Professional Development

During January 2010...

Sarah at the ScienceOnline2010 Conference

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:24 pm

On January 16th-17th, I attended the ScienceOnline2010 Conference, which was held in Research Triangle Park and hosted by Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society. On January 16th, I attended the session led by John Hogenesch on “Science in the Cloud,” which Molly has already blogged about. I learned about Public Library of Science Currents: Influenza, which is intended to rapidly disseminate data to readers. Expert moderators exclude unsuitable material but do not provide in-depth review for this publication. Interestingly, authors wrote their articles for this publication using Google knol. I also attended the session on “Citizen Science,” which is an emerging field where scientists and volunteers work together to collect data on research projects. has recently been created to match citizen scientists with research projects. Ben MacNeill also spoke about his website, Trixie Tracker, which is a web tool that enables parents to understand their children’s sleep patterns, etc. I also attended the session led by Dorothea Salo and Stephanie Willen Brown on “Scientists! What Can your Librarian Do for You?” I won’t rehash the details already reported by Molly, but Dorothea Salo made a good point that the requirement for students to find print journals is an assignment that is growing obsolete, as access to journals is increasingly being provided in electronic format. I also attended Anil Dash’s presentation on “Government 2.0.” Dash works for Expert Labs, which is affiliated with AAAS and enables the federal government to solicit feedback from citizens. The government is currently soliciting feedback on the development of 2.0. The gallery of open government innovations is also available at There were so many sessions that I wanted to attend at this conference, and I was able to attend part of the Demos on Saturday. I heard about PRI’s weekly science podcasts, which is a convenient way to keep up with the latest updates in science news.

On January 17th, I attended “Getting the Science Right: The Importance of Fact Checking mainstream science publications – An underappreciated and essential art,” which was led by Rebecca Skloot, Sheril Kirshenbaum and David Dobbs. Big magazines such as the New Yorker have fact-checking departments. Skloot hired a professional fact-checker when writing her book, The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks, which is about the origin of the “first ‘immortal’ human cells grown in culture.” Dobbs made the point that science writers should consult with third party fact-checkers, as they would consult with external proofreaders. I also attended the session on “Open Notebook Science.” Jean-Claude Bradley, Associate Professor of Chemistry at Drexel University, made his raw data public, used Youtube to demonstrate his experimental set-up, and made his calculations public in Google Spreadsheets. Bradley made the point that “Open Notebook Science maintains the integrity of data provenance by making assumptions explicit.” The last session that I attended was on ChemSpider, which was acquired by the Royal Society of Chemistry and is a collaborative effort to create a database of chemical structures. Overall, this conference was informative, and it broadened my perspective on science librarianship.

NCSU/UNCG/Duke Meet Up

Monday, January 25, 2010 4:57 pm

transparent reference desk and large screen monitor

On Friday, Susan, Erik, Jean-Paul, and I went to NCSU for a gathering of librarians working at the intersection of libraries, instruction, and technology.

This gathering has evolved quite a bit in the past few years. The first meet up was at UNCG, when Steve Cramer got in touch to see if we wanted to share information about some of the new and interesting work happening at both our libraries. We got together here next, and extended the invitation to NCSU as well, since we knew they were doing some similar types of projects. Then, NCSU hosted and invited someone from Duke. We’re now at the point of having to think more carefully about the purpose of the group, what size we’re comfortable with it growing to, and how to maximize the time for those involved. Along the way I set up a wiki, which the group is using to keep track of what we’re covering.

So, this was the first time this group met at NCSU, and it was a really good time. We had a packed agenda, and ended up spending most of our time on specific projects from each institution. This was a really good use of time, though, to see what people are doing and to go a little further in depth with each project.


  • GroupFinder is a project created to get around the fact that many cell phones don’t work within the library. Students can use the GroupFinder website to let their friends/classmates know what part of the library they’re studying in. Students can see this information on the website or the large display panels around the library. When doing usability testing on this, library staff approached people in their coffee shop saying they’d buy their cup of coffee for 5 minutes of their time. This gave them all kinds of relevant feedback that they incorporated into the product.
  • Wolfwalk is a project that is still in development, but is one I’m really interested in and that I cited in the Top Tech Trends panel. It’s a step towards augmented reality, where they’ve created an app that displays photos from their archives for wherever you happen to be standing. It’s really neat, and I was glad to have a chance to actually see it in action. Again, I think there’s a lot of promise in augmented reality (further down the road) and this is one example of how libraries can really do some interesting and useful work in that area.


  • Google Forms for assessment: UNCG is using Google Forms to collect data on all kinds of things. They highlighted using it for pre and post assessment for one-shot instruction sessions, but also for stats for reference and instruction. We talked about how it would be useful to have a bank of assessment questions to share amongst different institutions.
  • Assignment Calculator: Like many libraries, UNCG has implemented an assignment calculator. However, the really interesting work they’re doing with it comes from the next steps… They are looking at how to build in social features. For example, including ways to share assignments with groups for collaborative papers, or having the calculator send Tweets to students about deadlines as they come up. They’re also looking at how to incorporate faculty input for specific resource to look at in the process of writing a paper or deadlines that professors might have along the way that are slightly different from the ones given by the calculator.


  • Susan discussed the Social Stratification course and some of the ways it has impacted the larger campus.
  • Erik explained the mini studio, how we came to host it, and the service we offer.

People seemed very interested in both of our topics!


We also talked about instructional technologies in general, and spent a good portion of that time on LibGuides. We were pointed to usability studies from the University of Michigan. Fascinating stuff!!

I think this is a really interesting group, because all the institutions are fairly forward looking about instructional technology, but we’re all very different. UNCG and NCSU are state schools that face some different restrictions than Duke and WFU. NCSU and Duke are research 1 schools, and UNCG is still really big compared with WFU. We also have very different staff sizes and organizational charts. Yet, with all these differences, we still face a lot of the same issues, and could possibly collaborate in some areas.

The WFU crowd left at lunch, part of the group due to meetings back here, and me so that I could go see my soon-to-be nephew. However, the group is continuing discussions virtually about what type of future it might take on. Let me know if you have any ideas or recommendations!

Carolyn at ALA’s Midwinter Meeting in Boston

Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:25 pm

This was my first time attending ALA’s Midwinter Conference. I had a great time rooming and socializing with Susan and Roz. During the conference, I ran into some old colleagues (Elizabeth Novicki, Jim Galbraith & Debbie Nolan), made new contacts with other librarians, and heard some interesting talks which are subsequently described.

Friday night, I attended the Anthropology and Sociology Section’s (ANSS) social at the Lansdowne Pub which is in Boston’s Fenway Park neighborhood. Met and spoke with several librarians who work/liaise with their respective university’s anthropology department. Two individuals with whom I spoke knew Lauren C. from her employment at Old Dominion and Emory, and another individual whom I sat beside at dinner knew Lauren P. from ALA committee work. Truly, the library world is a small one.

Saturday morning, Alasdair Ball (British Library), Ruth Fischer (R2 Consulting) and Brian Schottlaender (UC San Diego) spoke on redesigning Technical Services workflow in regards to libraries’ costs and the value delivered to libraries and patrons. As the Head of Acquisition and Description, Mr. Ball reported that his department processed around 1 million items per year. He characterized the UK’s National Bibliographic framework as being one with high duplication of effort, having a fragmented network of stakeholders, using multiple standards and formats, having an increase in demand for shelf-ready materials and records, and slow to change. Within his organization, there is a focus on adding value to research and providing collaborative workspace and tools for researchers. Acquisition and Description is viewed as necessary, but a back office set of functions with a high cost. Some operational challenges he sees are contributing to the library’s expanding agenda with no increase in resources (human and monetary), the need to optimize balance between costs, quality, and speed of service, outsourcing of the CIP programme, redefining and streamlining workflows and process models, and where can the British Library add value. Ruth Fischer spoke on the Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace which she and her partner were commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC) to research and write. They conducted two online surveys, 1 with libraries (972 participants from all types of libraries) and 1 with vendors (70 participants), to investigate the current MARC records marketplace.

Results from the libraries’ survey found:

  • Everyone prefers LC records
  • 80% of libraries edit records in OPAC, but only half upload edits to their bibliographic utility
  • 78% of libraries are unaware of restrictions on MARC record use and distribution
  • Backlogs exist everywhere and are increasing (Largest backlogs are videos and DVDs; second largest are English language monographs)

Ms. Fischer’s report estimated that there are 34,000 each of original catalogers with the MLS and copy catalogers, and if each MLS cataloger created 1 new record each workday (200 in a year), 6.8 million original records could be created per year. It appears libraries have capacity in regards to number of catalogers. The question then is why are there backlogs?

Two hundred organizations create, sell or distribute MARC records to North American libraries, with the largest number of vendors providing MARC records for e-books.
Ms. Fischer’s interpretation of her findings include:

  • There is confusion in the market about real cost and/or value of MARC records-Each year LC catalogs many titles that are not retained in its collections (i.e. CIP program). By law, LC is disallowed to recover cataloging costs. In essence LC subsidizes the market, which in turn causes the undervaluing of MARC records.
  • Market provides insufficient incentives to contribute original cataloging-New commercial entrants are screen scraping LC’s and other libraries’ websites, and are not hiring MLS catalogers.
  • Most libraries and catalogers must believe that they create more value by modifying existing records (e.g. including pagination, changing or removing subject headings, adjusting call numbers, etc.) than producing original records.

Questions raised from Fischer’s study:

  • How long will libraries rely on MARC as the primary format for bibliographic data? We are trapped by the ILS.
  • What would be required to correct the economic structure of the MARC record marketplace?
  • What would happen if MARC record creators and creators of other descriptive metadata insisted on recovering their costs?
  • Why have we (i.e. catalogers) deincentivized ourselves if we have capacity to create?

Fischer closed by saying catalogers need to determine what the concept of “good enough” means and start believing and incorporating it into workflows.

Brian Schottlaender spoke on the University of California’s next-generation of Technical Services initiative which has grown out of the last five years of community thinking. He stated that his library is freeing up resources in order to focus cataloging and other metadata description on unique resources. He believes administration must make a commitment to its employees, who are moving into new positions with new responsibilities, by providing them with education and training to ensure their success.

As a member of the Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) Recruitment and Mentoring Committee, I attended my first ALA committee meeting ever. This is a newly formed committee and our charge is to recruit cataloging mentors and pair them with interested new and seasoned catalogers, as well as persons interested in cataloging. We will contact library schools to see if they have any students interested in becoming mentees, and are planning to send out send out a survey questionnaire to listservs to garner interest from potential mentors and mentees.

Saturday evening, I attended a screening of Alexander Street Press’ new product Ethnographic Video Online. This product is a partnership with Documentary Educational Resources (DER) whose founder John Marshall was an anthropologist/documentary filmmaker. John Marshall is renowned for his films on the !Kung San (Bushmen) peoples of the Kalahari Desert in Namibia. His first film The Hunters (1957) became an instant classic of ethnographic film. DER’s films will comprise over 60% of the films in Ethnographic Video Online, which launches next month with 200 films. Its collection will eventually be comprised of 1000 titles (750 hours of films). This products will allow users to create clips, make playlists and annotations, search for specific words in a film, is fully transcribed and has scrolling synchronous transcripts. Alexander Street Press is meeting with individual ethnographers/filmmakers who have unpublished footage to try and get their films into this database. I feel this product would be very useful to Wake’s Anthropology department and even perhaps the new Documentary Film program. I hope we will be able to get a trial of this product, and if possible, purchase it if deemed valuable by faculty from Anthropology and the Documentary Film program. Afterwards, I met Susan, Roz and Elizabeth Novicki for a wonderful dinner at Legal Seafood.

Bright and early Sunday morning, I went to an OCLC Update Breakfast and spoke with someone about the problems I was encountering with entering information into MARC cataloging records for Wake ETDs, specifically complex mathematical equations and subscripts/superscripts that aren’t numerical. I was told that some character sets are not supported, but there may be some workarounds with the subscript/superscript problem. The OCLC rep. asked me to email him some examples of my problems, and he would get back in touch. I also found out that in July 2010 OCLC will be releasing its Digital Collections Gateway product to any OAI compatible repository, of which D-Space is one, and will simplify the ETD cataloging process even more and allows for more visibility of these unique items. Hooray! I ran into Jim Galbraith, who is now working for OCLC, at the breakfast and also met a librarian from Brigham Young University who knows Derrik. Such a small world!

The rest of Sunday’s sessions included attending another session where Ruth Fischer spoke more in depth about R2’s report on MARC records, an Out Of Print (OOP) Discussion Group where the topic was digitization on demand (James Lee of Brandeis University spoke about the process and his school’s involvement with the Boston Library Consortium, a pioneer in the area of digitization on demand), and the Anthropology Librarians Discussion group.

Before leaving for home on a snowy Monday, I attended two more sessions at the convention center. The first was the Publisher-Vendor-Library-Relations Forum. Beth Bernhardt (UNCG) started off by saying that the NC legislature has mandated that by 2014 UNCG’s enrollment will be at 24,000 students. UNCG’s library is utilizing patron-driven acquisitions in building their e-book collection. Changes in user expectations, librarians’ roles, and researchers’ needs are some of the factors behind this new model of collection development. In April ’09, the library began this new model with MyiLibrary and chose computer science as the subject area. 1144 e-books that matched the library’s profile were loaded into the OPAC. 70 e-books were ordered at a cost of $7010. They are expanding their profile to include physics, chemistry, nursing and business. Plans are to compare what professors and students purchase. The first access to a title, no cost is incurred; the second look triggers a purchase. With the Life Sciences Library e-collection, they pre-selected a set of 23 books, but loaded all 750 titles’ MARC cataloging records into catalog. These books are very pricy due to the subject areas (i.e. nursing, anatomy, anesthesiology, and nutrition). Some important things to take into consideration when allowing patron-driven acquisitions include budget, deposit accounts, price limits, real-time invoicing, and cut off access/visibility.

Lindsey Schell (U of TX-Austin) spoke about their experience with EBL. Currently their patrons have access to 70,000+ titles, but have purchased 4,000. They too dumped all of EBL’s MARC records for their titles into their catalog, but this year began removing records for those titles never viewed in the initial 12 months to reduce cost exposure. Her university also incorporates patron-driven print approval acquisitions. The library downloads MARC records for publishers and subjects on a refined approval plan to the OPAC and allows patrons and subject specialists to decide which titles are actually purchased. Books are expressed shipped and are shelf-ready.

Next steps for this model of acquisitions involves analyzing patron purchasing and usage by LC call number and publisher to target specific areas for e-book and print delivery.

Due to patron-driven acquisitions, adjustments in the Technical Services department have occurred and include:

  • Automate wherever possible
  • Eliminate creating work elsewhere
  • Free up staff to work on library’s priorities that can’t be automated or outsourced (i.e. e-resource management, digital content, unique collections)
  • Eliminating serials check-in-Some people are freaking out about this
  • Move monographic series standing orders to approval vendor
  • Discontinue label production for periodicals-People can read titles unless it’s not in Roman alphabet
  • Eliminate approval review shelves
  • Reduce the number of gifts received
  • Discontinue paper book plates for non-endowment donations
  • Cut binding quotas-Redirect funds toward digitization

Judy Luther talked about developing a common platform for university press e-book distribution. The Mellon Foundation has awarded a grant to four university presses (NYU, Rutgers, Temple and Penn), and these presses are working with consultants to help develop a business model suitable to a university press consortium. They are looking to establish a “university press” brand and achieve economies of scale through collaboration on technical, financial, and practical challenges. Twenty-nine librarians were interviewed and core markets were identified (ARL, other Ph.D./masters programs, Oberlin Group). These were exploratory conversations designed to frame library practices, expectations, concerns and trends. Key issues included pricing functionality, digital rights management (DRM), and ability to select print and e-book purchases. An online survey of 1000 librarians (30% response rate) was conducted to test conclusions gathered from interviews. Purchase models must be evaluated. Vendors’ platforms need assessment. How should a university press consortium operate? The challenge, according to Ms. Luther, is serving our users well. Libraries want content for their users, as well as presses then getting out of their way. Right now platforms are not conducive; one can only print 10 pages at a time. The consultants’ report is due next month, and the presses will determine if they want to move forward. If so, further planning will be required.

My last session was on bibliographic mash-ups and once again the concept of redundancy in our data and workflow was mentioned by opening speaker Renee Register of OCLC. For libraries, most of the production work is performed at the end of the publication cycle with the receipt of a published item. On the publishers end, bibliographic data evolves over time beginning months before publication and sometimes ending years later with people contributing data. Inefficiencies and redundancy are common in metadata exchange, and different standards make it even harder to share. OCLC is currently creating authority control and mapping between BISAC subject terms (seen in Amazon) and Dewey Decimal Classification. We need to have ways in our systems that will allow metadata to grow overtime. Metadata records are living things from the information supplied by publishers to end user applied headings.

OCLC’s Karen Coyle spoke about the Open Library whose goal is to create one web page for every book ever published. It is not a library’s catalog and includes all e-books in the Internet Archive (Open Content Alliance, Google, public domain). The head of the project is the founder of Flickr. This database does not have records; it uses semantic web concepts called types (e.g. author name, birth date). All are equally important. Each type has properties; one can add properties without disruption and nothing is required and everything is repeatable. The database is based on wiki principles. All edits are saved and viewable and anyone can edit and add types and new properties. Sources of data come from LC, Amazon, Onix (publisher data), numerous libraries, and individual users (people can add their own books such as vanity press published books). There are some data problems as this is an experiment of non-librarians taking library data and using it. Examples of problems are:

  • Names-no inversion, no birth or death dates
  • Inclusion of initial articles in titles (e.g. The Hobbit)-Alphabetical order is not important here
  • Needs normalization of series
  • Differences in publication product dimensions-LxWxH vs. height in cm. used by libraries

There are page views for books and authors (similar to WorldCat identities). LC subject headings are not used; segment of LCSH are broken apart (i.e. no “dash dash”). Each subject heading has its own page. This project is currently in beta but is coming out in February 2010.

Kurt Groetsch of Google closed the session by speaking on the challenges Google Books has encountered with metadata reuse and matching, and the challenges of working with multivolume works. I got a little sleepy during his segment so I don’t have many notes for this part of the program.

I then met up with Susan and Roz. We took the Gale sponsored shuttle (very nice service) to the airport, got an early flight to Newark, and then waited for several hours in the magical place that is the Newark airport before we caught our flight home to Greensboro. All in all, my experience at ALA’s Midwinter Conference was a good one.

ScienceOnline2010 Day 2 (Sunday)

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:49 pm

The second, and last, day of ScieneOnline2010 started a bit later and more relaxed, as Saturday-only attendees and those with early flights (or long drives) decreased numbers somewhat. The half-day was book-ended by two more yummy meals, with lunch once again featuring one of my favorite area restaurants, Mediterranean Deli. If this conference’s sessions weren’t as great as they are, I still might consider going just for the awesome food…but fortunately I get both!

There were three final sessions Sunday morning; links and highlights are below. I’m still processing the final session, but it was by far the one that generated the most audience engagement, which isn’t surprising given its topic (civility) and what happened (a live demonstration of how debates can quickly become inflamed and uncivil). As before, if you have questions or need clarification/more info, ask!

Broader Impact Done RightKaren James, Kevin Zelnio, Miriam Goldstein, Jeff Ives and Beth Beck

  • broader impact, outreach & education, public engagement & learning are all phrases for grant requirements that funded research disseminate beyond the lab and journals
  • helps to designate people to keep outreach going; sometimes considered outside the mission of research so it can be hard to get researchers engaged
  • keeping sustained online update on projects will result in intended AND unintended benefits
  • be aware of jargon: sometimes it can be useful as a conversation-starter, sometimes it’s a roadblock to understanding
  • recommended that media training be part of a career development program for scientists, grad students
  • if blogging from the field, don’t make assumptions about technology!
  • home internet connections in poor communities aren’t common, but cell phones are pervasive, so think about info distribution along compatible channels
  • Q: cool field research projects are great, but how do you popularize every-day lab science? A: don’t make assumptions that people don’t care – many are fascinated by lab activities, especially if you share your passion!

Article-level metricsPeter Binfield

(NOTE: I am not a fan of the deification bestowed upon traditional impact factors by many in academe, so I was biased toward liking author- or article-driven metrics heading into this session. I also generally am not one to get overly excited about data. But the data shared are BEAUTIFUL. Just saying…)

  • PLoS (Public Library of Science, largest OA non-profit publisher) developed article-level metrics (ALM) that move beyond the concept of the journal (which is where traditional impact factors (IF) are stuck)
  • “is this good chocolate?” [photo of heart-shaped chocolate box] vs. “is this bad chocolate?” [photo of chocolate bars] – can only determine by tasting the chocolate, not by the packaging
  • journals are just pretty boxes: might indicate that contents are good, but certainly not the only way to tell
  • worth of papers – and hence individuals – often based on IF which is journal-level not article-level
  • ALM could include citations, web use, expert ratings, social bookmarking, community rating, media/blog coverage, commenting activity
    • essentially a basket of individual metrics, all informative at some level, and collectively hard to “game”
  • ALM not just about scholarly evaluation but also way to filter and discover content
  • IF = The Flintstones, ALM = The Jetsons
  • really haven’t had negative reaction from authors, although if ALM replicated widely authors who rely on IF and think they have weight because they publish in high IF journals may be in for a rude surprise
  • authors and readers don’t yet have a good context for judging usefulness, so PLoS provides journal-level metrics on average downloads to help frame ALM
  • still have a lot to do, but ALM could be the start of something important in scholarly publishing

Online Civility and Its (Muppethugging) DiscontentsJanet Stemwedel, Sheril Kirshenbaum and Dr.Isis

(NOTE: Some of the links from the wiki page include language NSFW.)

  • definition of civility at your site is personal
  • know your audience and conduct appropriately
  • only 18% of people claim to know a scientist personally; media is warping perceptions
  • civility online impacts credibility offline
  • civility does not necessarily equal politeness: you can say something in polite language that is uncivil
  • a good working definition of civility might be to take each other seriously, assume good faith, and not immediately dismiss
  • language that makes people feel unwelcome: technical, jargon, profane, religious
  • respect doesn’t eliminate disagreement, it sparks deeper engagement
  • sometimes disengagement is the way to go, but at other times, silence runs the risk of being read as assent
  • danger of conflating incivility with heated discussion in blogosphere
  • groundrules will shape people’s perception of their ability to interact, so must think about how and if to lay them

Steve at ALA Midwinter

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:03 pm

Last Wednesday I flew up to Boston for ALA Midwinter and a meeting of the NASIG Executive Board, which I attended as Member-at-Large. Although NASIG is an independent organization, we piggyback our board meeting on the front-end of the conference. So Thursday, I attended our all-day meeting to discuss the on-going business of NASIG in a conference room at MIT’s main library, followed by dinner with my fellow board members, and a late-evening drink with Jim Galbraith, who was in town for the conference as an OCLC rep.

On Friday, the highlight of my conference day was the ALCTS FRBR Interest Group. Jennifer Bowen of the University of Rochester discussed their library’s project to build the eXtensible Catalog, a faceted, FRBR-compliant, customizable, open-source catalog. The catalog is still in development, but they have completed a metadata services toolkit, which allows libraries to automate the processing of batches of metadata, and the creation of FRBR-compliant records.

As you’ve probably heard before, FRBR is a conceptual framework for describing bibliographic information at various levels (work, expression, manifestation, item). The clearest way to explain what FRBR is may be to explain the process that Bowen and her team are using on catalog records. The bibliographic records that we are used to seeing are essentially manifestation level records. For example a bib record for “Tom Sawyer” will describe one particular edition of the book, printed in a given year, with a certain number of pages. This is a manifestation of the book, to use FRBR terminology. Above the manifestation level is the expression level, which is more abstract and would be “Tom Sawyer” in English. All editions of “Tom Sawyer” in English would be related to this one expression of the book. Above the expression level is the work level, which is an even more abstract concept. This would be the novel “Tom Sawyer” in any language (Spanish, French, German, etc.), in any edition, published in any year. Bowen and her team are taking catalog records and other metadata and running batches of this data through their toolkit to turn the records into MARC-XML. These MARC-XML records are then run through the tool kit and parsed into records at the Work, Expression, and Manifestation levels. Each Manifestation level has an 004 field with a number that links it to an Expression level record above it. And each Expression level record has an 004 field that link it to a Work level record. The tool kit includes an aggregation service that aggregates records that represent the same manifestation and prevents duplication of records. Because of their fairly thorough development of FRBR-compliance, Bowen would like to see the University of Rochester become a test bed for the implementation of RDA, the new cataloging and access code, which encourages the use of FRBR principles.

Several questions occurred to me after the session. Namely, will all libraries have to go through this process of creating Expression and Work level records? Would Expression and Work level records be added to OCLC? If they are, who would create these records, or would they be generated automatically? Would Expression and Work level records function as a new type of authority record? These are issues to consider as RDA moves forward.

On Saturday, I attended the Technical Services Manager in Academic Libraries Interest Group. The meeting actually was based around table discussions, and I joined the table discussing the topic “Re-tooling technical services staff to meet evolving needs.” The conversation was interesting and lively, although I have to confess I didn’t pick up many new suggestions. I did share some of the stuff we’ve been doing in Resource Services, and it seemed pretty well received. It made me feel like Lauren’s got us ahead of the curve.

Later that morning I attended the CCS Copy Cataloging Interest Group Meeting, where there was discussion of the recent Library of Congress report on the MARC record marketplace. This report, if you haven’t read it, argues that there are plenty of catalogers available, but not enough catalog records are being created, that libraries are relying on vendor-produced records, which are not freely available and sharable, and that there are not sufficient incentives in the current system to encourage original cataloging. The discussion prompted a sharp retort from an audience-member that the same consulting company that wrote this report for LC had advised their institution some years ago to use vendor records, wait for other libraries to catalog titles, and to generally do less original cataloging, in order save money. I found this to be an interesting illustration of one of the risks of using consultants, namely that they will tell a client what is in the client’s best interest, rather than looking at the field as a whole. What is best for the individual library is not necessarily what’s best for the library field as a whole and vice versa.

At this session, I met up with Jennifer Roper and we had lunch together and caught up. Her daughter Maddie is nearly three years old already. Time flies!

That afternoon, Jennifer and I attended a session that shall remain nameless, and saw a presentation by a cataloger and systems librarian from a university that shall remain nameless. They described the remarkably convoluted and, frankly, wrong-headed process that they use to batch-load records for electronic monographs (they use a single record for both the print and electronic versions of monographs, which is a technical nightmare). It made me enormously grateful that we use the process we developed here.

That evening, I had dinner with one of my old college roommates and his wife, who live up in Boston, and made an early night of it. I had to get up at 3 am to make my 5:45 am flight early Sunday morning. Although it was fairly rough, I was able to get home before noon, which was nice.

Lauren P. at ALA Midwinter

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:56 pm

Cross posted to my blog.

I typically take lots of conference photos.... it turns out that I didnt do that so much this time!

This was a fun ALA for me, though I didn’t get (or stay) out as much as I typically do. Little boy Borwick is already making his presence known in the form of hijacking my schedule for resting. :) I tried to pick activities wisely, and I still wanted to see as many folks as I could, since I’ll miss this Annual. Midwinter was my ALA fix for the year!!

I had a lovely time rooming with former colleague Elizabeth Novicki. She’s been in her new job for a semester now so it was nice to hear how she was doing, what life is like in her new job, and to generally catch up.

Boston is one of my favorite cities (my favorite on the East Coast), so it was nice to have an excuse to get up there for a little bit. I’d typically fill every spare second with exploring the city, but I tried to take it a bit easier on this trip… hence the one photo (on the left) that I took on my iphone the entire time. That was at Tealuxe, one of my favorite hangouts in the city.

But really, Midwinter is about the meetings, and that is why I was there and what I spent a majority of my time with, so here’s the wrap-up:


Emerging Leaders Meeting

I was part of the second EL class, and from that experience I knew the program is a valuable one, but also one that could use improvement. Luckily, this year I was asked to co-mentor Group P, meaning I’ll be able to directly work with five emerging leaders and–hopefully–help make their experience a good one.

So, on Friday, I met with the group over a long lunch, along with my co-mentor. We were able to share why LITA was interested in sponsoring this project, what work had already been done in this area, and learn what plans they were already making. In addition to being available to the group, I hope to be able to help them connect with LITA leaders, get them access to groups and resources that will help them with their project, and help them understand LITA as an organization and how it fits into the larger ALA. It’ll be a fun six months!

LITA Happy Hour

One of the first events for LITA members at most conferences is LITA Happy Hour. This is a chance to catch up with folks, see what others are up to, and plan for some of the meetings that will be going on over the next few days. It was especially good to see some folks that I had been working with virtually for the past six months.


Committee and Interest Group Chairs Meeting

I have really enjoyed going to the LITA Comm and IG Chair meetings for the past few years. It’s nice to be in the room with the LITA leadership and understand what the year is shaping up to be the big issues for the organization. However, this was my last one (at least for a while). I have been chairing the Distance Learning Interest Group for LITA, but passed off the torch to Chad Haefele. He and Lauren Ray will do a terrific job of shepherding the group through its next years. And since I won’t be chair, I won’t be at this meeting.

The topics of this chairs’ meetings focused on Forum, programming, and communication throughout the organization. Not coincidentally, this is the very issue that the folks in Emerging Leader Group P are working on, so hopefully we’ll see some major progress in this area over the next year.

Distance Learning Interest Group

And, just as with the last meeting, this was one of passing the torch. Chad really lead the meeting and I was mostly there to take minutes and help as needed. It was nice to see Susan Sharpless Smith and former colleague Debbie Nolan in the crowd!

It was a good discussion group with over 30 people in the room. We covered a lot of topics, which I’ll report in greater detail over in the group’s ALA Connect space in the next day or two.

When I first got started with this group, some of the conversation was distance learning specific: issues of licensing, outreach, library instruction, etc. Then, it became more about instructional technology. Distance learning seemed to be mostly applicable to everyone as local students seem to want to have the same access and services as distance ones. We even had programming around if distance learning was even worth separating out at this point. Now, the pendulum might be headed back in the same direction. Many participants came to the group saying their institutions were just getting started with distance learning and they were coming to learn what it was they should be playing attention to within that specific aspect of librarianship.

Though I’m officially not the chair anymore, but I anticipate continuing to play a role with it as the chairs as they get used to their new role. And I suspect I’ll continue to learn things that will be relevant to WFU as well.


LibraryThing, an excellent social catalog, hosted a happy hour on Saturday evening. Some of the crowd overlapped with LITA, but I also met several people I’ve followed for years online but hadn’t yet met in person. LibraryThing, by the way, is totally awesome. There is even a way to pull the social information into library catalogs, adding many of the things that people are coming to expect. It’s a good company, too. Full disclosure: I have a lifetime membership for my personal collection. :)


Top Tech Trends

Susan blogged it for our work blog, there’s a pretty thorough accounting of it on the LITA Blog, and I’ve written up my topic, so I’ll talk about my experience as a panelist in this space.

I was completely honored and surprised to be included in this group. Top Tech Trends, or TTT, is (I think) the only program that I have attended at every ALA I’ve been to. I’m always impressed with who they have on the panel and what they have to say. It never occurred to me that I might be on the slate at some point. So, it was especially meaningful for me. I had a good time on it and enjoyed the conversation… though I think that we probably could have filled the time with any one of the topics we addressed.

When planning the session, we each gave the committee a slate of possible topics and they selected one for each of us to focus on. We drew numbers to see what order we’d go in, and luckily I was fourth. (I like being towards the middle in things like this.) The panel was structured so that each person presented their topic for 4-5 minutes, then we had 4-5 minutes of discussion from the other panelists. After we each presented a trend, we all talked about various aspects of ebooks. My topic was Augmented Reality, and as you might guess, I approached it from an educational perspective. As mentioned above, I have a post on this over on my blog.

There were really great comments and kind remarks in Twitter, so I feel good about my participation. And I am especially glad to have had this opportunity, especially with this panel of folks.

Web Coordinating Committee

Following Top Tech Trends, I had a Web Coordinating Committee meeting for LITA. This committee is the one that works on LITA’s website. A new LITA site is in the works, based on the ALA design. My role with the committee is to co-mentor the Emerging Leaders group. And my involvement in this meeting, again as you might guess, was to advocate the inclusion of multimedia/video.


The next meeting on tap was BIGWIG. This is the experimental arm of LITA. They were the first ones to play with blogs and wikis in LITA (hence the name: Blogs, Interactive Groupware, and Wikis Interest Group). However, this type of social software has emerged and is no longer experimental. The group made a formal recommendation to the Board to transition these tools to either the Web Coordinating Committee or the Publications one. With this, the group also discussed changing the name so that it would no longer be an acronym.

The new business was to talk about how to do online conference in parallel with real life ones. ACRL and other groups do a stellar job with this, so we talked about what LITA could bring to the table and how we might be able to provide something similar but with a LITA twist.

OCLC Blog Salon

I really enjoy the OCLC Blog Salon. This year it was officially a Twitter salon as well. They had fun badges; instead of “My name is” the nametags said “My blog is…” and “My twitter username is…” :) I remember a few years ago I was totally intimidated to show up to this, but after just a few short years of involvement, I felt like it was another reunion. It’s really fun to get to see the faces behind the blogs and Twitter usernames that I see every day, and good to catch up with some of the people I hadn’t yet seen at this Midwinter.


LITA Town Hall

My conference concluded with the LITA Town Hall meeting. They always have good food, and for as long as I have been there they have used this time to actively seek out member perspectives for organizational planning purposes. This year was about the strategic plan, which was especially nice for me as I had only heard about it in the abstract up until that point. The plan was broken up into topics, and each table addressed a different one. Even though that was the case, there were clear themes that crossed each table. Hopefully the board will be able to do some good work with the plan based on the feedback!

So that was my ALA. Throw in some lovely dinners with people I only see at ALA conferences, a pot of tea at Tealuxe with a friend, and one outing to do a little bit of exploration, and it was a busy but really good time! I’m sad to miss seeing everyone/participating in things at Annual, but I plan to be active online a bunch between now and then, and hopefully I’ll be able to continue with some of this work next year! Thanks to everyone I saw that made it such a great time!

ScienceOnline2010 Day 1 (Saturday)

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:58 pm

The first official day of ScienceOnline2010 began with early morning registration and breakfast, where I had my first encounter with doughnut muffins. Who knew such treats existed?! For those who are curious, it was shaped like a muffin, with dense cake-like dough, entirely covered in sugar. Not a bad start to my day!

To give a bit of context, ScienceOnline2010 is a small conference, with 267 attendees (thanks Bora for attendee #s correction!). All events are held at Sigma Xi in RTP, so even though you certainly don’t interact with everyone, you generally see them, and I bumped into fellow ZSR attendee Sarah Jeong several times. This was my third year at the conference, and it was exciting to reconnect with folks I met in previous years. I was also pleased to see that there were more librarians in attendance – and presenting – this year!

There were three sessions before lunch (provided by Saladelia and delicious as always!), and three in the afternoon; links to the wiki page for each session plus highlights from my notes are below. If you have questions about anything, ask!

From Blog to Book: Using Blogs and Social Networks to Develop Your Professional WritingTom Levenson, Brian Switek and Rebecca Skloot

  • use your blog as as writing lab to develop your voice and your audience, as well as a promotional platform
  • reach out to other blogs with audiences who otherwise wouldn’t hear of your book early
  • getting book deals often relies on happenstance of who you know, who you meet; online presence increases chances
  • finding YOUR voice is more important than your subject matter in some respects
  • who do you read? if you aspire to follow one of their paths, read from professional stance to analyze what they do
  • Q: can you make any money? A: welcome to our hobby!

Science in the CloudJohn Hogenesch

  • more data from more sources requires more collaboration, as well as massive and ever-growing computational resources
  • academe typically responds by buying storage and clusters, which works great…for a while; too dependent upon unstable variables: IT staff “demigods”, facilities, depreciation, usage (can’t see into future)
  • cloud computing offers three principle services
    • software as a service (SAAS)
    • infrastructure as a service (IAAS)
    • platform as a service (PAAS)
  • familiar SAAS use case: email
    • evolved from server-side (Pine) to client (Eudora) to cloud (Gmail)
  • SAAS collaboration examples include Basecamp, Google Groups, Google Wave, wikis, Google Docs
  • IAAS use case: RNA sequencing
    • problems include sheer magnitude of data; scope of problem only getting bigger
    • BLAT on Amazon Web service one solution
  • PAAS use case: publishing in the cloud
  • Q: is cloud computing opening research to others who don’t have access? A: yes because in-house data clusters are not easily distributed or shared
  • some concern that funders are less willing to award grants that ask for money for cloud computing costs, even though those costs may be lower than implementing a local data solution, as there are privacy concerns as well as differences in capital costs vs. design costs

Legal Aspects of Publishing, Sharing and Blogging ScienceVictoria Stodden

  • copyright is a strong barrier to scientists’ ideal sharing context
  • Q: are blog comments under the copyright of the commenter or blog author? A: the commenter holds copyright, which makes moderation/removal of inappropriate comments by blog author potential copyright violation, unless there is a clear statement/disclaimer exerting non-exclusive license to do so
  • in the UK, blog comment moderation opens the author to libel responsibilities
  • if you don’t want copyright protection, you must actively dis-avail through licenses, such as those available through Creative Commons (CC)
  • CC licenses do not clarify/define “noncommercial”
  • patents are also a barrier to sharing, as you cannot publish about potentially patentable work until patent is secured or you risk not getting the patent
  • Stodden is advocating the use of attribution-only licenses for all elements of scientific work, including code and data, so it can be reused at will
  • stewardship of raw data, both archiving and sharing, already huge issues and it will only get worse

Scientists! What Can Your Librarian Do For You?Stephanie Willen Brown and Dorothea Salo

  • researchers spend too much time poking around in different places (i.e., PubMed, Google, Google Scholar) trying to access full text
  • direct quote from researcher in room: “if I cannot get it fast and free, I won’t read it” – authors need to think about this as they write
  • rather than ask how to get scientists to library, librarians need to turn the question around and ask how to get into scientists’ environment
  • researcher in the room made suggestions for librarians to offer publishing support that includes:
    • data on number of colleagues at institutional also publishing in x-journal
    • citation style knowledge/assistance
    • submission requirement knowledge/assistance
  • scientists’ ideas about librarians calcified either as walking wallets for journals or bun-toting shushers; instead we need to be known as information policy on legs
  • conversations with colleagues are important for bridging gaps between librarians and scientists
  • if you are concerned about data management, talk to your librarian NOW
  • if your institution won’t accept non-peer reviewed literature in the institutional repository (IR), or if it doesn’t have an IR, talk to your librarian NOW
  • institutional nature of IRs forced on us a bit by publishers who require posting to institutional servers
  • IR point of failure on both ends – librarian and researcher – is ingest; we have a long way to go to improve

Open Access Publishing and Freeing the Scientific Literature (or Why Freedom is about more than just not paying for things)Jonathan Eisen

  • one impediment to openness is institutions’ desire to recover money from research investment
  • fair use is size dependent when thinking of open educational resources (e.g., courses on iTunes U)
  • institutional archives/IRs serve many purposes beyond journal articles, so they need multiple outlets
  • how we pay for access in movement to openness will not always be equitable

Online Reference ManagersJohn Dupuis and Christina Pikas moderating, with Kevin Emamy, Jason Hoyt, Trevor Owens and Michael Habib (Scopus)

(NOTE: I attended this session to learn about other free programs besides Zotero, so my notes below are just highlights of each. Q&A with the panel didn’t provide any enlightenment beyond that which Giz brought to our Zotero class last week.)

  • CiteULike (sponsored by Springer)
    • tracks social bookmarking of research papers
    • can copy papers from others’ libraries
  • Mendeley
    • similar to – surveys what you download and makes suggestions
    • pulls metadata to aggregate readership statistics
  • Zotero
    • can mine your own research history
    • drag and drop references into text fields and citation is auto-generated
  • 2collab (Elsevier)
    • not currently open to users due to spam
    • hoped it would be discovery tool closely related to Scopus and ScienceDirest
    • author IDs (from databases) populate author profiles on 2collab

Susan’s Final Morning at ALA Midwinter 2010

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:31 am

I had two sessions on my itinerary this morning, both at the Convention Center. So my roommates and I checked out bright and early and hopped the shuttle down to the BCEC one last time. It was a snowy ride, as the wet weather W-S experienced yesterday made its way to New England and turned wintry.

I attended the LITA Town Hall Meeting for the first time. It is a discussion gathering where members get to provide input on what they would like to see from their organization in the next year. What I didn’t realize is that it is a breakfast meeting (with real,hot good food) so I wasted $11 buying a fast food meal from the convention hall vendor. Oh well, it wasn’t too hard managing two breakfasts :-)

It turns out that LITA is in a strategic planning process and used this meeting to ask the members to look at what has been created so far and provide input. Each table was assigned a “theme” area (ours was “innovation”) and we reviewed the goals and suggested others. It was an interesting process as most of us were coming in fairly uninformed as to the history of the planning process and how it is anticipated this will fit in with the larger ALA organization. Still, it was a lively discussion and I believe several good ideas were generated by the various groups.

My final session was one that Lynn recommended. It was titled “From Ideas to Reality: Trends to Embrace in 2010″ and was led by Arnold Hirshon, LYRASIS’s Chief Strategist & Executive Consultant. He cautioned that every topic discussed in the session would not necessarily become a trend but all bear watching.

Three broad areas that drive library trends were discussed: technology, content and people. The presentation was engaging but the content didn’t surprise me as many of these ideas are ones that we have have under discussion or for which we actually have existing projects.

The summary of the technology trends he discussed were:
*computing is migrating to the cloud
*Open source software market is moving to maturity
*devices portability is diversifying
*social networking is experiencing growing pains
*bandwidth demand is insatiable

In the area of content, the economics of information is shifting. There will be a shift from free web content as ad revenue models are failing. Providers will be looking to augment ad revenue with other approaches, for instance, raising the cost of mobile applications. Currently free content may not continue to be free. Another content-related trend concerns the devolution of crowdsourcing. The decrease in Wikipedia content authors may be a bellwether of things to come. It might be that many topics are already covered, the rules discouraging participation have turned people away, or boredom has set in as the newness of participatory authorship fades. The biggest content trend concerns e-books. Roz has discussed this issue at length, but I’ll just add that Hirshon believes that e-books are at the tipping point and predicts they will continue to see rapid deployment, innovation and adoption.

People are numbered among library directors’ biggest problems (along with the economy and speed of change). However, some assumptions about staff are not borne out.

Studies on age-related traits find that when comparing under-30 and over-50 year old staff:
*over 50’s are more cooperative, contributing, and risk-taking.
*Under 30’s are slightly more more competitive.
*both groups are looking for flexible work arrangements and opportunities to give back to society.
*the best teams are ones that include both age groups.

Another staff trait that is important to understand is that achieving results and receiving support in that endeavor is the top motivator for most staff (over recognition or incentives).

Hirshon concluded by cautioning that it is hard to innovate and transform by embedding change within your existing operation. It is best to create a separate group to get an initiative started and then move it into normal operations after it is established. Finally, he encouraged us to stop believing that everything must be perfectly prepared and analyzed before you take action.The final advice he had for the room filled with library directors was: Act!

Some Musings on eBooks from Roz at ALA

Monday, January 18, 2010 12:42 pm

Rather than detail other sessions I have gone to here at ALA Midwinter, I thought I’d follow a thread that has gone throughout them and try and give some perspectives and ideas that have come to me. Ebooks, not surprisingly, have been a hot topic – everyone wants to know if we have hit the tipping point with them thanks to the Kindle, Nook, ebook vendors for libraries, etc. I find it all a bit curious, since ebooks have been the ‘next big thing’ in libraries for most of my 15 years at ZSR. That, combined with my love of the physical book keeps me skeptical about this being the decade of the ebook – but a few things at this conference got me thinking.

First, in the Top Technology Trends session that Susan has already blogged about, David Walker mentioned two different concepts in relation to ebooks that got my brain going. First, in the discussion about augmented reality, David ( I think it was him, if not, it was Jason Griffey) talked about an idea for an app that could tell where you were in the stacks and pop up for you related ebooks that the library had access to. This got me thinking about the difficulties of being sure students had access to all the information about a topic when some are physical books and some are ebooks – we certainly won’t go around putting dummy blocks in the stacks where ebooks would be if they were in print, but how do we help students who may be wandering the stacks understand that in this discipline we have gone to ebooks so the most recent titles may not be on the shelves. Conversely, how do we indicate to ebook users that there are other relevant titles in the stacks.

But more intriguing, however, was David’s discussion of how ebooks may level the playing field between books and journals. He discussed his experience in college was that books were easier to use than print journals so he gravitated to them. Students today find journals easier to use (as long as they are online) so they gravitate to them, even when what they really need is a good overview not the super-specific look journal articles often give you. But when both types of information, the journal and the monograph, are equally accessible and equally easy to use, perhaps the ultimate result will be that students get much more balanced sources of information because they will go to the one that is best, not the one that is easiest.

The ebook conversation continued in the GOBI user group meeting where they discussed the new ability to include ebooks as part of approval plans. But what they made clear was that it would go easier if you could make broad statements (ebook preferred across the board, ebooks from all vendors, etc) rather than the super specific ‘we want ebooks only from EBL and only in these very narrow call number ranges.’ Additionally, however, they indicated the problem we have discussed as well which is that vendors often don’t make ebooks available at the same time as the print – this means that libraries have often already gotten the print by the time ebook is available. I can’t tell and don’t know enough to decide whether this is a deliberate move on the part of publishers because they want everyone to buy the print (cynical view) or if it really takes that much longer to get the e-version of a book out when the native format is print. Perhaps it will take a rethinking of the monograph publishing process where books are born digital in formats that take advantage of the power of linking, etc. and the print book only comes later.

Finally, the ideas of letting your patrons decide what books to buy electronically via patron-driven ebook collection development was discussed in both the GOBI User Group Meeting and a session on innovation by necessity which I am sure Carolyn McCallum will blog in more detail. I’ll just say that the patron-driven ebook purchasing seems to be a promising development that will take careful consideration in terms of budgeting and other aspects but the research that was discussed indicates that patrons do as good a job deciding what libraries need as librarian liaisons/bibliographers do in most areas. It’s an idea I find intriguing and will follow at the schools that are implementing it.

I talked to lots of vendors (LOTS of vendors) and will be sharing various information with folks in the weeks to come – but one interesting thing is that three independent vendors have new slavery/anti-slavery primary source collections – perhaps its something in the water. Now we are off to the airport in hopes that our flight is not delayed! Fingers crossed we’ll see you tomorrow (Tuesday)!!

Saving the World and Some $$ – Roz at ALA

Monday, January 18, 2010 12:19 pm

My Saturday afternoon at ALA Midwinter went from the sublime to the sublime. First I got to hear Al Gore speak about his new book Our Choice: A Plan to Save The Earth – he was inspiring as always (if you find him inspiring as I do). He made some interesting points about the information and misinformation that has influenced the debate on climate change and the our responses to it. I won’t bore you with too many details, but one funny thing he said came in his discussions of the technologies that will bring about real solutions to the crisis. He went through the usual suspects: wind, solar, biomass, nuclear and then he said ‘there’s one other technology we need and that is one that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and converts it into something usable – and the good news is we have that technolgy now – it’s called a tree.’ And he went on to discuss reforestation.

The second half of my afternoon Saturday was spent in a focus group with Alexander Street Press. If you know their product, you know they are top quality and usually top dollar as well. I was asked to participate in a focus group on a new product called America History in Video. I had seen a preview of the product at ALA Annual in Chicago last summer and was eager to see more about it. About 12 librarians from a variety of instiutions were a part of the focus group. Some had trialed the product, one had already purchased the product and others, like me, wanted more information. The editor of the product discussed its purpose, development and content. She also showed us some of the amazing features: transcripts of all the spoken and subtitled words in the films, the ability to create playlists that include clips from any ASP product as well as links to other web content, and more. The development team had lots of questions for us about the kinds of content that might be appropriate to add to the product – unedited interviews, for example, that were later edited and included in PBS documentaries, for example. We were also asked for our opinions as to how they might move forward for a world history in video product. There were lots of interesting perspectives in the group and it was great to work with a company that was so knowledgeable about their products and eager to hear from us. The best news of all, however, is that I won us a year subscription to the product!! It has such far ranging interests that I think faculty from History, Political Science, Communication, Anthropology, American Ethnic Studies and other departments will find it extremely exciting and I look forward to what they do with the content!

Professional Development
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

Powered by, protected by Akismet. Blog with