AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE
CHICAGO 2005
Karen Jensen
Library Technical Services
Sept. 22, 2005
I. Access, Preservation, and Interchange: Digital Imaging with JPEG 2000 ................................... 2
II. Implementing a Federated Search Tool. ..................................................................................... 4
III. AACR3: The Next Big Thing in Cataloging ................................................................................. 5
IV. XML and Authority Control. ........................................................................................................ 8
V. The New Crossroads: Science Librarians in the 21st Century. ................................................. 10
VI. MODS, MARC, and Metadata Interoperability. ........................................................................ 15
VII. Conference Exhibition ............................................................................................................. 17
This report includes some notes on the American Library Association 2005 Annual
Conference held in Chicago. Unfortunately, I missed the beginning of the first session and the
ending of the last one, due to the flight schedule. I did find the conference to be extremely
interesting and would recommend that others attend in the future.
1
I. Access, Preservation, and Interchange: Digital Imaging with JPEG 2000. Saturday, June
25, 2005 (8:30-12:00)
Speakers: Peter Murray, OhioLink, gave the introduction and closing remarks on the status of the
adoption effort; Digital Imaging with JPEG 2000, Robert Buckley, Xerox Labs; JPEG 2000
product demonstrations from Mike Serafino, Aware Inc., Mark McKinney, LuraTech Inc., David
Gedye, Sand Codex LLC; Panel of practitioners included Tsering Wangyal Shawa, Princeton
University, Patrick McGlamery, University of Connecticut, Robert Buckley, Xerox Labs, Vannotea
Prototype
Write-up of the presentation: http://litablog.org/?p=68
Website for the adoption of JPEG 2000 in Archives and Libraries: http://j2karclib.info/
Mailing list for the adoption of JPEG 2000 in Archives and Libraries: http://j2karclib.info/mailinglist
Aware, Inc. http://www.aware.com/
LuraTech, Inc. http://www.luratech.com/
Sand Codex, LLC http://www.sandcodex.com/
1. JPEG 2000 Product Demonstrations
LuraTech
3.2 GB image of a 5 x 5 metre map of Japan.
-quick access, lossless JPEG 2000, helps for printing
-LuraDocument JPM compresses scanned documents by first separating text and images into
their own individual layers, resulting in small files that retain excellent text and image quality
-user may choose to see just black and white layer, 24 MB
-JPM for maps if large format; JPM viewers are fast
-LuraDocument PDF uses the same methods as the JPEG 2000/Part 6 standard, so the
compression rate and visual quality are as excellent as JPM files; these files are 100% PDF
compatible and pre-existing PDF files can be effectively compressed with LuraDocument PDF
-LuraDocument BIN creates optimal base documents in preparation for optical character
recognition
Aware
Aware is a company based in Boston. Information on Aware's JPEG 2000 ImageServer is at:
http://imageserver.aware.com/
Conformant with part 4 of the standard.
Transcode from JPEG 2000 to JPEG.
Mosaic imaging of atlases.
Metadata is layered on top; can integrate it into an existing website.
ExLibris is a customer.
Sand Codex LLC
David Gedye. Sea Dragon Technology Demo, smooth interface, viewing business, blending
technology. JPEG 2000 is an image format to store non-image data, vector data, spatial locality
attributes, very rapid access of non-image data. Beta test next year, needs participants.
2. Panel of JPEG Practitioners
Tsering Wangyal Shawa
Online library of map and geospatial data using JPEG 2000 at Princeton University Library, GIS
Library.
2
-pilot map scanning project started Feb. 20, 2004. JPEG 2000 is open file, better than MrSID
(LizardTech), assign file names, use ESRI, GeoJP2 Image Server/Mapping Science, SQL Server
database, 400 d.p.i.
Patrick McGlamery
-slides from the presentation are at: http://j2karclib.info/files/j2kIG_ALA2005_PMcGlamery.pdf
1. Charles Olson's Melville Project at:
http://charlesolson.uconn.edu/Works_in_the_Collection/Melville_Project/index.htm
-Aware for Olson’s Melville project, four types of data are with the image file
2. Connecticut History Online, phase 2 at: http://www.cthistoryonline.org/
Endeavor Encompass software
3. Institute for Museum and Library Services Grant, MrSID, ARCIMS viewer
-scanned, georeferenced, clipped
-ER Mapper viewer has free compression tool 500 MB image
-georectified geo TIFF
-American Geographical Society catalogued all sheet maps, MetaLite cataloguing, FGDC
standard, need to process files with metadata
4. 15,000 aerial photos, not georeferenced, but computing boundary of the box
-challenge is to move TIFF files to ECW, automate metadata creation
-changing course in midstream: move to JPEG 2000 from ECW or MrSID?
-how will ARCGIS work with JPEG 2000?
-now ER Mapper version 7.0.
-Endeavor Encompass points to server outside it.
Robert Buckley, Xerox Labs
-LC is digitizing newspapers, NDNP will use JPEG 2000
-need to establish standards and best practices
-files: TIFF for archival master, JPEG 2000 for production master, “visually lossless” 8 to 1
compression
-RDF/Dublin Core, resolution is progressive, greyscale data, PDF for derivative
-how to encode JPEG 2000? 55 MB, scanning microfilm at 400 d.p.i., should optical character
recognition be carried out?
-parts 1 and 6 are the best of the standard
Vannotea, Australia
A brief video was shown about the Vannotea prototype, used for the FilmEd project at:
http://metadata.net/filmed/
“The FilmEd project's original aim was to provide the tertiary education sector with broadband
access to high quality and unique film and video content stored within Australian moving image
archives to enhance curriculum based programs concerned with screen literacy, film and media
studies, journalism and Australian culture and history.
A prototype called Vannotea has been developed which enables the collaborative indexing,
annotation and discussion of audiovisual content over high bandwidth networks. It enables
geographically distributed groups connected across broadband networks (GrangeNet) to perform
real time collaborative sharing indexing, discussion and annotation of high quality digital
film/video and images (and shortly 3D objects).”
3. Status of Adoption Effort
-now a website and mailing list
-need project case studies
-access, preservation, and interchange of images
-impact of JPEG 2000 on existing workflow
-need best practices for large maps
-image codestream profiles
-efforts to open source code
3
II. Implementing a Federated Search Tool. Saturday, June 25 (1:30-3:30).
Speakers: Peter Webster, St. Mary’s University; Marvin Pollard, California State University;
Robert Sathrum, Humboldt State University; Joseph Fisher, Boston Public Library
Peter Webster
-not one-stop shopping
-not Google-like
-business computing has a term “silo-busting”
-all e-content is not yet interoperable
-products: WebFeat has patented federated searching, MuseGlobal builds tools for other
companies
-aggregators also offer federated search tools
-under the hood: Z39.50, which is not good for full-text, known to be slow for more than ten
targets
-newer products have XML gateways into their databases, SQL structured query language, OIAPMH, API programming, put there by database provider
-targets? Search books? Some say no to physical content.
-results sort order: fastest first may not be best if users are used to relevance ranking
-deduplicating
-search feature variability: lowest common denominator, often reduced to keyword searching,
loosing functionality of high-level indexing, such as offered by PAIS, for example
-vendors now providing XML search gateways
-may not need third party tool
-Crossref cross search pilot
-NISO Metasearch Initiative is developing standards
-Google Scholar
Marvin Pollard
-I have a printout of the slides
-eight-year effort, now using MetaLib
-23 institutions (23 campus California State University), task was to promote federated searching
to librarians, chose people with experience designing websites, used Web development
programmers
-students want full text most
“User interface designed by committee will probably not be loved by anyone.”
-staff deal with the license
-set up and troubleshoot searching
-provides first line support and training
-prefer federated searching to act more like native interface
-each library is free to customize MetaLib if they choose to
-configure categories and types
-assign databases/resources to categories
-one server with 25 “instances”; each library uses its own terms, e.g., databases or resources;
each library uses LDAP or another system; many libraries include print and microfilm resources in
MetaLib
-administrative side: WebAPI from MetaLib
-X-Server provides a layer between the presentation and the application, so once you create an
X-Server interface, you never have to worry about later versions of MetaLib wiping out your
interface, as happened when they moved from version 2 to 3
-X-Server offers complete control over every aspect of the interface and has about 10 files
instead of the hundreds of HTML fragment files in MetaLib
Robert Santhrum
-slides from this presentation are at
www.ala.org/ala/lita/litamembership/litaigs/internetresource/FedSearchingHumboldt.ppt
-what to include? Scholar’s resources
4
-goal is to dedup and display in order
-user interface customization: takes time and staff expertise due to complicated CSS and
JavaScript, took three months of work, now looking at what next release is like before making too
many changes
-Quicksearch for library catalogues
-selection of databases: 330 were selected by Subject Librarians
-designed a tutorial for them to enter the materials in the MetaLib KnowledgeBase, half the
librarians worked on the beta version
-updating is done by a team of three: Systems Librarian, Collection Development Librarian, and
himself
-categorization by subject, content, audience
-categories are based on 69 majors and minors in version 2. For version 3, they did user surveys.
Out of a choice of 69, 35 or 9 (from the existing database selection Web page), users preferred
35 categories
-Quicksearch: there are ten, with eight resources each
-categories: there are 35, plus content-based subcategories
-California State University page talks about external programs for non-searchable databases
-set-up issues: how many resources are cross-searchable? Effect on database licenses and
costs, e.g., FirstSearch costs per search
-authentication four types: on-campus guest users, on-campus affiliated users, remote affiliated
users, and remote guest users
-version 3 plus an add-on accommodate all four user types, users must choose campus and login
-how to incorporate into library Web page? One option is to fully replace existing tools for
database selection. Another is to incorporate MetaLib into Web pages as an additional tool
-branding: Homboldt tries not to brand things, or use meaningless terms such as “extreme
searching”
-acceptance by library staff: involve them in the process, build confidence in the tool’s
performance. One key database only started working well this spring, even though the project
started in the fall of 2003. Need to recognize that MetaLib is mainly a tool for basic users.
-information literacy: self-paced tutorial, class-integrated instructions, instructional aids/tutorials,
course management software, deep linking into professors’ websites
-there are tool performance issues, remote server
-future: need more user feedback, exit survey, new Web page, procrastinator’s link, X-Server
customization, Xerxes system
Joseph Fisher
-implemented WebFeat, site: bpl.org/electronic/
-evaluated database use
-general category listing
-redo search limiting to full-text, get hits from the digital image gallery created through Digitool
-result: expanded academic usage, statistics tools were useful, more searches
-LC has info on federated searches
-conclusion: ongoing process, valuable for retrieving local content and resources
Questions from the audience:
How long did the training for librarians last at Humboldt State University? One day.
How do you let users know that they are looking at a non-searchable resource? Search & Link,
MetaLib recognizes this.
I asked whether the term databases or electronic resources was more popular, and the answer
was that databases is used more often at California State University campuses.
III. AACR3: The Next Big Thing in Cataloging. Sunday, June 26, 2005 (8:30-12:00)
Speakers: Barbara Tillett, Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress and
LC representative on the JSC; Jennifer Bowen, Head of Cataloging, University of Rochester
5
Libraries and ALA representative on the JSC; John Attig, Authority Control Librarian,
Pennsylvania State University and member of CC:DA.
Barbara Tillett and Jennifer Bowen
Barbara Tillett
“RDA: Resource Description and Access Background and Context.”
-content standard for metadata schema
-encourage international applicability
-consistency, collocation
-principle-based rules
-international cataloguing principles
-FRBR
1941 ALA Code
ISBD prescribed order, prescribed punctuation
1978 AACR2 = desuperimposition, headings became more principles-based, closer to Paris
principles and other cataloguing codes.
Committee of Principals comprises the CEOs/Directors (or designates) of the three national
associations (the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals), and the Directors (or designates) of
the Library of Congress, Library and Archives Canada, and the British Library. One of the key
functions of the Committee of Principals is reviewing developments and progress in the work of
the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) which has responsibility for the ongoing
process of rule revision.
International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR : Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, October 23/25, 1997
In 1997 the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing approved the FRBR model.
user tasks: find, identify, select, obtain
collocation
6
IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code
Communications standards: MARC, XML DTDs, next generation
Metadata standards: Dublin Core, MPEG7, VRA, EAD, ISBD (also a content/display standard)
Virtual International Authority File
-mid 1990s
-authority records linked, users’ preferred language and script
-connect all authority records world-wide, link them to meet user needs
RDA will have Part 3 devoted to authority control, see:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html
-designed for digital environment, Web-based, multinational content standard, independent of
MARC21, support FRBR
Goals in strategic plan:
1. based on principles
2. used worldwide
3. easy to use
GMD/SMD vs. type and form of carrier
-mix content with carriers
-pull out as separate elements for searching and indexing
Rule of three: likely will stay because it is a cost-saving device.
Chapter 21: individuals are studying this chapter.
Work/Expression Records
-multiple manifestations, one work can have 2,696 manifestations (Hamlet)
Part 3 Authority
-authorized forms
-variant forms
Glossary: hypertext links from text to glossary terms.
2008 is projected final publication date. IFLA will finish consultations in 2007.
AACR2 final update is in 2005.
-won’t need to convert old records
-greater interoperability
JSC Public Web Site: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/index.html
-consistency, simplification, easier to promote cataloguer’s judgement
-access points, citations, authority control
Jennifer Bowen
“Changing Direction: From AACR to RDA”
http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctsconted/alctsceevents/alctsannual/AACR3_Bowen.pdf
-six months background
-who participated: JSC constituencies, over 200 reviewers, 270 p. of summarized comments
-ALA prepared a 136 p. response
-April meeting: changing directions
-unwieldy, expensive, inflexible, not appealing to the next generation
-access to any data elements of a description
-GMD separate from title
-SMD for type and form of content
7
-mode of issuance
-creators: designations of functions, relator terms/relator codes.
-citations: primary access point = main entry
Part 3 not needed in 80% of manifestations “use when needed,” like guide cards in the old card
catalogue, MARC=encoding standard, also XML.
ALA will watch:
-relation of standard to digital, particularly the Web
-editions: when to make a new record?
-CCDA (ALCTS) has a guideline.
ALA says rule of three should be optional. Code accessibility via the Web is risky.
Better to have a database of content, and conduct market research on how to distribute it
John Attig
“Looking Under the Hood and Kicking the Tires: Some Premature Comments on RDA from an
ALA Perspective”
Questions from the audience:
1. Stakeholders = library schools
-LC early implementation
-FRBR data model should be taught now
-prospectus at end of July
-should be teaching both
2. Analysis Chapter 13 was missing
3. reference librarians/library users are also stakeholders
IV. XML and Authority Control. Sunday, June 26, 2005 (1:30-5:30)
Speakers: Sally H. McCallum, Chief, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library
of Congress; Diane Boehr, Cataloging Unit Head, National Library of Medicine; Louisa Kwok,
Head of Cataloging, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology; Kevin S. Clarke, Digital
Projects Programmer, Princeton University Library; Thomas B. Hickey, Chief Scientist, OCLC;
Joanna Yi-hang Pong, Cataloguing Librarian, City University of Hong Kong
Sally H. McCallum
“MADS (Metadata Authority Description Schema), a MODS Companion”
http://www.ala.org/ala/lita/litamembership/litaigs/authorityalcts/MADS2005Annual.ppt
“The Library of Congress' Network Development and MARC Standards Office, with interested
experts, has developed the Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS), an XML schema for
an authority element set that may be used to provide metadata about agents (people,
organizations), events, and terms (topics, geographics, genres, etc.). MADS was created to serve
as a companion to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS). As such, MADS has a
relationship to the MARC 21 Authority format, as MODS has to MARC 21 Bibliographic - both
carry selected data from MARC 21. MADS is expressed using the XML schema language of the
World Wide Web Consortium. The standard will be developed and maintained by the Network
Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress with input from users.”
“We need staying power.”
-XML replacing SGML
“XML is a text markup language defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (WC3,
www.w3c.org) that provides a means of organizing data in a text formatted file. Because XML is
8
a WC3 recommendation, many applications support reading and writing of XML files. Thus, tools
are available to read, write and validate XML files on a wide variety of platforms.”
-open: Dublin Core, MODS, MARC XML.
How to evolve one billion MARC records?
<affiliation> cultural objects
<field of activity> e.g. Poet
<identifier>LCCN
<extension>ok for series
<record info>no., date on file
Using English tags, but could have French tags with a transformation.
“Language Identification
In document processing, it is often useful to identify the natural or formal language in which the
content is written. A special attribute named xml:lang MAY be inserted in documents to specify
the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document. In
valid documents, this attribute, like any other, MUST be declared if it is used. The values of the
attribute are language identifiers as defined by [IETF RFC 3066], Tags for the Identification of
Languages, or its successor; in addition, the empty string MAY be specified.”
MADS has an official website (http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/) which has a discussion list
open to all.
Diane Boehr
“XML for Authorities at NLM: the Groundwork for an Integrated Authority File”
-I have a printout of the slides
-NLM currently makes its bibliographic records available in both XML and MARC formats
-MARC-based file has cross-reference structure, XML-based file does not
-XML furthers NLM’s goal of a centralized, shared authority file for projects throughout the library
and enables consistent retrieval when performing metasearches across different NLM databases
(NLM OPAC, MedlinePlus, Clinical Trials, Profiles in Science)
-XML allows multiple, customizable uses of the same data, e.g. authorities in bilingual catalogues
-one goal of the integrated authority file is to use the authority control module in Voyager as the
central repository
-each separate program is still free to establish its own rules for how the preferred heading is
chosen
-different reference structures are needed, e.g. Clinical Trials prefers to keep all subordinate
bodies on the main body as see references, MedlinePlus needs to record the Spanish form of the
name along with the English form
-NLM is a NACO participant and follows AACR2 rules; daily ftp file to NACO
-NLM defined new local fields to accommodate cross references unique to one program; these
local fields are not distributed to NACO
-MeSH is separate
-using DTDs (Document Type Definition) instead of schemas
-authority XML DTD is not a direct correlation with every MARC field; output into XML requires an
intermediate program
-advantages of a centralized authority file include: enhanced quality control due to cataloguer
review, shared cross references allow for better search results in a federated search
environment, users can view all variant forms of a heading used throughout NLM in LocatorPlus
-NLM DTDs may be found at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/licensee.html
Louisa Kwok
“XML Name Access Control Repository at the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
Library”
9
-an introduction to the HKUST NAC Repository, which uses an XML-based schema to mark up
multilingual and multiscript attributes of name information
Kevin S. Clarke
“Organic Authorities: XOBIS and the Metamorphosis of Library Data”
http://www.xobis.info/slides/xobis-ala-2005/index.html
“XOBIS stands for XML Organic Bibliographic Information Schema. It reorganizes metadata from
cultural knowledge institutions into a cohesive, unified structure. It integrates bibliographic and
authority records and attempts to walk the middle path between the complexity of MARC and the
oversimplification of Dublin Core.”
-relationships bulk of XOBIS record
-work to work
-being to being
(linked to another principle element)
-name, publisher, copyright, author
-type
-duration
-content data
-types: original linked to concept records for this
-XOBIS has entry main and variant
-qualifiers (any other principle element)
-dynamic validation
-there are ten principle elements:
Concept, String, Language, Organization, Event, Time, Place, Being, Object, Work. See
http://www.xobis.info/ for more information on the working definitions of the Xobian Principal
Elements and the Core Record structure.
Thomas B. Hickey
“Web Service Experiments with Authority Control”
-terminology → genre lists
-DSpace metadata is rudimentary
-Persistent URLS=Cool URLs don’t change much
-institutional repositories people are not cataloguers
-OAI protocol for metadata harvesting.
Joanna Yi-hang Pong
“Hong Kong Chinese Authority (Name) Project: the HKCAN XML Version”
-I have a printout of the slides
-HKCAN has developed an XML version of their shared authority file featuring records enhanced
with Chinese characters
-advantages and problems of moving to an XML platform
-one-stop search platform for accessing the authority files of HKCAN, the National Library of
China, the Taiwan National Central Library, and the Library of Congress
V. The New Crossroads: Science Librarians in the 21st Century. Monday, June 27, 2005
(8:30-12:00). Speakers: Mary Case, University Librarian, University of Illinois at Chicago; Mel
DeSart, Head of Engineering Library, University of Washington at Seattle; Alison Ricker, Science
Librarian, Oberlin College; Michael Leach, Director of the Geological Sciences and Physics
Research Libraries, Harvard University.
10
Mary Case
Average journal prices, more commercialized 68%, Elsevier Science wants to increase revenue
growth.
-consortia deals, e-only access
-lower cost-per-subscription
-we continue to spend more
-companies will want to increase net revenues
-there doesn’t seem to be a relationship between impact factor and price
-open access definition is in PLoS Biology v.1, no.1, p.1.
-open access could transform scholarly communication, data mine, annotate
-publicly available stuff is cited more
-NIH request was fought by the publishing community
-Wellcome Trust requirement = PubMed Central
-open access journals = 1600 titles
-quality: PLoS Biology has impact no. 1 in general biology journals
-open source software for journal publishing, cost-effective way to publish
-digital repositories: increasing implementation, disciplinary vs. institutional, data sets
-virtual disciplinary communities
-what kind of content, policies, marketing is needed?
-e-publishing software is integrated with institutional repositories, Cornell got a grant
-other trends: mass digitization, Google quality information on the Web
-opportunity to digitize own unique resources
-homogenize our collects
-primary resources in special collections
Federated searching: libraries don’t want to simplify.
-quick, precise native searching
-how to marry the two for users?
Internet: students are not waiting, Google Scholar is too confusing, yet using Google because it’s
easier.
-users become more independent, that’s what they want, according to LibQUAL results
-across disciplines, humanities has more primary resources available digitally
-Big Science → masses of data, information must be saved and documented for future research,
medical community wants data-mining, large data sets saved for the long term
-Ernie Engles talks of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”
-natives work, socialize, communicate differently from us = effect on how students will want to
use information
Overview of key issues:
Roles of librarians
-educators/advocates for change on our own campuses
-agent for dissemination and archives
-institutional repositories, member of a team creating data sets
-electronic publishing infrastructure
-facilitate PubMed Central depository
-partner in research and teaching
-contribute to global digital library
-process hidden collections
-digitize unique and special collections
-organizers and quality filterers of information
-simple, effective search engines
Challenges:
-seamless integration
-metadata creation, how much can be generated for e.g., 500,000 photos?
11
-archiving → cancel print, can’t afford both
-developing staff with appropriate skills: how much subject knowledge should they have?
Technical knowledge?
Mel DeSart
-beginning stages of sea change
-now so much scholarly information is available electronically
-users don’t need to enter libraries
-we are doing users a disservice
-lead to drop in number of sci-tech librarians
-circulation statistics decreasing
-reference statistics decreasing
-fewer people are using print and services
-iceberg effect= 10% found on Google
-users don’t know how much they’re missing
-past we could try when they came to the library
-fraction of quality material out there
-users think they’re finding a lot of stuff and that they’re good searchers
-how many users search Google Scholar? Most search Google vanilla.
-in the past, users consulted a topically-appropriate resource, now topic specific resources are
found via Google
-in the past, users seeking scholarly material would go to the library, and even when they didn’t
ask us, they consulted something appropriate
-only a portion is indexed by Google
-bibliographic databases and tools will never be on Google, therefore our users will be less likely
to find and use them
-full-text linking in databases, will we need to cut these databases as they’re used less?
-do users know our tools and resources are offered by us, even with branding?
-we are far less relevant than before
-numbers appear to be decreasing
-more generalists?
-Iowa State says it’s harder to get sci-tech librarians
-opportunity to specialize in sci-tech, excluding health sciences
-surveyed course catalogues of ALA schools
-out of 56 accredited ALA schools, 41 or ¾ list a sci-tech course, however only 15 of the
programs offered the course during one year
-how do we help users that likely need our help, but don’t know they need it?
-we have to find a way to get a teaching opportunity
-Web pages are NOT the answer, not a field of dreams idea
-we must get into more classes
-develop online tutorials tied to a homework assignment that YOU grade
-need a student representative on the library committee
-go to where the students are, check e-mail, do collection development
-free cup of coffee to incoming graduate students to initiate contact
-recruit people to “test” databases
-sci-tech trivia contest with a $100 gift certificate, indicate tool and methodology, post name of
winner
-measure everything, document testimonials
-create a unique niche for yourself within your organization
-find something you can do that helps your clientele
-offer to teach a sci-tech course at the library school
-there is a lack of expertise in faculty at MLIS school
-talk to/recruit the quality students who work in your libraries
12
Alison Ricker
“Science Librarians in Liberal Arts Colleges: At a Crossroads or in the Crosshairs? Opportunities
and challenges in the 21st Century.”
Alison handed out a list of all the Web pages referenced during her presentation, the PowerPoint
is at:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/stsconferencepro/annual2005programs/Ricker.ppt
-how many ideas were unthinkable ten years ago?
-IM vs. ChatRef
-Wikis
-RSS feed
-Blogging
-Googlization
-Podcasting
-Information services for cell phones, iPods and PDAs
-ResourceShelf, compiled and edited by Gary Price: http://www.resourceshelf.com/
-trends: less apt to accept as accurate information found on the Web, TV watching decrease, TV
drama is more complex now, everything is a faster due to broadband access, should not “lockdown” computers
-NPR morning edition: Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv, coined the term nature deficit
disorder. Over a five-week period, there was an explosion of interest, 52,000 hits
-libraries are not there at the beginning
-podcasting: “Come One, Come All: The Rise of Podcasting” Rénée Montagne. Morning Edition,
National Public Radio, May 23, 2005:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4661213
mentions Jeff Jarvis, XML feeds
-RSS feeds: NPR News and Information to Your Desktop: http://www.npr.org/rss/index.html
-Podcasting: Do It Yourself Guide by Todd Cochrane. Wiley, 2005.
-Open Stacks: Promoting Information Access and Literacy for All: http://www.openstacks.net/os/
-entertainment, news
-RSS automates the distribution or “syndicates” website content to a receptive and targeted
audience
-“RSS and Webfeeds: A Field Guide for Librarians.” PowerPoint presentation by Teri Vogel,
Science Librarian, UC San Diego, May 17, 2005: http://scilib.ucsd.edu/corechem/RSS-andWebfeeds-May2005.ppt
-RSS4Lib: Innovative Ways Libraries use RSS by Ken Varnum:
http://www322.pair.com/ginnblog/rss4lib/
-RSS(sm) is compiled and maintained by Gerry McKiernan, Science and Technology Librarian
and Bibliographer, Science and Technology Dept., Iowa State University Library:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/
- http://www.library.gsu.edu/news/index.asp
-Science News: http://www.library.gsu.edu/news/index.asp?typeID=56
-BlogLines: http://www.bloglines.com/
-The Digitization of the Library, posted by Gary Price. SearchEngineWatch Blog, June 20, 2005:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050620-101724
-http://theshiftedlibrarian.com, Jenny Levine, LibraryJournal.com: http://tinyurl.com/4tnh7
-http://freerangelibrarian.com/
-http://www.madlibrarian.net/
-http://librarianinblack.typepad.com/librarianinblack/
-www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=902981115936 – Survey of library uses of Blogs to teach
library users
-library will be content provider to cell phones
-personalization is really very important to young people, see “The Ubiquitous Web:
Personalization, Portability, and On-Line Collaboration” LITA 2005 National Forum, Sept. 29-Oct.
13
2, 2005, San Jose, Calif.:
http://www.lita.org/ala/lita/litaevents/litanationalforum2005sanjoseca/2005Forum.htm
-personal Google
-Mozilla Firefox
-book: Google Hacks
-OhioLink has a large repository for the whole state; see “About the Digital Resource Commons”
OhioLINK, Columbus, Ohio: http://drc-dev.ohiolink.edu/wiki
-loss of physicality: “Preference for online information is partly because they’re foggy on how to
locate anything else.” Posted on COLLIB-L, June 10, 2005
-“The Joy of Stacks” Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Education News, June 9, 2005:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/06/09/stacks
“The present is not what we thought it would be.”
-cancelled so many print journals, huge gaps on shelf, book buying has increased
-June: moved art library books into science library
Michael Leach
Science Librarian = Research Librarian
-user needs analysis
-ongoing
-evaluation of all services
-prioritization of all services
-open access journals have a high impact factor and are prestigious
-get on to a society publication committee, such as ASIS
-DASER Summits forum Dec. 1
-need to know your community
-how they communicate
-types of barriers to open access or institutional repositories
-who are the “dissidents” or “conservatives”; what is the “half-life”
-look for collaboration opportunities
-go to talks and colloquia
-have information tools on hand
-take classes so you can be prepared
-what are the key aspects, read the research group’s prior works
-be an investigator yourself
-scientists want to know about metadata and classification
-digital objects
-datasets, need to archive one
-learning objects
-websites, especially content
-multimedia
-DSpace Federation has a datasets list
Science Librarian = Digital Objects Librarian
-NAS March 2005 preliminary report
-need for formulation of standards, integration of datasets
-NSF has a digital libraries initiative
-aggregation of digital objects
-repositories: institutional, subject, format
-MetaLib federated search extended for indexing/information retrieval of content
-support for layered/distributed applications
Science Librarian = Education Librarian
-science specific information literacy
-formulate good search habits early in users
-identify expediencies = methods and best practices for accessing and using information better
-where: lab, office, classroom, societies (highly recommended), meetings, etc.
14
-professors don’t like to look stupid
-present at research society meetings
-chance for you to educate yourself as well
-inter/cross-disciplinary research
-educate one group about the other
-develop presentations and tools that will translate one research language into another
-use your scholarly communication tools
-know the elements of education theory
-adult learners vs. students
-types of learning (text-based, visual, examples-based, logic-based, etc.)
-develop your own teaching skills: presentation, speaking, listening
-visualization tools may be used to discover emerging fields, citation work, bioinformatics data
mining
-knowledge management: capturing best practices and novel approaches
-competitive intelligence: faculty do this competing for grants, lab space, prestige
-most faculty leave grant proposals to the last minute, we could help them
Questions from the audience:
-library as place: emphasis on group project work in engineering schools, add group study rooms
-gate counts are holding steady
-adapt physical spaces to accommodate curricula
-Web of Science alerting service, put in name of university to keep up with what’s going on
VI. MODS, MARC, and Metadata Interoperability. Monday, June 27, 2005 (1:30-5:30).
Moderator: Jennifer Bowen, Head of Cataloguing, University of Rochester Libraries
This program addressed the repurposing of MARC data and metadata interoperability in a
broader context. It introduced the Library of Congress’ Metadata Object Description Schema
(MODS) and presented specific project applications of MODS.
1) William E. Moen
Interim Director, Texas Center for Digital Knowledge and Associate Professor, School of Library
and Information Sciences, University of North Texas
Presentation: “Metadata Interaction, Integration, and Interoperability”
http://www.unt.edu/wmoen/presentations.htm
Based on a presentation for the NISO Metadata Workshop, May 2004 available at:
http://www.niso.org/news/events_workshops/MD-2004_resources/moen.ppt
2) Rebecca Guenther
Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/ala2005-mods.ppt
3) Ann Caldwell
Metadata Specialist, Brown University
http://dl.lib.brown.edu/staff/caldwell/MODSatBrown.ppt
4) Marty Kurth
Head of Metadata Services, Cornell University Library
Presentation: “Using MARC Repurposing to Initiate a Metadata Management Design”
http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/1457
Based on: Martin Kurth, David Ruddy, and Nathan Rupp. “Repurposing MARC Metadata: Using
Digital Project Experience to Develop a Metadata Management Design.” Library Hi Tech 22:2
(2004): 153-165.
15
5) Terry Reese
Cataloger for Networked Resources, Oregon State University
http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset/presentations/ala/summer2005/ala_2005_mods.ppt
William E. Moen
-CCO cataloguing cultural objects
-OAI metadata harvesting
-Z39.50 search and retrieve for the Web
-UNIX was developed by publishers
Interoperability?
-Z39.50 has packets moving between systems
-protocol works, but to user it looks broken
-data element interoperability
-Dublin Core is XML-based and has many adopters
-we can recast and see things more widely adopted
-“acronymic density”
-Dublin Core is not that low-cost
-lack of knowledge of available standards
-“There will not be one metadata standard everyone will adhere to.”
-crosswalks have been around for almost ten years
-ISO 2709 MARC record → MARC XML
-MARC → Dublin Core has an amazing amount of data loss
-Applications profiles: Bath Profile, Geo Profile
-metadata approach is to use elements already in existence
-libraries have a “privileged” role, not a central one
-cataloguing is metadata generation
-we have professional, well-trained staff, and our catalogues are trusted sources of information
-we are already dealing with a variety of metadata tools
Rebecca Guenther
-collections of over 10,000 digital resources
-reuse MARC records → all had print counterparts
-no canonical metadata standard
-always transforming
-data resources
-support digital collections, benefit from active management as in technical services
-MARC to TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) best practices are coming out; these will also map back
to MARC
-each uses a different delivery platform
-“strategic buy-in” needs to happen at the design implementation stage
-names of tags become attribute values
-there is nothing in between MARC XML and Dublin Core
-allows hierarchy
-subfields with names reused in subjects; element descriptions are reused
-genre types of elements are throughout MARC, redundant elements
-Origin Info = Imprint
-coordinates are not supposed to be mandatory
-question: switch to MODS, there is a political reality
-15 year history; it’s time to retire some delivery systems
-need to minimize variation
-requirement for any given project
-IT area has Internet Archives Format, automatically grabbed, harvest
16
-MUSIC: related items input manually
-Minerva: unlikely to put in ILS because of advances in federated searching, instead add a link
from collection-level record
-question from Adam Schiff: Is there dynamic LCSH maintenance; what happens if names and
subjects change?
Marty: We have not established at what period to refresh the record, design should have this built
into the process, there are moving responsibilities in database management in library technical
services. Notification? XML is easy to change.
VII. Conference Exhibition
I really enjoyed the 1500 exhibition booths and had the chance to visit the Aware Booth, were I
was told we could contact them if we have questions about JPEG 2000’s use in Digitool. One of
the highlights was to hear Elvis singing about circulation. I saw a demonstration of the RFID
system “eliminating manual material checkout and return labour, while controlling losses through
electronic article surveillance.” I also picked up a handout about Cataloger’s Desktop Tutorials,
and attended the demo.
Elvis sings for Checkpoint Systems; the
company introduced DiscMate at the
conference, a system for securing and
allowing self-checkout of CDs and DVDs.
17