Listen up!

Re: Vocabularies and registries

Re: Open Book Cover Images Database Dead?

What about Wikimedia Commons?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/

Regards
Veronica Lencinas
Cordoba, Argentina

> Finally, to avoid this becoming another locked-in set of content (call
> me skeptical), I would really love to see the collection (images and
> metadata) made available via BitTorrent. This would enable libraries
> to spread the load, both by acting as BitTorrent seeds for the
> collection and by self-hosting the collection (the ultimate in
> caching). "coverthing" (or whatever this ends up getting called)
> wouldn't get deluged with http requests, so it could be built with far
> less infrastructure. And those interested in adding their own APIs to
> the collection would be able to innovate a little more freely.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner
> en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos,
> y se considera que está limpio.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Wanted Technical Support and Training Librarian

ALA Annual: ALCTS CCS Cataloging Norms DG call for speakers

This announcement is being posted on several electronic discussion lists.
Apologies for cross-postings.

ALCTS CCS Cataloging Norms Discussion Group invites cataloging, metadata,
and systems librarians working with MARC and other metadata standards to
submit proposals for papers to be presented at its meeting at the ALA
Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., Saturday, June 23, 2007, from 1:30
p.m.-3:30 p.m. Papers should focus on the similarities and differences
between working with different metadata standards with emphasis on
workflows.

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
   * Workflows combining MARC and non-MARC cataloging
   * Original catalogers and support staff in non-MARC metadata cataloging
   * Roles of catalogers and systems staff in workflows
   * How workflows for metadata creation differ from traditional MARC
cataloging
   * Measuring productivity in MARC and non-MARC cataloging
   * How traditional cataloging norms are being shaped or reshaped by other
metadata developments

Presentations should be approximately 15-20 minutes in length. Additional
time will be allowed for questions and answers.
Please respond to Susan Matveyeva ( susan.matveyeva <at> wichita.edu ) or
Jennifer Lang ( lang <at> princeton.edu ) and not the list.

Susan Matveyeva, Ph.D., MLIS, B.Mus.
Asst. Professor & Catalog Librarian
Wichita State University Libraries
1845 Fairmount
Wichita, KS 67260-0068
phone: (316) 978-5139
fax:       (316) 978-3048
e-mail: susan.matveyeva <at> wichita.edu

Metadata specialists - Web systems experts. Call for CVs / FAO -- Roma

** Apologies for cross-posting **

Dear all,

The Knowledge Exchange and Capacity Building Division (KCE) of FAO (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) is looking for
information management consultants as Web Systems Experts and Metadata
Specialists.

Profile Code: MET_01
Profile Description: Metadata specialist
Location: Rome-Italy
http://www.fao.org/VA/cns/GIL_MET_01.htm

Qualified candidates will be graduates in library and information science
or other relevant field, with good knowledge of and working experience
with international standards and controlled vocabularies, experience with
cataloguing procedures, ISBD, AACR2, MARC, Holdings and Authorities,
Dublin Core, XML or RDF. Working knowledge of English and French or
Spanish is required. Knowledge of the FAO subjects focus is desirable.

Profile Code: ISE_01
Profile Description: Web systems expert
Location: Rome-Italy
http://www.fao.org/VA/cns/GIL_ISE_01.htm

Qualified candidates will be graduates information technology or other
relevant field, with experience in and ability to work in a team; with
good knowledge of and working experience of programming languages , HTML,
Javascript, XML and Java in particular; with experience in multilingual
database and web sites, with experience in analysis of user requirements
for Integrated Library Management System. Working knowledge of English and
French or Spanish is required.

· Applicants must complete the Personal History Form
<http://www.fao.org/VA/adm11e.dot>.
· Applicants must quote the Profile-code in the "Subject" line of the
email they send (the Profile-code is identified above and in each Profile
Description)
· Send the completed Personal History Form to WAICENT <waicent <at> fao.org>.

More information at
http://www.fao.org/VA/cns/GIL_MET_01.htm
http://www.fao.org/VA/cns_gil_en.htm

---------------------------------------------------
Imma Subirats
Information Management Specialist
KCEW, FAO of the United Nations
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome (Italy)
Tel: +39 0657054301
E-mail: imma(.)subirats DOT fao(.)org

Summary of Results from "Nine Questions on Technology Innovation in Academic Libraries"

In February, 2007, an invitation to an informal survey of "Nine Questions on Technology Innovation in
Academic Libraries" was posted to the WEB4LIB, NGC4LIB, LITA-L, COLLIB-L, ACRL-NJ and New Jersey
academic library listservs, and it was mentioned in the national ACRLog blog.  

The following is a brief summary of the informal survey results with links to more complete information:

***
The survey received 136 responses in total, and 75% said that their library is not the center of technology
innovation on campus, while 23% identified the library as the center of technology innovation on campus.

Overall, the majority responded that:

*Recent technology innovations in the library included blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, IM reference, and
digitization projects.

*The driving force behind tech. innovation is student needs, followed by an Information Tech. Chief or
Dean with vision, and the initiative of individuals.

*The biggest obstacle to tech. innovation in libraries is lack of money, staff, and time, with an
unsupportive administration cited as one of the top four obstacles.

*The Library's approach and the Library staff's approach to technology innovation were both
overwhelmingly described as "cautious but willing,"  though the staff were more often described as
"resistant and blocking" than the Library itself.

*Faculty and librarians were most cited as the introducers of disruptive technology on campus, followed
closely by students.

*The most disruptive technology for academic libraries today is "Web 2.0" or Social Computing
technologies with Google/Google Scholar coming up second.

*The Top Ten Models of Technology Innovation cited by the libraries that answered that their libraries are
centers of technology innovation were very similar to those cited overall. The Top Ten Models identified were:

1) North Carolina State University – Endeca Project
2) University of Pennsylvania - PennTags
3) MIT – DSpace
4) University of Michigan – Digital Library Production Service (DLPS)
5) University of Minnesota – Primo library system
6) Cornell University – Digital Library Research Projects
7) University of Virginia –  Fedora Open Source Institutional Repository 
8) University of California – California Digital Library (CDL)
9) University of California, Santa Barbara - Alexandria Digital Library Geospatial Network 
10) Oregon State University – LibraryFind Project

For more information on these Top Ten Models of Tech. Innovation in Academic Libraries, links and
abstracts are posted on the ACRL-New Jersey Chapter Website at: 
http://www.njla.org/njacrl/ModelsTechInnov.doc 
***

Separate analyses for the libraries that answered "yes" they are the center of technology innovation and
the libraries that answered "no" are posted online, respectively, at:

http://www.njla.org/njacrl/ACRL07TechInnovYesResults.doc  and
http://www.njla.org/njacrl/ACRL07TechInnovNoResults.doc    

The overall quantitative results of the survey and the text of the nine questions are posted online at: 
http://www.njla.org/njacrl/ACRLTechInnovSurveyResults.doc 

These informal survey results were presented at the Technology Innovation in Academic Libraries panel
session at the ACRL 2007 National Conference on Saturday, March 31st, in Baltimore, Maryland. Nancy
Davenport, Eric Schnell, Jim Robertson, and Mary Mallery were the members of the panel. Presentations
from the ACRL 2007 Conference Technology Innovation Panel Session and related links are posted online at:
http://www.njla.org/njacrl/TechInnovPanel2007.html .  

Thank you for your participation and interest in the ACRL 2007 Technology Innovation Panel Informal
Survey.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
******************************************
* Mary Mallery, Ph.D.   
* Chair, ACRL-NJ Chapter Technology Committee
* Assoc. Dean for Technical Services  
* Harry A. Sprague Library
* Montclair State University
* Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 
* Phone: 973-655-7150   
* Fax: 973-655-7780
* E-mail: mallerym <at> mail.montclair.edu   
******************************************

 

making interfaces "smarter"

Sometimes I think we need to be making our search interfaces
"smarter", and ironically, at the same time, maybe we don't need to
think about them very much at all.

I have been playing with my Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts. As of
right now this is a collection of roughly 14,000 ebooks. Each ebook
is wrapped in rudimentary HTML. Each ebook includes Dublin Core
metadata, and the subject fields have been automatically generated
using a number of computer programs. Google (as well as a number of
other indexers) has crawled the site. I have also created a full-text
index of the content accessible via a Web interface as well as an SRU
interface. See:

   http://infomotions.com/alex/

The local search engine includes only one box and one button. As
queries are entered results are returned. Based on the type of query
submitted and the number of results returned, the results pages
suggest and create alternative queries for the user. Limit to author.
Limit to subject. Boolean and. Truncation. Spellings. Synonyms. Etc.
In this regard I have made the search interface "smarter".

As I watch the Web server logs I see that about 80% of the hits to
the collection come from Google; most of the traffic to the
collection does not come from my local index. Why should I spend all
that effort indexing my content when nobody is going to use the
search interface?

All is not lost. There are many links to the Alex Catalogue from
around the world. Each ebook points to the Alex Catalogue as well. As
I watch people use the local index I see them getting few hits but
then using the suggestions to find others. In that way I am improving
access.

Here in academic libraries where fewer and fewer people physically
come to libraries to acquire information for their learning,
teaching, and scholarship we might think more about putting some of
our expertise into our Internet interfaces.

--
Eric Lease Morgan
University Libraries of Notre Dame

speakers on the west coast

Announcing LITA Next Generation Catalog Interest Group

Announcing a new LITA Interest Group and mailing list: the Next
Generation Catalog Interest Group (NGCIG).  This interest group was
established as an outgrowth of an informal meeting held at ALA
Midwinter in Seattle.

NGCIG gives LITA a discussion space devoted to developments in the
library catalog, its nature and scope, and its interfaces.  It
provides a forum for presentations and sharing of innovation in
catalogs and discussion of future directions.  Collaborations with
other LITA interest groups, such as in the areas of emerging
technologies and open source software, will provide opportunities for
programming.

NGCIG is open to all LITA members - the mailing list is open to
anybody (but we envision the list will primarily be used for IG
business - the NGC4Lib list is already available for broader
discussions of catalog design).  To subscribe to the mailing list, go
to <http://lists.ala.org/wws/info/lita-ngc>.

--

-- 
Thomas Dowling, Chair
tdowling@...

Sharon Shafer, Co-Chair
sshafer@...