Professional Development

Author Archive

CurateGear 2013

Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:27 pm

Yesterday, I attended an interesting day-long “interactive event”, CurateGear 2013, sponsored by UNC SILS in Chapel Hill. This year’s theme for the day was “Enabling the Curation of Digital Collections.” The format of the day was new to me. There were five tracks, but they ran one after the other. Each track began with a short overview to all participants by each speaker. The speaker gave a 2-3 minute teaser about what he/she would be talking about. Then, at the end of the overview, participants moved to individual breakout sessions to hear in-depth presentations on the topic. The themes encompassed the major areas involved in data curation: repository management environments, planning and assessment, characterization and ingest, processing and transformation, and access and user environments. Most of the speakers were developers who demonstrated specific applications or projects for which they had received grant funding. I attended breakout sessions on

  • ArchivesSpace, the next-generation archives management tool. This will replace Archivist’s Toolkit which we currently use. Its organizational home will be Lyrasis and they will be using a membership model to aid future sustainability. The intention is to release the full 1.0 version of the product by SAA this summer. The application is completely browser-based and they have made a commitment to migrate data from AT.
  • Preservation Intent Statements from the National Library of Australia. Establishing procedures for the long-term preservation of digital objects is quite complex, and this is one institution’s approach to a way to make it more manageble. Intent statements are developed for each digital collection that spell out the purpose of the collection, how it will be preserved, who is responsible, what the general intent for preservation is for that collection, and identifies known issues to preserving it. IT people tend to think about digital preservation in term of document formats while those in charge of collections think in terms of intellectual entities. The speaker, David Pearson, used the example of a Word document which is thought of differently as part of a manuscript collection than it might be in a map collection. The intent statements are developed in partnership between IT and the collection owner as a way to establish a common language and understanding about what needs to be preserved and how.
  • CINCH. This is a tool developed by the State Library of NC to assist smaller institutions in transferring online content (like what we capture via ArchiveIt) into a repository. The potential benefit over capturing strictly via ArchiveIt is that you get a local copy and it is free of charge.
  • Archivematica. This is an open-source digital preservation system. This presentation focused on its ability to do normalization upon ingest and to use their format policy registry to help with file characterization and analysis.
  • Bitcurator. This is a product that is used for digital forensics. Collections that come to the archives now might contain born digital materials on a variety of devices. Digital forensics is a field often associated with computer crime, but that can be valuable in our library world in that it encompasses “recovery and investigation of material found in digital devices.” One purpose would be to provide an automated way identify types of information within donated files that the archives would not want to collect (ie student grades, personnel records, social security numbers, etc.).
  • Viewshare. This is a browser-based application developed by LOC for ” generating and customizing views(interactive maps, timelines, facets, tag clouds) that allow users to experience your digital collections.” I saw potential for easy methods to engage our users with our digital collections. The product can pull data from dSpace to generate interesting views. That can be embedded into our existing web pages to provide our look and feel. I’m looking forward to experimenting with it! Trevor Owens, the presenter, gave a live demonstration to show how easy it is to use and made his slides available.

One of the reasons I attended this particular conference is that I’m trying to get a clearer sense of the skill sets needed by the person who will eventually fill the Library’s Digital Initiatives Librarian position. Digital curation is one of the areas that we plan for this person to coordinate, so I wanted to see the kinds of positions this type of conference attract. I hoped to learn what overlap and gaps there might be between those that self-identify as digital curators and the more general “digital initiatives’ professional. What I found was that there were two distinct demographics at the event: library archivists (the practitioners) and IT developers. I heard a familiar refrain that IT and archivists don’t speak the same language and have to work at building a common understanding of what is needed in these tools.

At the end of the day, a wrap up session was held, led by Helen Tibbo and Bram van der Werf. Their observation was that there is still a divide between library archivists and developers, but the practitioners are the ones that should be in the drivers seat because, data curation is part of maintaining and preserving their collections and thus is really their problem. The approach being put forwarded by Tibbo and the SILS program is modeled after CNI (where institutional membership consists of the library Dean and the University CIO). The idea is a data curation team that includes both camps, archivists and IT.

A final end-of-day observation of interest was that open-source is a business model, and the types of “light weight tools” demonstrated throughout the day don’t usually have a long life. They open up when there is funding, but often stop being developed once the funding ends. Everyone agreed that sustainability of these tools remains a big unknown.

Susan @ the Charleston Conference: Talking About Providing Value

Friday, November 16, 2012 9:13 am

Earlier this year ZSR Library participated in a research study. The six month study was commissioned by SAGE and conducted by LISU, a national research and information center based in the Department of Information Science at Loughborough University. It sought to study how libraries show evidence of value to research and teaching staff and we were one of 8 case studies from the US, UK and Scandinavia. A final report with findings and recommendations was published last summer.

I was invited by SAGE to come to the Charleston Conference to co-present on the results of this study. My co-presenter was our old friend and colleague, Elisabeth Leonard, who now works for SAGE. Elisabeth reported on the results of the study and my job was to show the practical side of how we demonstrate value at ZSR Library. (My part of the presentation starts on slide 29)

Working Together, Evolving Value for Academic Libraries/Examples from One Library from Susan Smith

 

I was disappointed that home-front obligations on either side of our presentation schedule meant that I didn’t get to the conference until late Friday and so missed most of it. I’ve heard about The Charleston Conference for years, but since it isn’t in my area of responsibilities, I’ve never attended. I still didn’t get to attend any concurrent sessions, but I got the opportunity to see the energy of the conference and enjoy the final general session, a debate on the proposition that “the traditional research library is dead.” Arguing “yes” was Rick Anderson, Interim Dean, Marriott Library, Univ. of Utah against Derek Law, Professor Emeritus, University of Strathclyde, who emphasized his “no” position by wearing a traditional kilt! It was a spirited debate sprinkled with good-natured humor. My favorite line was delivered by Rick (note to all my cataloger friends, don’t shoot me!): He referenced the growing view that cataloging is dead by disagreeing. Instead, he said, catalogers are the “walking undead.” (laugh here). Twenty-first century polling was included as part of the session. Before the start of the debate, attendees were invited to text their yes or no position on the issue. At the end of the debate, a second poll was conducted to see if the debaters had changed peoples’ view. The end result was that the majority of attendees agree that “the traditional research library is dead.” The Conference Blog has a detailed report of what Anderson and Law had to say to support their positions and how the vote went. It was a fun session and makes me want to figure out a way to justify coming back next year.

I did manage to get in a little photography time (it was CHARLESTON after all), so I dragged myself out before dawn Saturday morning so I could watch the sunrise. My morning photo efforts are available on my flickr site.
Sunrise 6

Susan at LITA National Forum

Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:12 pm

Columbus Skyline View

Columbus Skyline

As most of you are probably aware, I am the chair of this year’s LITA National Forum Planning Committee. What that has meant for me is that I’ve been working with the planning committee (and I might add, it has been a strong, effective group of people!) for over a year to put together the programming for this year’s Forum that is taking place this weekend in Columbus, Ohio. Some of you who know me also know that I have a long-time issue of “hostess anxiety” so you can imagine that I’ve been working to make sure that everything goes off smoothly and as planned! So far, so good – we are hearing positive feedback about the keynote speakers, concurrent sessions, the meeting rooms, the food (it is really good thanks to Melissa from the LITA staff), and the city of Columbus (it is really a cool town). In addition to coordinating the planning, I’m the self-appointed photographer to document the conference (no surprise there) so I invite you to see what’s happening this weekend via the Forum pictures.

Ben Shneiderman, Saturday Keynote Speaker

Ben Shneiderman

Thomas has already reported on yesterday’s opening keynote address by Eric Hellman. Today, we opened the day with a second keynote speech, delivered by Ben Shneiderman, who is a professor of computer science at University of Maryland, College Park. Many of you might recognize him as the author of the seminal book Designing the User Interface, now in its fifth edition.

Ben talked about three main themes: visual analytics, social discovery and networked communities. His talk is available on LITA’s UStream channel: Ben Shneiderman’s Keynote Speech. If you want to see the “short” recap, take a look at his presentation slides on ALA Connect. There are an abundance of interesting concepts and exciting projects that I’m looking forward to exploring when I get back home and have some quiet reflection time.

Now it’s time to get back to work moderating concurrent sessions and orchestrating network dinners!

Sunday’s ALA Midwinter Roundup from Susan

Monday, January 23, 2012 9:08 am

Top Technology Trends Discussion

Top Technology Trends Panel Discussion: Lorcan, Demsey, Sue Polanka, Marshall Breeding, Nina McHale, Stephen Abram

Sunday was a day of sessions for me with the major one being the Top Tech Trends program. But it came after a day that began at a breakfast session sponsored by Sage (where our former colleague and friend Elisabeth Leonard was the moderator). The event was a big improvement over Saturday’s Ebsco *sales* event – Sage gave us an excellent hot breakfast and then put on a panel program that addressed various issues surrounding discoverability. They did it through a lens of the “scholarly ecosystem” that includes authors, publishers, librarians, and vendors. The panelists were Joseph Esposito (Publishing Consultant), John Sack (Hirewire), Barbara Schnader (University of California, Riverside), Mary Somerville (University of Colorado, Denver), and John Law (Serials Solution). Discussions covered broad topics including “what is discoverabiity?”, “who has the biggest stake in discovery?”, “how should each segment of the ecosystem contribute to discovery?” “are there good metrics for measuring discoverability?” and “what is the cost of discovery?” As you might imagine, there were different perspectives between the panelists but the topic that really seemed to get the highest level of attention was that everyone agreed there is a great need to improve the metrics. Where vendors look at metrics to drive traffic, libraries look at them to determine value. There was consensus that currently there is great difficulty pulling together data so that it tells a story that can help with decision-making.

The bulk of Sunday morning was devoted to helping make sure that things were set for the Top Tech Trends program. The venue was in the far reaches of the convention center in the oldest section of the building (built in the 1950s). When the AV wasn’t set up right, my assignment was to find the AV people and bring them to the room. So I wandered around until I saw a guy with a cart and grabbed him. They got everything fixed so the program was only a few minutes late getting started. Giz shadowed Maurice York who set up the streaming for the event (so that he can replicate it for National Forum this fall). I took notes so that we can provide folks with brief bullet points on the trends discussed (for those who won’t have the time or inclination to watch the 90 minute video that will be archived on Ustream). Each panelist brought two trends that they presented (in two rounds). Round one trends included frictionless access (smartphone technology that provides unfettered access to services without user interaction), the advent of “enterprise IT staff” for libraries (bringing in professional programmers rather than librarians who like programming), the impending demise of the ILS, the trend toward self-service (mentioned a rack to manage iPad loans including re-imaging!), and the rise of personal institutional curation services (library created guides was an example). Round two trends were: on-demand (printing including 3D, CD-burning, a hybrid model to provide the physical experience), web analytics, reintegration of discovery with the backend systems, technologies that take instruction in a different direction (eg touch screens) and the platform wars in consumer space (a library concern with interoperability). I’ll be pulling together more in-depth (well maybe a few sentences for each topic) information for posting onto the LITA blog next week, but this will give you the idea. I thought the session was one of the most successful in recent memory. There were good trends and interesting interchanges among the panelists that made the session’s 90 minutes fly by!

Texas School Book Depository

Texas School Book Depository (now a museum)

After a good lunch visiting with a group that Elisaeth Leonard invited to lunch (thank you Sage for my second free meal of the day), Mary Beth and I took an hour and toured the JFK museum at the Texas School Book Depository. It was very moving, and brought back a flood of memories from that watershed event in America’s history. Photos weren’t allowed (you know that was tough for me!), so afterward we strolled outside where they have two X’s on the street where the shots hit and have a big ugly yellow banner sign proclaiming “grassy knoll.”

After that, it was back to the conference where I joined Roz, Giz and Mary Beth in an Information Commons discussion session. I’ll let one of them report on that, as I am talked out now and have to get ready for a full morning of LITA meetings before we head back to NC this afternoon!

Susan’s Straight Shootin’ Report #1

Saturday, January 21, 2012 5:41 pm
MB Heading to an afternoon session in the Convention Center

MB Heading to an afternoon session in the Convention Center

For me, ALA Midwinter has become mostly about committee work. I am on two LITA committees currently – Top Tech Trends (the committee is responsible for putting together the Top Tech Trends program that is held at each ALA conference) and LITA National Forum Planning Committee (I am chair of this committee this year). This means I have two business meetings this weekend and will help at the TTT program tomorrow morning. I also have become more appreciative of the great networking opportunity that the Friday evening LITA Happy Hour provides. It is a first chance to renew face-to-face connections with people you have been working with virtually the previous 6 months, and meet new faces who are interested in becoming more involved in LITA.

As Lynn reported, I also manage to rustle up (when in Texas, use Texas cliches) some sort of athletic activity. This year, ALA brought back the 5K Fun Run that I had loved years ago, but that had been on a 8-year hiatus. Lynn and Mary Beth were good sports and joined me on a 6 am shuttle bus to the race site which was held in Reverchon Park. I am sure that MB and Lynn were glad it was dark when a sprint coach led the racers in warm-up exercises because it was too dark for me to snap pictures of us as we did stretches on the cold ground! The group was small but enthusiastic and the course was a nice flat one that included a long staircase at the beginning and end (that was a first in my racing experience).

My morning meeting today was the Top Tech Trends Committee Business Meeting. There were a few members who were unable to attend Midwinter, so I had scheduled a WebEx meeting so they could be there virtually. ZSR now has a traveling WebEx kit that contains a camera, speakers and a mic and this was the first chance to test it out. Giz got it all configured earlier this week and volunteered to attend the meeting and handle the technology and facilitate the participation of the virtual attendees. It all turned out very well and I appreciate his willingness to take this on. It freed me up to take minutes for the meeting (we didn’t choose to record the meeting). We will be replicating this for our Forum Planning meeting on Monday morning.

Following an EBSCO luncheon where many ZSR colleagues showed up (and the sales speeches lasted a full hour!), Mary Beth and I headed to the Exhibit Hall to meet with Crowley, the company that sold us the Zeutchel scanners. She wanted to discuss the long promised Illiad-friendly driver and I wanted to see if they might have an appropriate book scanner for Special Collections. Then she headed off for an afternoon session (as pictured at the beginning of this post). As I write this, sipping on a Starbucks, I am building up the energy to head back in the Exhibit Hall to ferret out other scanner vendors so I can bring home some comparative products.

I’m sure I’ll have more to report tomorrow!

 

Digital Humanities Symposium at UNCC

Friday, December 9, 2011 4:27 pm

Data Visualization

Earlier this week, Rebecca Petersen and I took advantage of the opportunity to attend Exploring Digital Humanities: Practicalities and Potential, a symposium hosted by Atkins Library at UNCC. The day-long event was a collaborative effort between the library and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The morning was devoted to four speakers and the afternoon (which unfortunately we could not stay for) offered hands-on sessions. However, it was well worth the trip to hear the four morning speakers. I am going to primarily focus in on the first speaker, but Robert Morrissey presented about the ARTFL Project and PhiloLogic (a retrieval and analysis tool), Paul Youngman presented “Black Devil and Iron Angel revisited: Using Culturomics in Humanities Research” and UNCC’s Heather McCullough introduced the Library’s new Digital Scholarship Center (which had just been officially launched that day and has a staff of 7, including a usability person, the scholarly communication librarian, a data services/GIS librarian, lab manager and the outreach librarian).

Mark Sample, from George Mason University, started the day off with an introduction to the digital humanities. In the short months that I have been trying to wrap my head around the meaning and purpose of this, Dr. Sample offered the best explanation I’ve yet heard. He jumped right in by asking which is the correct way to ask this question: “What IS digital humanities?” or “What ARE digital humanities?” It was a quick acknowledgement that, not only are people confused about the scope of the field, they don’t even know how to ask about it! Which is right? He says that in practice, the plural is correct, but grammatically, it is singular. ‘Digital humanities’ is a nebulous, made-up term. It describes practices that have been in place for a long time. Originally, it was called ‘humanities computing’; it was a way of talking about using computers to do humanities. The first instance of this goes back to 1949 when Father Robert Busa approached IBM’s Thomas Watson to sponsor his Index Thomisticus, a corpus of the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The project lasted 30 years, resulted in a print version, CD-ROM version and is now available via the web. The term ‘digital humanities’ was coined in 2001 by John Unsworth (an LIS Dean at University of Illinos at Urbana-Champaign!) as a marketing approach to the Companion to Digital Humanities. Some thought that this term would describe humanities computing in a more palatable way! Sample gave us an interesting timeline view of how the field developed by showing us a time-lapse evolution of the Digital Humanities Wikipedia page (using the view history) since the first article was written in 2006.

Sample sees the field of digital humanities as encompassing a two-fold endeavor: 1) it allows scholars to approach humanities in new ways using new tools that facilitate production of knowledge, and 2) it allows representation of knowledge. When discussing the Wikipedia articles, he noted that the early versions focused on presentation instead of production. One of the examples of ‘production’ he discussed was the Proceedings of the Old Bailey which is “a fully searchable edition of the largest body of texts detailing the lives of non-elite people ever published, containing 197,745 criminal trials held at London’s central criminal court.” This project was cross discipline and cross institutional. He showed us a dot map of all the trials that have the word ‘killing’ in them. He showed the tracking of the term ‘loveless marriage.’ Another project he presented was the Walt Whitman Project, which he said was both production and representation. In this project every edition of Leaves of Grass is included, allowing researchers to compare across editions. An example of representation is Drama in the Delta, a role playing video game that puts the player in the experience of Arkansas camps where 15,000 Japanese were interned during World War II. It doesn’t produce new knowledge but it is designed to represent knowledge to students in a new way.

Having bodies of searchable text of these magnitudes allow scholars to ask questions that couldn’t have been imaginable if they had to plow through the manuscripts manually. One interesting concept he introduced was the idea of distance reading versus close reading. As opposed to “close reading” of a text, “distant reading” allows researchers to analyze not just one or two books but thousands of them at a time.

I’ve written much more than I usually permit myself in these postings, but want to mention Youngman’s use of pattern analysis using Google’s Ngram Viewer and his recommendation of the Culturomics site that has a corpus of over 5 million words. One thing he stressed about using data from Google books (he calls Google Books a game changer) is that, yes, the data is dirty, but you can still work with it. He says that pattern analysis is what it’s all about and these tools allow a scholar to get a larger perspective by using a shotgun approach to discover patterns. It allows you to spot what perhaps could be a trend but then the key is to collaborate with others to verify real trends.

It was a very productive morning that provided me with many resources to explore as well as a much better understanding of what digital humanities is: from Sample: “Digital humanities are what digital humanists are doing at any given time.”

 

 

Digital Forsyth: There is Still Interest Out There!

Friday, November 4, 2011 5:17 pm

During the past two days the North Carolina State Archives and the State Historical Records Advisory Board sponsored a conference in Raleigh: “From Theory to Practice: Accessing and Preserving Electronic Records and Digital Materials.” Originally, Audra was lined up to talk about Digital Forsyth in the cultural repositories track session on “Economics: The True Costs of Managing a Digital Project.” When she headed west, she asked me to step in for her, which I was happy to do, having managed this grant budget for the three years of the project. Here is my presentation if you are interested:

Unfortunately, between ZSR obligations and school commitments, I wasn’t able to take advantage and attend the conference except for the session where I was presenting. I did share the session with Jane Blackburn, who is director of Braswell Memorial Library in Rocky Mount. She talked about a project they started 9 years ago that involved a very unique collection of 500,000 photographic negatives (from 1948-2001) by a local photographer (Charles Killebrew). The images span his career as a photographer and primarily were taken in Nash and Edgecombe counties of North Carolina. Her presentation was a cautionary tale, as they took it on without a plan, a budget or staff and in spite of local politics, restrictions from the donor and no funding. However, the collection was in danger of being lost through improper storage and preservation. To date, they have successfully digitized and described over 100o of the images and you can tell how fabulous the Killebrew Collection is. Now that the donor (Killebrew) has died, the gift stipulations that were in place are removed and they can finally look for the right grant to move the digitization forward.

LITA National Forum 2011: Susan’s Final Report

Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:37 pm

St. Louis Arch

The Arch

LITA National Forum is a three day event that is packed with choices of interesting concurrent sessions plus 3 separate keynote addresses. There is always the problem of picking the best session to attend, but the nice thing about Forum is that it is a more intimate conference (around 300 attendees) and all the sessions are within a stone’s throw of each other. In addition, the conference feeds us breakfast, lunch on Saturday and has breaks a couple times each day. All of this is designed to facilitate an environment conducive to networking among the attendees. There are networking dinners held each evening, and for the past few years, I’ve been asked to host one. It is one of the highlights of the weekend because it is a relaxed way to meet new colleagues and have some lively discussion. At last evening’s dinner, we had 11 people at Joe Buck’s BBQ. At one point, one end of the table was busy discussing the Zombie Apocolypse while down at my end I listened to the most enthusiastic exchange on the 856 field in the history of librarianship. Question: Which end of the table was Giz seated at? Seriously, the chance to network and establish new connections is one of the most valuable benefits of the Forum.

The theme of the conference (Rivers of Data, Currents of Change) meant the sessions included a great deal about data, discovery and emerging technologies. I tried to sample different types of subjects so attended one session about the Library as Publisher (online journal publication at Oklahoma State University), Building a Habitat for Digital Humanities: adding digital project support to library services (by Auburn, I had to go to that for just the name alone), Data Management Services as a Foundation for Repository Growth and Integration and Finding Finding Aids (about a project at Auburn to crosswalk MARC records for finding aids into CONTENTdm). I took detailed notes so will be glad to share them to anyone interested!

My role as the Chair of next year’s Forum Planning Committee required some of my time this year. It was important to be observant throughout the weekend to talk to people about what they liked (or not) about this year’s Forum, so my committee can adjust, improve, expand, correct things for next year’s conference. As is the tradition, the two committees (this year’s and next year’s) met today over an early morning breakfast to debrief. Then the torch was passed to the 2012 Planning Committee and I am returning home with many great ideas and a very long “to-do” list to help the committee put together a great conference for next year!

LITA National Forum 2011: St. Louis

Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:43 am

LITA National Forum is held annually in the fall. This year it is being held in St. Louis, MO. The theme is Rivers of Data, Currents of Change. Giz and I flew in yesterday morning for the 3 day conference. I became involved in it several years ago when I joined the Forum planning committee. This year I am a “lurker” on this year’s committee activities because I am chair of next year’s planning committee. The committee has been formed since the beginning of the year and has actually started to make plans for it. The call for proposals go out this weekend. This means that part of my job at this year’s Forum is to observe how it unfolds so we can learn from it for next year’s conference. My committee first met at ALA Annual in New Orleans and our second business meeting will take place Sunday at a breakfast where this year’s and next year’s committees will have a debriefing. However, knowing that, although most of our work will be accomplished virtually, we all want to get to know each other better. To that end, last evening our group met informally at the end of the day to get acquainted. I found that I have an energetic, enthusiastic group of people! I predict we will work well together and will put on an excellent event next year in Columbus, Ohio!

My main goal for the first afternoon of the conference was to prepare and deliver a concurrent session about the results of Erik’s and my Summer Technology Exploration grant. Our main preparation venue for getting the presentation set was through WebEx over the last month. So we met right after lunch and put the finishing touches on the presentation (linked below). It was well received, enough so that Giz and I have started talking about how we might be able to start introducing some of the tools to undergraduates to give them a gentle introduction to working with data!

CurateCamp @ Stanford

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:33 am

CurateCamp Unconference Session Schedule

As part of Erik’s and my Summer Technology Exploration grant (where we are exploring data sets) we are attending CurateCamp, an “Unconference” on data curation being held at Stanford University. This is my first Unconference experience, where there are no preplanned sessions and participants’ current interests drive the program. The picture above shows how the two days are scheduled. Participants introduce themselves and state their (in this case) data curation interests. Then they pitch their ideas for a session and sign up for a slot. All the group (about 100 here) listen to the ideas and form a consensus on proceeding. This portion took the first half of today!

The areas of interest were quite an assortment: standards, workflow, faculty outreach, born digital video, digital forensics, third party tools to help libraries, versioning, provenance….and that’s just some of the things people want to talk about.

This afternoon, there were three concurrent sessions. I opted to attend the session on how to deal with born digital video since that is something we are facing. Some schools are already coping with trying to archive videos ranging from student projects to documentary films. Several schools are much more experienced than we are, but it soon became clear that nobody really has all the answers on running a born digital video presentation program. There are a multitude of complexities from codecs to transfer rates to long term storage costs.

The second session I went to was a discussion where people shared their ideas about doing faculty outreach. The consensus was that we have to demonstrate to faculty why it is to their benefit to work with us on preserving their data. Whether it is to save them time, to be in compliance with funding requirements, or to create a sustainable workflow that will transition from one graduate assistant to the next, they have to believe there is something that will help them. Some faculty have stated surprise that the library has any interest in being involved with preserving their data.

The final session was a discussion about the gaps that exist in curation service models. It became apparent that nobody in that session felt that their library was able to independently meet the needs of their overall institution’s data curation needs. It is really a responsibility that goes beyond the resources available to most libraries.

Tomorrow promises to be a continuation of these types of discussions. Stay tuned!


Pages
About
Categories
2007 ACRL Baltimore
2007 ALA Annual
2007 ALA Gaming Symposium
2007 ALA Midwinter
2007 ASERL New Age of Discovery
2007 Charleston Conference
2007 ECU Gaming Presentation
2007 ELUNA
2007 Evidence Based Librarianship
2007 Innovations in Instruction
2007 Kilgour Symposium
2007 LAUNC-CH Conference
2007 LITA National Forum
2007 NASIG Conference
2007 North Carolina Library Association
2007 North Carolina Serials Conference
2007 OCLC International ILLiad Conference
2007 Open Repositories
2007 SAA Chicago
2007 SAMM
2007 SOLINET NC User Group
2007 UNC TLT
2007_ASIST
2008
2008 Leadership Institute for Academic Librarians
2008 ACRL Immersion
2008 ACRL/LAMA JVI
2008 ALA Annual
2008 ALA Midwinter
2008 ASIS&T
2008 First-Year Experience Conference
2008 Lilly Conference
2008 LITA
2008 NASIG Conference
2008 NCAECT
2008 NCLA RTSS
2008 North Carolina Serials Conference
2008 ONIX for Serials Webinar
2008 Open Access Day
2008 SPARC Digital Repositories
2008 Tri-IT Meeting
2009
2009 ACRL Seattle
2009 ALA Annual
2009 ALA Annual Chicago
2009 ALA Midwinter
2009 ARLIS/NA
2009 Big Read
2009 code4lib
2009 Educause
2009 Handheld Librarian
2009 LAUNC-CH Conference
2009 LAUNCH-CH Research Forum
2009 Lilly Conference
2009 LITA National Forum
2009 NASIG Conference
2009 NCLA Biennial Conference
2009 NISOForum
2009 OCLC International ILLiad Conference
2009 RBMS Charlottesville
2009 SCLA
2009 UNC TLT
2010
2010 ALA Annual
2010 ALA Midwinter
2010 ATLA
2010 Code4Lib
2010 EDUCAUSE Southeast
2010 Handheld Librarian
2010 ILLiad Conference
2010 LAUNC-CH Research Forum
2010 LITA National Forum
2010 Metrolina
2010 NASIG Conference
2010 North Carolina Serials Conference
2010 RBMS
2010 Sakai Conference
2011 ACRL Philadelphia
2011 ALA Annual
2011 ALA Midwinter
2011 CurateCamp
2011 Illiad Conference
2012 SNCA Annual Conference
ACRL
ACRL 2013
ACRL New England Chapter
ACRL-ANSS
ACRL-STS
ALA Annual
ALA Annual 2013
ALA Editions
ALA Midwinter
ALA Midwinter 2012
ALA Midwinter 2014
ALCTS Webinars for Preservation Week
ALFMO
APALA
ARL Assessment Seminar 2014
ARLIS
ASERL
ASU
Audio streaming
authority control
Berkman Webinar
bibliographic control
Book Repair Workshops
Career Development for Women Leaders Program
CASE Conference
cataloging
Celebration: Entrepreneurial Conference
Charleston Conference
CIT Showcase
CITsymposium2008
Coalition for Networked Information
code4lib
commons
Conference Planning
Conferences
Copyright Conference
COSWL
CurateGear 2013
CurateGear 2014
Designing Libraries II Conference
DigCCurr 2007
Digital Forsyth
Digital Humanities Symposium
Disaster Recovery
Discovery tools
E-books
EDUCAUSE
Educause SE
EDUCAUSE_SERC07
Electronic Resources and Libraries
Embedded Librarians
Entrepreneurial Conference
ERM Systems
evidence based librarianship
FDLP
FRBR
Future of Libraries
Gaming in Libraries
General
GODORT
Google Scholar
govdocs
Handheld Librarian Online Conference
Hurricane Preparedness/Solinet 3-part Workshop
ILS
information design
information ethics
Information Literacy
innovation
Innovation in Instruction
Inspiration
instruction
IRB101
Journal reading group
Keynote
LAMS Customer Service Workshop
LAUNC-CH
Leadership
Learning spaces
LibQUAL
Library 2.0
Library of Congress
licensing
Lilly Conference
LITA
LITA National Forum
LOEX2008
Lyrasis
Management
Marketing
Mentoring Committee
MERLOT
metadata
Metrolina 2008
MOUG 09
MOUG 2010
Music Library Assoc. 07
Music Library Assoc. 09
Music Library Assoc. 2010
NASIG
NC-LITe
NCCU Conference on Digital Libraries
NCICU
NCLA
NCLA Biennial Conference 2013
NCPC
NCSLA
NEDCC/SAA
NHPRC-Electronic Records Research Fellowships Symposium
NISO
North Carolina Serial Conference 2014
Offsite Storage Project
OLE Project
online catalogs
online course
OPAC
open access
Peabody Library Leadership Institute
plagiarism
Podcasting
Preservation
Preservation Activities
Preserving Forsyth LSTA Grant
Professional Development Center
rare books
RDA/FRBR
Reserves
RITS
RTSS 08
RUSA-CODES
SAA Class New York
SAMM 2008
SAMM 2009
Scholarly Communication
ScienceOnline2010
Social Stratification in the Deep South
Social Stratification in the Deep South 2009
Society of American Archivists
Society of North Carolina Archivists
SOLINET
Southeast Music Library Association
Southeast Music Library Association 08
Southeast Music Library Association 09
SPARC webinar
subject headings
Sun Webinar Series
tagging
Technical Services
technology
ThinkTank Conference
Training
ULG
Uncategorized
user studies
Vendors
video-assisted learning
visual literacy
WakeSpace
Web 2.0
Webinar
WebWise
WFU China Initiative
Wikis
Women's History Symposium 2007
workshops
WSS
ZSR Library Leadership Retreat
Tags
Archives
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 WordPress.org, protected by Akismet. Blog with WordPress.com.