additional benefits to the visit as well. Thanks to Betsy Salt, Catalog Librarian at the Courtright Memorial Library, Otterbein College in Ohio, I was able to visit her library where head of the Library, Lois Szudy, allowed me to select materials for the small collection at the UWI Open Campus in Montserrat. Betsy also took me to sales at bookshops so that I was able to acquire material for the Early Childhood Care and Education Programme and the Parenting Programme in Montserrat.

Biodata
Gracelyn Cassell, B.A. Library Studies (UWI), M.A. Archives (Lond), and M Sc Computer Assisted Management Information Systems (UWI) worked in the Montserrat Public Library from 1982 to 1997 and in the Main Library at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica from 1997 to 2005. In August 2005, she returned to Montserrat to take up the post of Head of the University of the West Indies School of Continuing Studies, now the UWI Open Campus Montserrat.

Meet your fellow LITA members, and participate in a conversation about what role LITA plays in the larger information, association, community-building, and technology- related landscape. What makes LITA unique? Special guests from other organizations that are involved in the technology related landscape will also attend and participate in the discussion.

Rick Lugg and associates from R2 have graciously offered their services and will be facilitating the discussion.

Other participating organizations include:
American Society for Information Sciences & Technology (ASIS&T) http://www.asis.org/
Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/alcts.cfm
Digital Library Federation http://www.diglib.org/
OCLC http://www.oclc.org
Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/index.cfm
TAIGA http://www.taigaforum.org/

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.

Lodo’s Bar & Grill
1946 Market Street
Denver, CO, 80202
303.293.8555

Learn about design process for managing digital projects in libraries, usability theory and methodology. Receive practical steps to implement a design process in your own library plus a copy of presenter Brenda Reeb’s latest book, Design Talk: Understanding the roles of usability practitioners, web designers, and web developers in user centered web design.

You do not need to attend the Midwinter Meeting to register for the workshop. Visit the ALA Conference Services Web site to register: http://www.ala.org/ala/conferencesevents/upcoming/midwinter/2009/registration.cfm

To add a workshop to your existing Midwinter registration:
Call ALA Registration at 1-800-974-3084
OR use your log in and password to access your existing Midwinter registration using the online registration form: http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=Events&Template=/CFApps/Experient/Redirect.cfm
Add events in the “Your Events” section; check out and pay for the events you’ve added.

You’ll find those plans here, on the LITA Wiki.

One of the other ten IGs has since noted that it’s not meeting at all during Midwinter.

That leaves nine unaccounted for–nine IGs for which one of the following must be true:

• The IG doesn’t actually exist, or has no chair, or the chair never reported an email address to LITA.
• The chair won’t deal with email or lists because, you know, they’re so 20th century.
• The (repeated) request to provide a one-paragraph email response required an unconscionable amount of effort and was ignored.
• The IG has no plans.
• The IG has no interest in attracting new members.

Which of those is true for each of the nine remaining non-responding IGs? Your guess is as good as mine.

NOTE: Don’t send me more plans. Update the wiki directly. It’s not that hard.

Thanks!

The deadline for nominations has been extended to December 15, 2008. The award will be given at the 2009 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago. Read the official award press release, including a list of past winners, on LITA’s website.

The text of this new ballot sent to NISO voting members is as follows:

“This is the third group of standards due for five-year reviews for which NISO will be issuing ballots. In accordance with NISO procedures, we are offering you the option of joining the voting pool for two of those standards that are under the responsibility of the Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee.”

[Full disclosure: I'm a member of the NISO Content and Collection Management Topic Committee.]

Joining the voting pool allows ALA to vote on the standard and provide comments. Once the voting pools have been formed, separate ballots for each standard will be issued only to those who have joined the pool. NISO needs at least 15% of the voting membership to join the pool. If less than 15% express interest in the standard, it may be considered by the Board for administrative withdrawal.

The two standards in this voting pool ballot are:

ANSI/NISO Z39.2 - 1994 (R2001), Information Interchange Format
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-2-1994R2001/

ANSI/NISO Z39.47 - 1993 (R2003), Extended Latin Alphabet Coded Character Set for Bibliographic Use (ANSEL)
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-47-1993r2003/

Since these are both important seminal standards for libraries, ALA will opt in to the pools unless a compelling case is presented to Cindy by Dec. 18, 2008 (the ballot closes Christmas week).

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The introduction in the standard reads as follows:

“In 2006, the DCMI Usage Board undertook an editorial review of terms in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) in order to clarify intended semantics and bring the wording of their definitions and usage comments into line with the language of the DCMI Abstract Model [DCAM]. A set of proposed changes was posted for public comment from August 28 to September 25, 2006. A face-to-face Usage Board meeting in Manzanillo, Mexico, on September 30, 2006, resulted in the publication on December 18, 2006, of a decision text, a response to comments, and revised terms documentation. This revision of the original ANSI/NISO Z39.85 standard that was issued in 2001 corresponds to version 1.1 of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative website that resulted from the editorial review and public comment period described above. All changes made to terms of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set since 2001 have been reviewed by a DCMI Usage Board in the context of the DCMI Namespace Policy. The namespace policy describes how DCMI terms are assigned Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and sets limits on the range of editorial changes that may be made to the labels, definitions and usage comments associated with existing DCMI terms.”

The announcement indicates:

“At the TC46/SC4 Stockholm meeting, it was resolved that a revision to ISO 15386, The Dublin Core metadata element set, would be released for a fast track revision, to ensure consistency with ANSI/NISO Z39.85:2007. Accordingly, this revision is being balloted immediately at the Final Draft International Standard stage. This is the first and most likely only ballot we will receive on this standard’s revision.”

[Full disclosure, I was a member of the DC Usage Board through DC-2008 in Sept. and participated in the revisions noted above.]

Cindy reminds us that feedback to NISO can include ballot options of Yes, No or Abstain, but that anything but Yes requires comment. ALA is, as usual, not voting on the standard itself but rather is providing feedback to NISO as to whether to approve or disapprove the standard.

In this case, though the usual drill is to contact Cindy directly for a copy of the standard, all the changes are reflected on the DCMI website (http://dublincore.org/documents/dces). If you want access to the revision document provided by ISO, you can apply directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (I’d appreciate it if you would copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com on your request so I can track responses to these announcements).

The deadline for input to Cindy is no later than: Friday, Dec. 12, 2008.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

According to the scope note in the standard:

“This International Standard contains a set of 15 bibliographic control characters for use in cataloguing rules, filing rules and indexing rules of the countries and language groups of the bibliographic community. The bibliographic control character set is an extension of the basic control character set defined by IS0 646 (IS0 escape sequence ESC 2/l 4/O). This International Standard consists of a code table and a legend specifying each bibliographic control character and indicating its code position. In addition, it includes explanatory notes, in which the functional characteristics of the individual control characters are described in detail. This bibliographic control character set is primarily intended for the interchange of bibliographic information.”

This is another of those situations where ALA advises NISO, and NISO votes. Those wishing to review this standard with an eye to providing feedback to Cindy should apply to her directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (I’d appreciate it if you would copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com on your request so I can track responses to these announcements).

Cindy also reminds us that in the absence of other recommendations, ALA will recommend that NISO vote to confirm ‘ISO 6630:1986, Bibliographic control characters’ (with comments, if any).

The deadline for input to Cindy is no later than: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The scope note in the new standard reads as follows:

“The purpose of this International Standard is to establish the specifications for the International Standard Collection Identifier (ISCI) as a unique international identification system for each collection and fond and part(s) of collections and fonds. It specifies the structure of an identifier, and promotes the use of the identifier with regard to pre-existing systems.

Any issues related to the description of collections and fonds in general–such as defining a collection or fond, or describing relations between collections and subcollections–are dealt with in NISO standard Z39.91-200X (Collection description specification) and related documents. Each identified collection or fond must however be described as defined in clause 5. Recommended metadata elements are listed in annex B. The ISCI is intended for use by information related organisations such as libraries, museums and archives.”

Cindy reminds us that 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 consider ALA’s feedback prior to submitting the U.S. vote. As is generally the case, Cindy can provide review copies of the standard to ALA members. To obtain a review copy, apply directly to Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu (I’d appreciate it if you would copy me at metadata.maven@gmail.com on your request so I can track responses to these announcements).

The deadline for input to Cindy is no later than: Monday, Dec. 22, 2008.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The scope note for the standard states:

“This International Standard specifies display requirements for holdings Statements at the summary level for serial and non-serial items, to promote consistency in the communication and exchange of holdings information. It is intended for use in reporting holdings when reporting is in display form. For machine-readable reporting not in display form, the data elements specified in this International Standard should be included, although their order, etc., may be different in the machine record.

This International Standard identifies and defines the data elements for Statements of holdings of serial and nonserial items at a summary level appropriate for listings of holdings in one or more libraries or institutions. It specifies the content and sequence of data elements within data areas and requirements for inclusion of data areas in the
holdings Statement.

This International Standard requires that the holdings Statement be linked to an identification of the item to which the statement pertains; however, the method of identifying the item is excluded from this International Standard.

This International Standard applies to holdings Statements for bibliographic items in any physical medium.

This International Standard does not specify the way in which the data elements should be represented in a machine-readable data format, nor the medium (media) employed for storage, display, or transfer of the holdings Statements. The guidelines are independent of cataloguing rule Systems.”

As is usual with ISO standards which are not openly available, ALA members interested in reviewing the standard should apply directly to Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu and verify their membership in ALA. I ask that those requesting a copy of the standard from Cindy copy me on their request (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so that I can keep track of how these notices are used.

Cindy’s deadline for comments is Monday Feb. 23, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

It’s never been easy to download movies.

The scope note in the draft standard reads as follows: “This International Standard makes recommendations for the preparation of references and citations in Latin scripts in works that are not themselves primarily bibliographical. It applies to references and citations to all kinds of information resource, such as monographs, serials, contributions, patents, cartographic materials, electronic information resources (including computer software and data bases), music, recorded sound, prints, photographs, graphic and audiovisual works, and moving images. It does not apply to machine-parsable citations. This document does not prescribe a particular style of reference or citation. The examples used in this document are not prescriptive as to style and punctuation. Annex A and B indicate the relevant clause(s) of this International Standard.”

This opportunity may be your last to make substantive comments to this standard. If there is 100% approval, the standard can go directly to publication. As usual in these cases, ALA is not voting on the standard itself but rather providing feedback to NISO concerning their vote. As this standard is very much within the library realm, ALA member comments will likely carry some weight.

Cindy notes that permission is granted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to electronically reproduce this draft International Standard for purpose of review and comment related to the preparation of the U.S. position, provided this notice is included. All other rights are reserved. ALA members interested in reviewing the standard should apply directly to Cindy at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu and verify their membership in ALA. I ask that those requesting a copy of the standard from Cindy copy me on their request (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so that I can keep track of how these notices are used.

Cindy’s deadline for comments is Monday Feb. 23, 2009.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Group 2: Formation of Voting Pools for CCM Standard Reaffirmations
This is the second group of standards due for five-year reviews for which NISO will be issuing ballots. In accordance with NISO procedures, we are offering you the option of joining the voting pool for five standards that are under the responsibility of the Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee.

This is NOT the reaffirmation ballot — the current ballot is only to form the voting pools.

ALA may choose any or all of the standards listed below. Joining the voting pool will allow ALA to vote on the standard and to provide comments. Once the voting pools have been formed, separate ballots for each standard will be issued only to those voting members who have joined the pool. If we do not join the voting pool for a particular standard, we have in essence “abstained” from any decision made regarding this standard’s reaffirmation ballot.

NISO needs at least 15% of the voting membership to join the pool. If less than 15% express interest in the standard, it may be considered by the Board for administrative withdrawal.

The five standards in this voting pool ballot and the URLs for you to view them are:

1) ANSI/NISO Z39.48 - 1992 (R2002), Permanence of Paper for Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-48-1992r2002/

2) ANSI/NISO Z39.56 - 1996 (R2002), Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI)
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-56-1996r2002/

3) ANSI/NISO Z39.62 - 2000, Eye-legible Information on Microfilm Leaders and Trailers and on Containers of Processed Microfilm on Open Reels
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-62-2000/

4) ANSI/NISO Z39.73 - 1994 (R2001), Single-Tier Steel Bracket Library Shelving
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-73-1994R2001/

5) ANSI/NISO Z39.41 - 1997 (R2002), Printed Information on Spines
http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-41-1997r2002/

The ballot to select which voting pools ALA should opt into closes Wednesday, 3 December 2008. I need to vote no later than Nov. 26, so your deadline for feedback to me is Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2008.

Because ALA is such a diverse organization with so many interests, even though some may be more relevant than others, unless I am presented a compelling case not to opt into one or more of these voting pools, I plan to opt into them all.

Cindy’s email is: HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. I’d appreciate it if any of you offering comments could copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com) on those comments, so that I can keep track of LITA efforts in this area.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

The text of this ballot is as follows:
‘Group 1: Formation of Voting Pools for CCM Standard Reaffirmations’
NISO periodically issues ballots for a number of NISO standards that are due for five-year reviews. In accordance with NISO procedures, they are offering voting members the option of joining the voting pool for five of those standards, that are under the responsibility of the Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee. [Full disclosure: I’m a member of the CCM Topic Committee--Diane].

This is NOT the reaffirmation ballot — the current ballot is only to form the voting pools.

ALA may choose any or all of the standards listed below. Joining the voting pool will allow ALA to vote on the standard and to provide comments. Once the voting pools have been formed, separate ballots for each standard will be issued only to those voting members who have joined the pool. If we do not join the voting pool for a particular standard, we have in essence “abstained” from any decision made regarding this standard’s reaffirmation ballot.

NISO needs at least 15% of the voting membership to join the pool. If less than 15% express interest in the standard, it may be considered by the Board for administrative withdrawal.

The five standards in this voting pool ballot and the URLs for you to view them are:

1) ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083 - 1995 (R2002), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup [This is an adoption of the ISO standard.]

2)ANSI/NISO Z39.14 - 1997 (R2002), Guidelines for Abstracts

3)ANSI/NISO Z39.23 - 1997 (R2002), Standard Technical Report Number Format and Creation

4)ANSI/NISO Z39.26 - 1997 (R2002), Micropublishing Product Information

5)ANSI/NISO Z39.32 - 1996 (R2002), Information on Microfiche Headers

—
The ballot to select which voting pools ALA should opt into closes Sunday, 30 November 2008. I need to vote no later than Nov. 26, so your deadline for feedback to me is Monday, Nov. 17, 2008.

Because ALA is such a diverse organization with so many interests, even though some may be more relevant than others, unless I am presented a compelling case not to opt into one or more of these voting pools, I plan to opt into them all.

Cindy’s email is: HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. I’d appreciate it if any of you offering comments could copy me (metadata.maven@gmail.com) on those comments, so that I can keep track of LITA efforts in this area.

Diane I. Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Don Kim, Murray State University

Kim Duckett and Jason Casden, North Carolina State University

Session Summary: A great sampling of creative tools and solutions! Anyone looking to find innovative ways to push library content through course management systems will find great ideas from these presentations. Note: any reference in this post to “CMS” indications “course management system,” NOT “content management system” (i.e., Drupal).

Elizabeth Black, Ohio State University:

The CMS in use at Ohio State is called Desire2Learn. It’s made by a Canadian vendor, and as at many institutions, the course management system is run by a University IT department (educational technologists).

It was important that the project was a true collaboration between campus IT and the library; commitment and maintenance were very important, with mutual authority and accountability given and expected from both parties. The project was designed by a cross-departmental team.

The team decided to create a suite of tools to achieve their goals; the biggest impression this left on me personally is how much integrating these resources could create significant efficiencies for staff in other areas of the library, particularly reference and reserves.

1. eReserves: all course reserves were delivered in the CMS; access limited to students in that course, scanned files were put into learning object repositoty; ereserves branded Carmen this is great, as it is one less place for students to go to get course materials. For the library, it’s great advertising for reserves. Storing the articles in a learning repository greatly reduces workload for reserves staff!
2. Creation of Librarian role in the CMS: named roll w/ certain “powers”; all the powers of an instructor, can email students, etc., just can’t see the gradebook—requires good working relationship; instructors give the role to the librarian; replacement for one-shot bib session: this is particularly useful for reference staff who are looking to increase the impact of instruction beyond; reduces teaching load by not requiring
3. Seamless authentication: OSU fully Shibboleth! This makes linking to resources easier, as librarians know how to code proxy links; “library links”—library links in CMS: replacing static class guides: sends XML document to web service: for libraries (like mine) who still create static course web documents on the library server side, this is a much more efficient way of delivering info

Don Kim, Murray State University

Don’s institution uses Library on BlackBoard (Bb). The Virtual Library integration service is cleverly taglined: “Information: where you are, we are,” and it was designed with simplicity in mind.

Project timeline was short: a quick two-month development time; marketed to patrons. Groups involved were library systems and reference staff, as well as two focus groups of students and staff. Tools used: xhtml, css, js; Camtasia, Meebo, Google Custom Search Engine and Google Analytics.

The index page for the collection of resources developed lists everything by college and department, but with acknowledged limitations—students don’t know their colleges and departments—this got some laughs, but sadly, it’s true! The index page was therefore changed to subject list: will this be efficient as well? Students hate lists of subjects…but, it’s good to provide more than one point of access (by subject AND by college).

Great use of Google Custom Search to offer a metasearch of vetted resources, and Meebo for IM chat puts a lifeline to info experts when the students are. Essentially, this relocates traditional subject guide/pathfinder pages into a more useful space: a space where students already HAVE to go, if the CMS is required by instructors. Google Analytics provides usage patterns so that staff have hard evidence about what’s getting used (or not). Don provided very impressive use statistics that show much higher use than we’ve seen of “traditional” pathfinder/guide resources.

Don and his colleagues recognized the importance of marketing, knowing that not all faculty use BlackBoard. Overall, it’s great to see that we, professionally speaking, are getting better at marketing all of this great stuff that we’re creating! Don and his colleagues are also pondering allowing instructors to customize their own links/content. Would they be able to do it? Or should librarians maintain control of this aspect of the product?

Kim Duckett and Jason Casden, North Carolina State University

Product=Courseviews: a combination of BlackBoard Vista; Moodle Pilots; “WolfWare” locker system (plays on the school’s “Wolfpack” mascot)

“Course pages”: reference and instruction staff put great care into these, but the audience is limited; how many students do you actually reach? How to best redirect this staff effort to make it more efficient: 6,000 courses, but only 200 pages—pages that go outdated unless the course is requested again.

How to create a scalable, sustainable solution? A “distillation of the most student-centric stuff”? Goals: course view for every course: scalable, sustainable, content customized. Campus partners, like at Ohio State, were the learning technologists.

What went into this CMS-bound content? Lots: Widgets: course reserves, citation tools, project tools, technology lending; Quick article search/metasearch (EBSCO) available; highlights databases by subject; tabs for catalog and Google Scholar, too.

Library staff wanted also to provide a basic “default” set of links/info for instructors who have not yet created a set of tools resources in the CMS. This could perhaps also work very well for 101 level-courses?

Like at Don’s institution, a chat widget was used to provide the lifeline to help, but they used Libraryh3lp rather than Meebo.

Example: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/course/ENG/101

The widgets that populate page are very impressive; “cascading selection” creates content dynamically in a much better, more efficient presentation of this kind of info than in static guides. The whole project was creaed as a stand-alone system, but integrated into Bb; Moodle trial (PHP-based) easier to integrate into, however.

Usage analysis in custom logs and log analysis of widget shows that reserves are more than half of usage; other two types of content in the top three accessed are “search” and “recommended.”

Shu Liu, Colorado State University

Yongli Zhou, Colorado State University

The first panelists, Shu Liu and Yongli Zhou, describe implementing a IR through DigiTool, exLibris’s Digital Repository software and their talk focuses on using an out of the box product. Colorado State used contentdm from 01-present, but will migrate to digitool (which they’ve also been using since 07) by 09.

Digitool has a series of web based client for the user and staff to interface with the the database. There are also access and maintenance components.Aspects of the digitool product can be customized, the icons, menu, header and footer, etc. They also did do some work customizing the metadata display and there were automated and manual ways to do these functions. They also implemented handles for their documents, though it was a bit difficult to implement and took time working with digitool directly. Colorado state purposely chose to limit their customization and wanted it done by experienced programmers.

DigiTool offered a lot of sophisticated tools for metadata including using DC, batching .csv files and using native XML files. In addition to this descriptive metadata, METS was used for structural metadata. This has allowed them to handle different types of complex objects.

The panelists stress the importance of collaboration in a project like this. They appreciate the relatively short and easy implementation (although they think CONTENTdm is easier) and that less tech support is needed once established. Tools for batch upload, the handle, and API are quite useful.

The repository can be found at: http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/R

EPrints as the Cardinal Scholar Institutional Repository at Ball State University — Bringing and Institutional Repository to the Ball State University Community through Cardinal Scholar (CS)

Bradley D. Faust, Ball State University

The second panelist, Bradley Faust from Ball State spoke about using EPrints to create “Cardinal Scholar”, their IR (http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/). Ball State originally thought CONTENTdm would be their solution but ultimately decided against it due to a lock of open deposit, difficulties integrating IR objects with existing collections and the need for too much customization.

After reviewing a few other options, Ball State eventually settled on ePrints because it used PERL, Apache web server and mysql, accessible code, and had an active community for development. The cost considerations were also good for this product.

They successfully implemented on fedora core for several months for development. Then built the production on Windows EPrints server in Nov 07. After testing in the first 3 weeks of december, they made a soft release. With feedback they continued to tweak from December to January.

Issues with implementing ePrints mostly involved coordination with the campus computing center. The system needed: a domain name for the system (cardinalscholar.bsu.edu); a system security scan to evalute server config; internet access to the CS server through the campus firewall; an SSL certificate for system; and they needed their informational pages reviewed for consistency with other computing policies.

They did do some customization like modifying informational and deposit pages (for easier use), changing the defaults for new accounts and adding left hand navigation column.

They would like to customize it further especially reordering the deposit fields in, implement LDAP authentication, further develop their strategy for supporting small group access (i.e. shared user accounts); put in some more reporting and tracking functions.

Cardinal Scholar has been running for 10 months in production. The library has uploaded some university archives documents and special collections material. Some personnel issues slowed down development of the project, but they were able to add about 150 digital assets so far.

Libraries as publishers: Using the Open Journal System in a Smaller Academic Library

Tabatha Becker, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

David Hodgins, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

Tabitha opened by clarifying that this presentation focused on the creation of an open access journal at UC Colorado Springs. It does have some IR qualities, but is not really an IR project.

UC@CS, as a smaller institution works closely with campus IT for technology projects.When Tabitha started in 2007, she sent out a brief web survey to her faculty about their attitudes to open access. She found that it was misunderstood and not viewed favorably for their own work, but felt it was important for their students. This caused a change in the library’s focus. The switched from faculty work to undergraduate research and created a journal on the topic. Their goals were to promote and showcase student research and collect previously uncollected items. They considered this a precursor to developing an IR, since they were beginning to collect some of these objects before an IR was in place. Ultimately, they also wanted to be more involved in campus research and scholarship.

They felt that they would be successful if:

• they could efficiently host the journal it couldn’t be too much of a stressor to the library.
• They also felt they should be able to get content regularly so that they could put this product out.
• Lastly, they felt they needed to have the faculty and students involved as editors. The library would only play the role of publisher, they would not be involved in the vetting process.

Next they needed to determine how to get the system built. Eventually, they decided to go with OJS and open source, out of the box service, that does allow for easy customization if neeed. They also liked the features of the software for metadata handling, user registration, and statistics. They feel that it will play well with an IR when they develop it. The system can create roles for active participants who interact with the system through the web, so they do not need to coordinate with their editors, reviewers, etc. within the library.

Due to the relationship with the campus IT, the installation of the software was done by campus IT, but collaboration was relatively easy. The library does have complete control of look and feel and navigation using HTML, CSS, and PHP. Content uploading happens through a GUI interface and does not require technical skills. The system comes with out of the box interface as well, so it can be mounted with no customization.

The first issue was released on August 22nd, 2008. Though the submissions were small, the quality was good. The scope has widened slightly to include faculty introductions to themed issues. After the soft release, there was not a lot of access, but usage has increased as it has been promoted.

In terms of their goals, they feel they have efficiently hosted the journal, but their ability to get content has been mixed. Some of the faculty are still uncomfortable with the concept. At first they had very little buyin from the campus, but she has found that the faculty and students are getting more on board. Tabitha feels that with more publicity, things will improve.

The next issue will come out in November and there are plans to work with the Colorado Spring Undergraduate Research Forum to do their proceedings. More publicity plans are in development and faculty collaborations are being sought. Tabitha hopes that this experience may convince faculty that open access for their own work.

http://ojs.uccs.edu/index.php/urj/index

questions were asked regarding use of CONTENTdm (the panelists said there are some good projects using it and it will probably develop more, but the first tool panelists found that it was not the bets for them. Shu also mentioned that her institution would like to only support one repository and they felt that DigiTool offered them more sophisticated tools.

Bradley also clarified that the IR at Ball State will only collection materials from Ball State.

Shu said that many file types are ingested into DigiTool, there are not format limits. With many objects to migrate from CONTENTdm, they are hoping to also retain the same interface pages and just have them point to DigiTool rather than CONTENTdm.

Tabitha addressed the need to have technical support for the faculty/scholar collaboration. She feels that they will really only need to know how to learn the web tools and understand the architecture of the system. They have decided to use the DC scheme for OJS, which does create metadata. An audience member suggests working with cataloging to create records in the catalog

The “guiding principles” for this project were that the system they developed had to be:

1. Simplicity for the user.
2. Work with what is.
3. Release early and often.
4. Expect change.

They called their system “easyBorrow,” and used WorldCat as their starting point for acquiring materials not in the collection. They placed a simple search box on the page that pops up when a search returns zero results, with three-step instructions on how to proceed. As they moved through the system, it did require an extra authentication step, but in the end, it took only 10 clicks to borrow the same item from the same source. It required a combination of open source tools (Java, Tomcat, Python, Django, PHP, MySQL), APIs and system components to do so, and resulted in a marked increase in ILL requests and user satisfaction.

In a time of shrinking budgets and other resources, this project clearly demonstrates the value of agile software development, and having the staff available to make this happen. Commercial software companies, despite devoting enormous resources and funds to design and development of library systems, cannot keep up with the changing and evolving needs of patrons. Libraries need effective teams with a complementary skill sets to “stitch together” disparate systems to make serving the public more efficient and effective. The presenters used a quilt analogy in presenting this topic, and it rings true: libraries have a patchwork of different services and systems, which will be more immediately and effectively utilized when someone can sew them together, a few squares at a time, into a coherent whole, instead of waiting for a vendor to assemble the machinery to turn out a software “blanket” system.

(Note: Rachel indicated her slides will be available on rachelvacek.com, but were not there as of this writing, or I didn’t go deep enough into her site.)

UHL chose to develop their own CMS primarily because they wanted a system based on their vision of what a CMS is and should do, rather than modifying someone else’s. UHL feels that the CMS should be a growing and changing system. They felt that by building their own system their staff would be able to fix problems and incorporate customer feedback more quickly. They felt that by building their own they could build more custom modules. They felt that by building their own they could make greater use of microformats and metadata then many of the existing solutions offered. Their current version took about a year to build.

Much of the presentation focused on the demo of the adminstrative backend.  (Note: the backend currently only works with Firefox) Rachel created a virtual library (subject guide) using an interface that had iGoogle / gadget functionality, including the ability to move content modules between the predefined three column format. One feature I liked was the ability to incorporate incoming RSS feeds into an aggregated subject/news feed. There was also in indication that there is the ability to  share the content out with other system through syndication, although specific examples were not demonstrated.

The system also allows content to be imported and integrated. Content currently and soon to be integrated include LibrayFind, Archon, Serials Solutions, Wordcat, Flickr, Wordpress MU. and LibraryThing comments and reviews. Work is also being done to pull in Delicious. They also hope to use the Worldcat API, a metadata search engine, the ability to add media, making it easier to move modules, and creating a platform for customer contributed content.

Rachel indicated that efforts are under way to release their code as open source sometime in 2009. Having gone through the process of releasing an open source application at a University myself, I appreciate the challeneges in doing so. However, the concern I expressed to Rachel was the fact that they were using ColdFusion and not a more ‘open’ codebase such as PHP.  (Will not open the ColdFusion debate here…)

Lastly, Since Rachel came onboard in Houston after the project completed, she referred many questions back to Karen Coombs.

Dinah Sanders, Innovative Interface

Kelly M. Vickery, University of Kentucky

Instead of just talking about encore, Dinah will discuss how metadata is exposed for patrons to leverage, how is it extended to cover gaps in controlled vocabulary. The majority of Americans use the interwebs everyday. This means they are coming in with savvy web skills and we can leverage metadata to give them tools that are powerful and that users recognize. They are trying to bring these patron skills together with the library strengths of good metadata. However, there are limits, particularly as was mentioned in the opening session “cookery” is not a common term. Encore tries to bring together the formal controlled vocabulary and folksonomies to rectify these problems. Searching can be done across library metadata and user-supplied tags.

Early attempts at this like penntags, sopac, library thing for libraries – exposed key problems:

• Have to use parallel interfaces for tags (they aren’t intermixed with library data)
• Tags are stored and searched separately
• The participation then is really not IN the library catalog

These initiatives forged new ground but still retained separate systems

Community tagging success comes from:

• Eliminate hurdle to participation (like creating a profile)
• Create credibility and local relevance (require authentication with an existing profile)
• Give an immediate return on investment (immediate indexing)

There was apprehension about letting users in, that they would add irrelevant data. Since implemented in June no tags have been deleted. Staff also add tags. Tags and subject headings are used in display and retrieval interfaces together.

Existing ontologies are under-rated, subject headings aren’t perfect, but there is really good information there that can be useful if it is presented properly. For example, relying on recognition (Or’d results) to give them a way to use the subject headings. The results has links to many ways to broaden results.

In addition to using user tags to enhance metadata, it can also point out areas that traditional cataloging wouldn’t get to. Sun Also Rises has a user tag for “lost generation.”

A tour of the user experience for community tagging in Encore:

• A search for drm, shows that the other subjects are “intellectual property” “rights management” etc. The results also show which part of the record matched the term, so you can see if the hit was from the title, subject, or tag.
• Adding a tag is a simple text box. Simple authentication is needed when a tag is added based on an existing profile id. Users can also delete their own tags.
• Administrators can delete tag, but so far it hasn’t been a problem. There are other administrative tools to allow you to blanket approve a tag (“University of Illinois” would probably never be offensive and would not need to be reviewed). You can whitelist just for a particular book too (so “gay” might be relevant to a book about gender studies, so you wouldn’t want to continually review it, although it might be offensive in other records). You can block an individual from tagging as well.

Encore was built in rapid iterative development with many partners. The customer base (a large part of it) has been working with encore on the development to ensure that it is useful. Encore can plan their development cycle around library planning cycles.

Kelly from UK speaks about integrating encore with Voyager. UK had been considering adopting a discovery layer, but couldn’t find the right product. AquaBrowser wasn’t right, Endeca required too much work. They attempted to adopt Primo but it didn’t work out. Went with encore. Since Encore had been developed with Millenium, adapting it to Voyager required some work. Discussions began January 07, a test interface was ready by May. By September, they were ready to begin nightly updating encore with changes that had been made to voyager and it was offered as an alternative search interface. By December it was integrated with the regular OPAC, but is the default. There were some particular issues with the relevance of serials in results list (they tended to be really low). This was worked out and works well now. Through 2008 development on encore 2.0 has continued and was officially upgraded last month. A few issues are still being worked out with 2.0 though.

The integration they chose (to have both simultaneously, but default to encore) works well for them. Navigation between the two is easy (tabular). Give the power users the option to continue to use voyager. Data from voyager to encore:

• Marc/serial holdings
• Item info
• Item circ.
• Location/collection
• Patron records

The nightly update is no good for circ though, so that info is not in encore. There are solutions to this, but they were too difficult to implement. They are still working on integrating LDAP into encore for authentication. Encore sends back to the ILS:

• Request an item
• Find out more
• Advanced search
• Circ. stats

1 out of 3 use Encore. It has not been promoted very much yet, but this number is encouraging to UK. Undergrads tend to use encore, but faculty tend to switch back to voyager. This seems pretty believable. They have gotten some negative comments, but only a few. The return visitor rate is about 45%. Voyager has a return rate of about 60%.

Tags in the academic environment might be really useful for journals. The subject headings for journals tend to be very general. UK hopes that users will tag journals to make them more useful. Another area that might be very useful is tagging for specific courses. This would also allow the professor to update these continually. The course reserve list could be indicated through tags. Students of course could tag things for courses as well. A third is animal names. Subjects tend to use scientific names – equine, bovine, etc. tags can add horse and cow.

Tagging might start to eliminate the problem where users need to create many separate bibliographies for their discipline (A/V, women’s studies etc.) – and some of these are even made into a shadow database. If the catalog gives groups the ability to dynamically create and resort their own lists, they could do it through the catalog. This would be even better because it could be updates as the catalog is updated.

Dinah closes the session with examples of public library tagging. Fan or community groups tag using their own terms, use informal vocabulary and disambiguation, emerging vocabularies – all of these are represented. Emerging vocabularies is also a good point for academic libraries, disciplines are often evolving before they are made into subject headings. Some of the users are adding very library-centric things like isbns and “young adult fiction.” Tags enable “iterative “berry picking”” approaches since they don’t have to start over and do sophisticated pre-coordinated searches.

U. Glasgow found that only 4% of users did a subject search in the old catalog – the terminology was confusing. Now however, 66% of users use the tag cloud.

To close Dinah notes that not only the materials, but also your community’s conversations are collected. And in an age of increasing digitization, it is the local voice which distinguishes one library from another.

Questions discussed other search suggestion features of Encore (“Did you mean”), catalogers use of the tags (when appropriate), the database for tags (keyed to record id. The tag database stays in Encore, does not go back to Encore. If a new ILS is switched to, encore could map the old bib number to the new); Encore is linked back to from Encore when other ILS functions (like request, etc) are needed. Tags are associated with patrons forever, even if the patron record goes away, however no one has expressed any privacy concerns because it’s completely opt-in. Tags for courses could be problem in this way – if course curriculum changes, things would need to be untagged. Encore provides administrative tools for that, but it happens at the administrative level. At this time, users cannot batch add tags.

Libraries expend a majority their limited human and financial resources to bring new products and services to their customers. However, libraries STILL have the tendency to wait until these products or services are ‘prefect’ ready before they are officially released. The rapid change in technology and the pressures of external ‘competition’ is requiring libraries to shorten their service lifecycles.

The number of libraries discussing the concepts of agile development, perpetual beta, and rapid prototyping is encouraging. The one thing that all of these approaches have in common is including customers as active participants in the development and/or testing of new products and services.

To that end, a growing number of libraries have been building “Library Labs,” which are based on the Google Labs concept.

This approach to service development was discussed in the presentation “Building a Web-Based Laboratory for Library Users” by Jason J. Battles and Joseph (Jody) Combs.

The project started out at Vanderbilt, but was replicated at Alabama when Jason took a position there. The Vanderbilt University’s Test Pilot site was launched July 2006. The University of Alabama’s Web Laboratory went live in November 2007.

A Library Lab creates an environment for users to experiment with new services. It is a showcase for projects under development or consideration. There is really no limit to what can be put on the site, nor is it limited to just technology solutions.

Jason and Jody emphasized the marketing potential of a Lab site and how it can be used to publicize the existence of new products and services and to demonstrate how they are useful. Their services provide feedback links on both the Lab pages and on the prototype pages as an easy way to gather, store and search user feedback and to solicit suggestions for new services.  Their Lab services are also used to identify and recruit for usability studies and focus groups.

They also reiterated several times that a Library Lab allows academic libraries to introduce new services at any time, not just during the three week window between semesters or when the services are ‘perfected.’

In short, the creation of a Library Lab allows a library to invest just enough resources to see if the idea is worth investing in. It also allows a library to let go of unused services in a dignified manner.

Session summary: An excellent demonstration of the modular and flexible nature of Drupal, an open-source web content management system. Drupal has featured prominently in library conferences recently; however, one of the strengths of Liu’s presentation was in the two project examples she used: managing news and events web content that comes from a variety of library staff; and creating a library conference application that collected conference proposals, turned the accepted proposals into a conference schedule, and provided a place to link to conference presentations after the conference. Also useful are her “Lessons Learned the Hard Way” (near the end of this post).

Liu began by describing Drupal and showing examples of Kentucky-area library sites that use Drupal. She then described two projects that used Drupal to solve what were complicated projects with poor workflows: enabling library staff to post content about library news and events : enablinposting library news and events to the library’s web presence

Example 1: Library News & Events

Before using Drupal, library staff posted information about library news and events in static web pages. Disadvantages of static pages include low visibility and difficulty in managing them. Static pages become outdated and need to be weeded; often, it’s not clear to the person maintaining web files when news-y types of information should be removed from the web site. Some items are relevant to users for only a day, while an exhibit announcement should remain present until the exhibit is removed.

Desired features for a new means of posting this important content to the library web presence included ease of use for library staff; maintain a separate presence for multiple libraries adn departments; RSS feed to get users to subscribe; Drupal’s built-in features satisfied these requirements.

Liu also created help files for staff who were using Drupal to post this kind of content

Example 2: Online Proposal Submission Form for a local Kentucky conference

Previously, proposals were emailed to committee organizers, who then had to coordinate distribution of the proposals, their review, and then creation of a conference schedule–clunky to say the least.

Goals for a project that would streamline this workflow included a system that would: collect and review proposals and then turn the proposals into both an online conference schedule and a place to link presentation repository come conference time

Users of this system could also manage their own contact information, relieving the conference organizers of maintaining email addresses and other contact information.

Technical Information: How did Liu build the system?

1. Define needs/needs assessment

2. Install/configure application–”the cool part” (design, modules, permissions)

3. Testing

Notes: Liu stated that configuring and testing were the most time-consuming phases of the project;

If more customization is required, PHP programming knowledge is necessary

Liu described Drupal as a highly modular system; there is a good deal of flexibility offered for those who do NOT have programming (PHP) skills, yet is is scalable/extensible with a number of add-on modules, and it can be developed further by those with programming skills.

Drupal terminology: pages are called “nodes;” nodes have types that describe the type of content contained in them; “teaser” is a short form display; “roles” are groups in the sense of permissions, etc. (See Liu’s slides for a more complete list)

Design: Themes can be assigned to people in different roles, easily offering control of design elements in a flexible manner.

Access control: there is an add-on module that allows much finer control over permissions than the default admin module. User experience can be customized to direct users directly where they need to go to create their content, preventing them from getting “lost” in the CMS.

Module tips (Lessons learned the hard way):

-If you can do what you need to do with the core module, stick to the core module. Add-ons are kewl, but when you use them, it can make upgrading Drupal to a new version more difficult.l

-When installing add-on modules, put them all in the same directory so that they can easily be located and upgraded all at once. This allows you to keep better track of them.

-Read the README file. Pay attention to the warnings and recommendations about modules.

-Always BACK UP your system before adding a new add-on module so that you can restore if something bad happens during the addition/upgrade

-Add modules one at a time, test, and check them before adding another. Allows for easier troubleshooting if there are problems. Avoid impulse shopping: “Ooh, I want this module…and this module…”

Be sure to view Liu’s slides of Drupal site examples and interal Drupal screen shots, which demonstrate many of the concepts covered and offer a glimpse into the administrative side of things. Her slides are available on the conference USB drive and will be posted in the LITA site after the conference.

“Library 2.0 PDQ: Meeting the Challenges of the Rapid Growth of Distance Learning and Off-site Courses at a University Regional Campus” was presented by John J. Burke and Beth E. Tumbleson from Miami University Middletown in Miami, OH.

Miami U’s regional campuses are at the forefront of its distance learning push. During 2007 and 2008, the state of Ohio and the Miami U main campus issued new challenges for its regional campuses for delivering education. As a result, the Middletown library has faced many changes.

Middletown is a commuter campus which has been offering courses for 40 years. They offer courses primarily to nontraditional students; the average age of students is 24, and most of them work at least part time.

In 2007, Ohio announced a New University System which aimed to increase the number of degrees among Ohioans, and to expand the role of regional campuses to help meet this goal. Regional campuses would now partner with community colleges to focus on completion of degrees. In response, Miami University has changed the focus of their regional campuses. Before, each campus had its own individual focus. Now there is one course schedule and one marketing plan. The Middletown campus has decided to be more innovative when it comes to distance learning, offering online and hybrid courses and offering bachelor’s completion degrees. They also now offer a Bachelor of Integrative Studies, and an online nursing bachelor’s degree.

This new focus on distance learning was a challenge to the Middletown campus library—they now had to adapt their services to students who might not ever see the campus. Already there was a good relationship with the other two campuses through which students could get electronic reserves, walk-in reference services, customized instructional sessions, and remote access to the library. Now they had to increase their support for remote access and web-based courses, provide library services at a new Learning Center, and rework existing library services for more upper division courses, all with a small staff.

In order to figure out what they should do to promote their services and what services to provide online, librarians corresponded with the online nursing faculty and administrators, surveyed students about what services would be most helpful to them, and held focus groups. Eventually they identified 4 major goals: to improve and promote their instant-messaging reference service, redesign the library site to feature distance learning services, create tutorials, and get services embedded in Blackboard courses.

One major hurdle was the dearth of library staff—there were only 2! Staff responsibilities had to be realigned. Cataloging had to be outsourced to the main campus. Librarians had to learn to use various Library 2.0 tools. Finally, they hired a new public services librarian. Burke and Tumbleson joined several groups on campus so that the library would have a voice in designing and implementing distance courses.

The tools that the library used to gather and share information include PBWiki, a free wiki program; the Animated Tutorial Sharing Project; and tutorial software like Wink, CamStudio, Captivate, Audacity, and iTunes U. They also attended the Off-Campus Library Services Conference, and joined several library associations that focused on academic libraries, technology, and distance learning.

Campus surveys revealed that most students had readily available Internet access, were comfortable using the library website, knew that they could email reference librarians for help, and supported the idea of an embedded librarian in their online courses. Fewer knew that reference help was available via IM, and many would rather use Google than library databases. So the problem was mainly that the library needed to promote the lesser-used and lesser-known services. They promoted the library’s blog, began a library newsletter, held an open house, made many class presentations, and began featuring resources on the library’s website.

The library’s website has been transformed. The blog and IM reference are prominently featured. Library resources are almost all listed on the main page. The site links to a 24/7 statewide chat reference services. Google resources are used to help students find the library and to create custom search pages. The library makes use of many outside tools and resources, rather than trying to create them themselves. Several Captivate screencasts are offered—searching databases and dealing with copyright are a few of the topics.

Technical difficulties plague any new technological initiative. In this case, learning new software was time-consuming, database interfaces changed and so they had to redo the Captivate screencasts, they lost several staff members and had a hiring freeze on top of that, money was tight, and as always, there was resistance to the changes that had to be made. In the end, though, the experience has been rewarding, and the library has learned a lot. Burke recommends that similar libraries in similar situations learn to say “no” to non-priority tasks, make time to experiment with new tools, rely on third-party tools and resources, and act as a visionary to faculty and students of what library service might become.

The speaker started her presentation by sharing her experience navigating a website with a user with visual disability. She pointed out that even though the information structure on a website makes sense for us (the visual users), it does not necessarily make sense for users with screen readers. Making your website accessible is very important because the goal of a library is providing access and not providing barriers.

Accessibility matters because:

• 10 million people in the US are blind or visually impaired; 1.3 million people are legally blind due to age or other health issues.
• screen readers are used by blind users as well as people with learning and physical disabilities.
• writing good code is good practice and makes the web pages more accessible to all.

Nina pointed out why accessibility is an issue:

• proliferation use of graphics makes it more difficult for people with visual disabilities to use the website.
• typical web browsers tend to be too forgiving for bad code.
• a lot of library web pages tend to be home grown or don’t have a dedicated group to create and maintain the web pages.

Two governing standards for web accessibility:

• the federal government: section 508, subpart B, §1194.22, a-p (16 recommendations)
• the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and their priority checkpoints

Section 508 is mostly based on the web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) from the W3C, with the addition of 8 more standards. Federal agencies are required to comply with the Section 508 standards.

Putting web standards to work:
- check that the code behind the web pages is standards compliant and accessible
- use free web-based validation tools available to check different kinds of web content. For example:

• from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

• css validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
• html validator: http://validator.w3.org/

The reports from these validation tools can be difficult to interpret at first, but they usually include the link numbers to help pin-point the exact location of the problematic codes. Most of the errors tend to be simple and easy to fix.

Typical problems in web design, their corresponding standards, and solutions to those problems:

1. No alternative for visual elements (photos, images, etc.)
2. Poor document structure (internal html structure)
3. Repetitive navigation

1. Visual elements
A lot of library websites use images and photos to increase the visual appeal of their web pages or to support document structure. However, users of screen reader might not have access to the information conveyed by those images. Solutions to this is by using the alt or the longdesc tag

2. Poor document structure:
Use appropriate header (h1 - h6), meaningful hyperlink text, and correct label forms (including search boxes) would really help users with screen reader to “scan” the web page and get the appropriate information.

3. Repetitive navigation:
Good web site requires a consistent design, but we end up having a repetitive navigation. Although, experienced screen reader users could just “hop along” and ignore the repetitive navigation. However, it’s better if we also provide a “skip navigation” link or, by the magic of CSS, have the navigation links be read as the last part of the document on the screen reader.

One of the proposed agenda is a demo of JAWS screen reader. Unfortunately, there was a technical issue and the demo has to be canceled. A discussion followed about what other libraries are doing to make their website accessible, the accessibility of AJAX (see http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ ), and keystroke behavior (combining ‘onmouse’ with ‘onclick’).

Other resource mentioned: World Usability Day (http://www.worldusabilityday.org/).

Nina’s presentation can be found at http://library.auraria.edu/~nmchale/presentations/lita2008/optimizing.pptx

Session description from the conference program: “If they are not already, video games are becoming as ubiquitous a media as television. Librarians will be better equipped to engage students in the practice of scholarly research if we understand the culture of gaming and what it means to say that our students are gamers. What should we make of this new and rapidly evolving media? What can we learn from the best examples of game design and development? What do players learn from games? What forms does this learning take? Are there useful pedagogies librarians can borrow from game designers? This presentation will focus on the instructional character of video games and how librarians can learn from the teaching that video game designers build into their craft. The conversation will focus on the video and computer game Portal, a 2007 release from Valve Software. Gaming culture is a rich and largely untapped source of insight for librarians. This presentation will present attendees with a context for understanding the gaming culture many of our patrons share. It will analyze a particular game and show how game designers integrate teaching and learning into their craft. Finally, we will discuss how games use instruction techniques familiar to librarians and how they are innovating in ways librarians would do well to emulate. Practical instruction techniques will be identified and the group will discuss possible ways to integrate them into our teaching practices.”

Useful links:
Portal (for PC, PS3, Xbox 360 from Valve Software)
Portal: Still Alive (for Xbox 360 Live Marketplace)
What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy James Paul Gee
Using Video Games as Bait to Hook Readers New York Times
InformationGames.info - Nicholas Schiller’s blog

We’re not getting any younger, but our students are. We are tied to our old ways; we think of new technologies as methods to deliver old ideas. It’s time to mix it up. We don’t necessarily have to live in their world, but we should try to speak the language.

What is gaming literacy? Recent NYT article on video games was decent, but comments were _very_ interesting, seemed to indicate concern on the part of some readers that gaming was antithetical to traditional literacy.

Games are here, they are not “tomorrow.” Games are mainstream media. Much more significant for students than they were for us.
GTAIV and Halo 3 each set records for opening day revenue (more than Spiderman 2). 65% of college students are regular or occasional gamers (Pew IAL, 2003). 97% of all teens (12-17) play computer, web, portable, or console games (Pew IAL, 2008).

Like McLuhan & Postman, we don’t need to be fans of new media in order to understand them. We do need to be literate in new media in order to connect with those who are fans.

Key terms:
Console - standalone computer hooked up to the television, i.e. Nintendo Wii
MMO/MMORPG - Massively Multiplayer Online (Role-Playing) Game

How do we think intelligently about “childish” things? Separate content from format. Use the tools we already use.

Use the tools you know -

Deb Gilchrist’s 5 questions for outcomes assessment in instructional design
1. What do you want the student to be able to do? (Outcome)
2. What does the student need to know in order to do this well? (Curriculum)
3. What activity will facilitate the learning? (Pedagogy)
4. How will the student demonstrate the learning? (Assessment)
5. How will I know if the student has done this? (Criteria)

How to Read a Book - Adler & VanDorn
Multiple readings for multiple purposes - not all reading is created equal
1st reading: unified perspective of the whole document
2nd reading: close analysis and outlining of specific arguments and evidence

The point of studying gaming behavior is rarely the content of the games. Games are complex information systems. They must teach players to evaluate information and make informed choices. Games that fail to do this well do not succeed.

Instruction applications from World of Warcraft - Carol

Collaboration and apprenticeship: You’re never alone. It’s a team exercise, just like in our workshops. Establish common goals (quests).

Deemphasis of authority, emphasis on peer knowledge: Average time for a response from a peer in WOW - 32 seconds. Users build reputation by demonstrating knowledge to peers. More like a wiki than an LMS.

Parsing out learning, using the “level” concept: scaffolding : instruction :: levels : games
Video games don’t give you access to more of the world than you can handle at your current level. In instruction, she would focus solely on the few aspects of a given database that were appropriate to the level of her audience.

Socializing/Community:
“The real takeaway from a good swordfight session in World of Warcraft is its masterful community building.”
Players build the resources, they _are_ the resources. How can we build community through collaboration?

Intrinsic Motivation & Rewards
Players choose to play the game - Their activities are rewarded in tangible and measurable ways
Students are accustomed to having choices - Choice can be worked into classroom instruction - choice of partners, choice of “quests”

Persistence through failure:
Failing is normal, useful. Rare is the game in which you don’t die. It doesn’t take away from enjoyment.
When you fail in WOW, you know what to do - level up, read FAQs
When students fail, do they know what to do? Building expertise and community allows students to succeed.

Other gaming examples:

Gating: Software design term. The problem: button mashing, problem solving by random input. Gating is the solution, a mandatory pause in the action that requires a demonstration of skill acquisition.
Classroom application: Design research assignments to require identification of and reflection on research choices. (annotated bibliographies)

Why doesn’t Lara Croft obey Professor Van Croy?
Telling vs. Doing: which is the surer path to student learning?
Discovery-based learning: Nicholas stopped giving instructions on use of databases, rather, encourages students to explore the tool.

New ideas as I’ve leveled up:
The higher your level, the more you require the community.
The jargon gets confusing again at each level.

Gaming literacy can increase information literacy
If we can help our students see that when they’re playing games, they are functioning on a high level on Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Then we can help them see that their complex and involved academic research is not only something they are capable of doing, but it’s something that they have already done while playing games.

As long as we keep our focus on the research process, and not on zombies, aliens, etc.

This past Spring, our library ‘completed’ what was a fairly significant reorganization. The library formalized relationships with several strategic partners which had been residing in our building. One of the outcomes included bringing together three independent IT departments, which I have been responsible for pulling together.

Needless to say, the 2008 LITA Forum session entitled “Re-swizzling the IT Enterprise for the Next Generation: Creating a Strategic and Organizational Model for Effective IT Management,” presented by Maurice York, Head, Information Technology North Carolina State University Libraries, caught my attention.

Maurice described the evolution of IT services at NCSU Libraries, which, by the audience reaction, was one which many other libraries experienced (Maurice: everything does go on the home page, doesn’t it?….) In summary, the current state of IT management is that ”there is too much stuff.”

He outlined the various IT Business Models that his organization has used at one time or another. One or all of them should sound familiar:

• The Fire Brigade. This is where the IT staff runs around with the lastest service request being the top priority.
• Batten the Hatches. This approach is usually the result of virus or denial of service attack. All systems are lock down tight.
• Don’t call us, will call you. This is the model used after a ticketing system is deployed. Staff send in their service request to the ticketing system and then trust that IT will get back to them.
• Maytag repairman. In an effort to be proactive IT staff wanders around. The result is that everyone wants the staff member to do something. In reaction, the staff member simply stays in their office so as to not let anyone see them so they can get their work done.

He also discussed the various forces which impact how an IT department can be managed:

• Organizational: Everyone is an IT customer. There are high expectations for service plus the desire for personalized and customized services. The challenge is that everyone within an organization can only understands their individual needs while IT sits in the middle and can see all the needs.
• Technological: The proliferation of technology results in it being layering upon itself. Trying to learn all the new stuff, keeping up with training, and all the associated costs is an additional challenge.
• Strategic: The IT department has to compete for organizational resources, including staffing. It is difficult to manage both long term goals and daily needs. However, there is a need to protect time to work on long term
• User expectations: People expect that library systems to resemble Google, Facebook, and LibraryThing.

The presentation slides do provide some additional information, although it is hard to understand their context by themselves.

Mark Phillips and Kathleen Murray, University of North Texas presented jointly on the challenges, goals and outcomes of user-centered design for humanities collections within a digital library. A link to their presentation is here.

Mark is the Head of the Digital Projects Unit and has been involved with software development and digital content creation for the Portal to Texas History. Kathleen is a postdoctoral research associate working in the Digital Projects Unit at the University of North Texas Libraries. She has been involved in
state-wide and national digital library projects and has presented at major library
and information science conferences in the areas of needs assessment, digital
libraries, and web archiving.

Mark and Kathleen took turns presenting the challenges. Mark started by giving the technical background of the IOGENE project.

They had to take this in three steps:

1.    Evaluate the DPU Infrastructure – and plan for creating a new infrastructure

2.    Consult with the IOGENE User Studies – What are the challenges that they bring to the table? What challenges do their needs bring?

3.    Process Model

DPU
Their 2004 infrastructure was built on the Keystone digital library system.

Advantages: open source and highly customizable. They were able to really tweak the system to suit their needs. There are automatic metadata entry forms, and it saves the files as XML on a file system.

Disadvantages: Very limited Keystone user group. If there was a problem, they had to solve it themselves.
Often tied to very outdated software. Made it difficult to more forward and advance. And since the model was so customizable, they were not able to share their code with any other users. Scaling the systems was also difficult. As they grew – they had problems with management. The technologies were difficult to work with going forward. Worked against the developers.

Their 2008 infrastructure:
Using Solr for indexing and Django.
Advantages: Uses open source technologies, highly customizable and highly scalable, it is standards based (ARK, METS, DC, MODS, SRU), designed around their specific requirements, XML files on a file system.

Disadvantages: in-house development takes time and money!

Components: Python, Django, Subversion, Trac, JQuery, Solr, Open Layers, Apache, Ubuntu/Suse, MySQL, memcached
This was a great way to look at software development at the University of Northern Texas.  Standards and specifications: METS, ARK, MODS; Dublin Core, Grabit, Bagit, PairTree, SRU, ARC/WARC

Kathleen:
Background on the IOGENE project – they have seen a great deal of growth. But why genealogy? It would be fun, there is an increased interest in the amount of people wanting to do genealogical research, increasing number of seniors that are doing the research, and an increasing use of internet resources to do the research.

In setting up this project – they first decided upon an information retrieval framework for genealogists. Kathleen gave a brief demonstration of how the following genealogical sites worked for background data: Familysearch, Heritage Quest, and Ancestry.com. Each of these sites has multiple ways for the searcher to approach their search.

The Portal to Texas History only has one field within their basic search, but they also have an advanced search. But how to change their interface to best suit their users needs?

When assessing their portal – they used focus groups, usability testing and comment log analysis. The participants were members of geological societies and portal users.

The key findings were that the genealogists are primarily interested in names (first name and surname), locations (county, city, state, community) and time period. Their digital library places and emphasis on title, author/creator and subject.

They decided that they needed to rethink theirs operations and planned direction in order to better serve their genealogical users to enable the discovery of their collections and content.
While their digital library is very standards driven, the genealogical portals are more content driven.

Challenges:
1.    Name searches – really needed and requested by user groups. Priority needed for “exact phrase” search. Wanted visibility and guidance for “name” searches. By basing their model on Dublin core, this creates real problems. The data model gets “mushy” as you add in the creator, subject names, etc.
2.    For the advanced search, they wanted county name, subject, era, Soundex code, -‘names begin with’ and wanted to identify the familiar object “types”. Also wanted to select the number of search results, including “all.”
3.    Relevance: this is a problem. Everyone defines this differently. The order now is:
Surname, Location and Date together. Then display the results be relevance in this order: exact phrase (s), adjacent terms, terms proximally located, then single terms. Luckily they are able to modify their code fairly easily to accommodate most of these requests.
4.    Search Results – Serials – wanted to see the title as well as the table of contents. For objects that are part of the same series – they wanted one listing with all volumes listed. “hits in text” – wanted the number of the hits within the text.
Wanted to know the size and if it was available to download. Wanted it automatically! Open selected object sin new windows or tabs. Wanted to limit them by first name or date range, grid display that has limited metadata – limited the number of fields displayed.

They were not able to give the users everything that they wanted! This is where to bring the “education” side of librarian ship into the process.

5.    Metadata: include location information and link to maps, include place names not commonly known or used, limit to one page formatting for printing, simple text format vs. tabular format, open linked content in new window or tab.

In conclusion, they have their developers, their user design group, and their user studies. How to best utilize their assets to create the best process model? It’s a complex process, and one that involves all parties and much discussion. Unfortunately, in order to make the best use of time, money, and resources - not all of the users requests will be input into the final product.

The 2008 LITA National Forum opened Friday afternoon with a general opening session remarks by Tim Spalding, founder and developer, of LibraryThing.com. Tim presented What is Social Cataloging and Why Should You Care?

(Blogging relatively ‘Live’ thanks to spotty ’free’ wireless, a wired connection in my room, and a charged battery.)

I have to admit that I played around with LibraryThing a bit when it first went online, but not much since. My take is that for individuals it is essentially Facebook for book readers. For libraries, however, it can provide a fresh discovery layer for legacy catalog systems. There are seven libraries using LibraryThing for Libraries, including the High Plains Library District.

Tim started out with some updated statistics. LibraryThing now catalogs over 32 million books and is larger than the Library of Congress. Users can search for books using Amazon and 690 libraries. While at it’s core LibraryThing remains a personal cataloging system, there is a very significant social networking component. The largest active social group remains Librarians who LibraryThing.

Tim then provided a nice tour of the major features of LibraryThing using a ’social cataloging ladder’ to highlight them. The one I found to be the most unique was the ”UnSuggester” which displays books that you will not like if you like a specific book.

The comment that caught my ear during this comments was when he said “Library 2.0 is in danger.” After the presentation, I waited around and talked to Tim about this comment, and apparently I wasn’t alone. He appeared surprised that people though it was controversial. I didn’t think it was so much controversial as it was spot on.

As I interpreted Tim’s comments, his concern is two fold. First, Libraries are concentrating on what they can do with the 2.0 tools, but not what they can do best with them. Libraries are using wikis, blogs, and even Facebook pages simply because they can. They may not be using the tools in the best possible ways. Second, vendors are selling libraries on 2.0 features because libraries are asking for and licensing them. Libraries are telling vendors they want 2.0 features but they may not really know what they want to do with them.

The reason Library 2.0 may be in danger is that a library’s experience with what are essentially first generation Web 2.0 tools (My words. Do they even make sense?). I believe Tim is concerned that if libraries do not have positive experiences with the current generation tools, or how they are being used, libraries may simply bypass the next generation tools and, as Tim phrased it, “throw the baby out with the bath water.” (Tim, if you are out there, please expand, correct, or clarify via a comment!)

(NOTE: the audience was encouraged to submit to Tim one idea that you would like to see in LibraryThing. So, feel free to overwhelm him and email one of yours. His email address is not hard to find.)

]]> http://litablog.org/2008/10/17/lita-national-forum-2008-tim-spalding-library-20-is-in-danger/feed/ http://litablog.org/2008/10/17/2008-national-forum-civil-rights-digital-library/ http://litablog.org/2008/10/17/2008-national-forum-civil-rights-digital-library/#comments Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:49:19 +0000 jshedd http://litablog.org/?p=834 P. Toby Graham presented an overview of the structure and holdings of the Civil Rights Digital Library, the most comprehensive effort so far to provide digitized material on the civil rights movement. There is a video archive, a learning objects component that provides curricular support, and the portal. The library is based in the University of Georgia Libraries and was launched in the spring of 2008.

Graham began by showing some video from the digital library, specifically from the Albany movement. This montage of video contained such material as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. exhorti ng the African-American community to remain nonviolent after the brutal beating of a pregnant young woman holding a child. Graham interspersed the clip montage with explanation of what was happening. The video is impressively clear, and the sound is quite good, allowing users to not only learn about but feel the singing and prayers in many of the videos.

The Civil Rights Digital Library began when professor Barbara McCaskill discovered the WSBN television archive, and wished to share it with her students in an accessible and interesting way. She approached the libraries of the University of Georgia with the idea of building a shared, interdisciplinary infrastructure. This collaboration yielded the Digital Library of Georgia, which holds 500,000 digital objects in 105 collections from 180 libraries and government institutions. The New Georgia Encyclopedia acted as an inspiration, with its fun and interactive approach to providing digital content.

The CRDL partners with several university and special libraries, as well as several content providers, to provide the archives of WSBN (Atlanta) and WALB (Albany), as well as the Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at http://www.libs.uga.edu/media. The video archive contains 30 hours of civil rights footage with an emphasis on Georgia, and especially of Atlanta and University of Georgia integration. 2 hours of this footage are Martin Luther King, Jr. related. Anything else that dealt with key themes or events, needed to be digitally preserved, or were selected by students was also included. Teachers also had a say in selection, identifying items that would support their curricula.

The library uses both outsourced and in-house archiving. The video clips are in uncompressed .avi format at a massive resolution of 1440×1080. Comprehensive metadata is included with each clip. Graham showed some of the machinery involved, including the machine that converts rolls of film to digital formats. Converting was ruinously expensive at first, costing nearly $40,000 for the first ten hours of video, so the CRDL had to come up with a less expensive, in-house solution. What they use now is a Telesync, originally used to broadcast film, but now rigged to broadcast it to a video-capture program on a Mac.

Videos are delivered via RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, or Flash, which the user can choose upon entering the site. A cookie is set so that the user doesn’t have to keep choosing a format. The viewer is integrated into the metadata display, and can work with almost any bandwidth.

The CRDL portal draws it all together. Users can search, or browse in a number of ways: by events, locations, topics, etc. There is also a suggestion feature on the search box to help users who may not be quite sure what they’re looking for. Geographic access is supported with the help of the Google Maps API. Items are pegged to locations on the map. The most often used browse feature is browsing by people. To demonstrate, Graham browsed to Stokely Carmichael and displayed his FBI file, a 40-page .pdf document. Each person has a page describing who they were and what part they played in the Movement.

There are many educator resources, including lesson plans and annotated bibliographies.

Each institution that contributes material to the CRDL is recognized, and special search pages are available for items from each institution.

The CRDL runs on Voci, an open-source program available on SourceForge. Graham showed the admin side of the program, giving a brief tour of what Voci can do and how CRDL uses it. Interestingly, the Events browse is basically run as a different project in Voci.

The library took 2 years to build. Graham even showed the programmers who made it all work. GALILEO, Georgia’s digital library, helped program the CRDL system and public interface, administers the servers, offers network support, designs the interfaces, tests for usability, and offers customer support.

Note that this is not a repository—the library doesn’t hold digital objects. It is a tool to manage objects from many sources.

An audience member asked about copyright issues with the film…Turns out that the news networks signed a deed of gift, so copyright is a nonissue when it comes to the film.

The Civil Rights Digital Library is located at http://www.civilrightslibrary.org.

Annette reviewed the history of LibX and the initial motivation behind creating this tool: users were increasingly bypassing the library and using search engines and other online search tools. LibX, as a browser plugin, puts the library back into the research process by guiding the user to library resources no matter where they are online.

Edition Builder Study
The LibX team conducted a study of Edition Builder, a LibX feature that allows libraries to create LibX editions for their particular library. Through analyzying their user logs, and a user survey that included 139 participants, they asked three questions about Edition Builder:

1. Is the interaface easy to learn and use? (yes)
2. How successful are edition maintainers in creating LibX editions? (successful)
3. Is the auto-discovery feature effective? (yes)

According to self-reports, the majority of Edition Builder users creators found it easy or very easy to learn and use and preferred its single-page application interface. Logs showed that 50% of users built their edition in 72 minutes or less, and 80% in 190 minutes or less. Auto-discovery of the library catalog, databases, and Open URL Resolver generally worked well, and most of the users who needed to do manual configuration were able to do so easily.

LibX 2.0: the next stage for LibX

Libraries are creating service-oriented architectures, support mashups and widgets, and reate online tutorials, guides, and visualizations. The LibX team returned to their initial motivation: how can libraries provide these services and resources at the user’s point of need? Adding features to the library catalog or web site isn’t helpful if people aren’t visiting the library catalog or web site.

Annette gave a demo of sample features they have developed, “LibX 1.5″

• On an Amazon book page, instead of just a little cue (LibX logo), adding direct information of availability in the user’s library.
• Adding a LibX link at the top of Google search results; clicking on the link brings results from the library catalog to the top of the results list.

With funding from IMLS, LibX 2.0 will allow librarians to create LibApps for our users from reuable, sharable components, and our users will be able to describe which services they want to subscribe to.

LibApps will be applications that consist of modules, allowing the modules to be customized or reused.

The LibX community will include 3 target audiences:

• Developers: will write LibApps and modules. (The LibX team will also create some fundamental modules.)
• Adapters: adapt, combine, reuse and share the LibApps.
• Users: decide what to use.

The IMLS grant includes funding for developing marketing kits for users. Users need to see the benefits in order to decide to use. Word of mouth has seemed to be the most effective method of increasing use.

Q&A:

How can we drive the LibX user base?
Along with creating the marketing kits, the grant will allow them to do a user study. The institution needs to actively support and promote the tool: demonstrating in instruction sessions, including as default on browsers on campus.

Is LibX primarily for academic libraries?
It is for all types of libraries.

What about International use - is it feasible to use in Africa?
Yes; and there is an interest in the library community in making LibX available in additional languages, not just English.

More details will be posted later

The scope statement in the standard states:

‘This International Standard specifies a framework designed to provide guidance on the basic principles for representing data recorded in terminological data collections. This framework includes a meta-model and methods for describing specific terminological markup languages (TMLs) expressed in XML. The mechanisms for implementing constraints in a TML are defined in this International Standard, but not the specific constraints for individual TMLs, except for the three TMLs defined in Annexes B to D.”

“This International Standard is designed to support the development and use of computer applications for terminological data and the exchange of such data between different applications. It does not standardize data categories and methods for the specification of data structures which are specified in ISO 12620 and other related International Standards. This International Standard also defines the conditions that allow the data expressed in one TML to be mapped onto another TML and specifies a generic mapping tool (GMT) for this purpose (see Annex A).”

Deadline for comment on this ballot is December 2, 2008.

The second item is a new work item proposal: Revision of ISO/TS 17369. Cindy notes that this is a proposal from a liaison committee (TC 154, Processes, data elements and documents in commerce, industry and administration) to revise the standard, ISO/TS 17369: 2005 Statistical data and metadata exchange (SDMX).

From the scope of proposed project:

“Revision to extend technical specification to include services-oriented exchange architecture and more complete metadata functionality and to convert the document into an International Standards (IS). This revision builds on the existing TS 17369 and implementations associated with changes proposed for Version 2 in November 2005 via http://www.sdmx.org. A disposition log of public comments has been maintained.

Purpose and justification: Revisions reflect need for features to support more efficient and effective data and metadata exchange.”

Additionally, Cindy notes that since this is a new work project, if ALA votes “Yes,” she may identify one or more US experts to work on the standard’s development. “If you nominate someone please provide not just a name but contact information (most especially phone number and e-mail address).”

Deadline for recommendations on this item is November 24, 2008.

As with all ISO documents, access to both items is restricted. If you are an ALA member and wish to see either item, please contact Cindy directly at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu and confirm that you are an ALA member. For the second item, in addition to the proposal, a working draft of the document was submitted. Cindy notes that it is included in zip files (about a dozen of them) as the various sections have not yet been combined into a single document.

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

From Cindy’s mail: “The scope note in the draft standard reads as follows: “This International Standard provides guidelines concerning constraints related to the implementation of a Data Category Registry (DCR) applicable to all types of language resources, e.g., terminological, lexicographical, corpus-based, machine translation, etc. It specifies mechanisms for creating, selecting and maintaining data categories, as well as an interchange format for representing them.”

She further notes: “This is a ballot from TC37 / SC3 (Terminology and other language and content resources / Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content). Since TC46 / SC9 has a liaison with this committee, NISO can send in vote recommendations and comments. Ballot options are Yes, No or Abstain. 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 ALA’s feedback prior to submitting the U.S. vote.”

ALA members who are interested in reviewing the standard must obtain it via Cindy. She can be contacted by email at: HSLcindy@buffalo.edu. Please copy me on your request (metadata.maven@gmail.com) so I can track activity emanating from the blog.

Diane Hillmann
LITA Standards Coordinator

Keynote sessions will feature Tim Spalding, founder and developer of LibraryThing.com, Michael Porter of WebJunction (be sure to check out http://libraryman.com/blog/ for details on his presentation), and R. David Lankes of the Information Institute of Syracuse University.

New this Year: Open Gaming Night on Saturday
LITA’s Opening Gaming Night is your chance to experience the thrills, chills, and occasional spills that are part of gaming @ the library. If video games intrigue you, try your hand at tennis, learn to sing and dance like a rock star, or drive a high octane race car. Board games are your chance to show off your strategy skills, demonstrate your dexterity, and finally to outwit your colleagues.

Visit http://www.lita.org/forum2008 for more information on sessions, preconferences, and hotel accommodations.

But, as always, we need your help!

Do you like to write? Looking for new ways to get involved? Take this opportunity to become a LITA Blogger!

The blog schedule for Forum has been posted and will be updated as we receive volunteers. There are many sessions to be covered on a variety of topics, so your help is needed more than ever.

If you are interested, please email Michele Mizejewski and let her know what session(s) you would like to cover and if you are new to LITA Blog.

We will be taking volunteers up to and during the conference.

The Kilgour Research Award recognizes research relevant to the development of information technologies, in particular research which shows promise of having a positive and substantive impact on any aspect of the publication, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information or how information and data are manipulated and managed. The Kilgour award consists of $2,000 cash, an award citation and an expense paid trip to the ALA Annual Conference (airfare and two nights lodging).

Nominations will be accepted from any member of the American Library Association. Successful nominating letters will address how the research is relevant to libraries; is creative in its design or methodology; builds on existing research or enhances potential for future exploration; and/or solves an important current problem in the delivery of information resources. A curriculum vita and a copy of several significant publications by the nominee must be included. Preference will be given to completed research over work in progress. More information and a list of previous winners can be found at www.lita.org.

Currently-serving officers and elected officials of LITA, members of the Kilgour Award Committee and OCLC employees and their immediate family members are ineligible.

Send nominations by December 31, 2008, to the Award jury chair:
Michael Gorman, 525 W. Superior Street, Apt. 225, Chicago IL, 60654, e-mail

The 2009 Kilgour award will be presented at the LITA President’s Program during the 2009 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago, Ill.

The 2008 LITA National Forum will be held October 16 - 19, 2008 at the Hilton Netherland Plaza Hotel, Cincinnati, OH.

In addition to keynote sessions, there are over 30 concurrent sessions, poster sessions, and networking opportunities planned where you’re sure to find practical advice, new ideas, and tested solutions to technological issues you encounter every day.

Hope to see you in Cincinnati!

The award, given to either an individual or an institution, may recognize a single seminal work or a body of work, created during or continuing into the five years immediately preceding the award year. The body of work need not be limited to published texts, but can include course plans or actual courses and/or non-print publications such as visual media, for example. More information and a list of previous winners can be found on the LITA website.

Currently serving officers and elected officials of LITA, members of the LITA/Library Hi Tech Award Committee and employees and their immediate family of Emerald Publishing Group are ineligible.

Nominations must include the name(s) of the recipient(s), basis for nomination, and references to the body of work and should be sent to Cindi Trainor. Electronic submissions are preferred, but print submissions may be sent to:

Cindi Trainor
103 Crabbe Library
521 Lancaster Avenue
Richmond, KY 40475

The award will be presented at the LITA President’s Program during the 2009 Annual Conference of the American Library Association in Chicago, Illinois.