Professional Development

In the 'SOLINET' Category...

Lynn at SAMM

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:05 pm

Wanda covered much of the SAMM conference. I was only there one day, mostly because I am a SOLINET/Lyrasis Board member, so I will cover the sessions that I went to that Wanda did not. My flight from Charlotte was late so I missed the opening keynote…grrhgghhhh!

Google Book Search Settlement:Now What? Jonathan Band, Technology Law and Policy

Really complicated, lots of controversy; some love it, some hate it, some fear it. He represents ARL, ACRL, ALA. They filed comments with the judge overseeing the settlement.

Original Library Project (totally different from litigation)

Scanning 25 million books

Public domain: display full text (5 million)

In-copyright: 3 snippets (few lines) per book 20 million (2.5 million in print) 17.5 million orphans

Opt-out for authors and publishers (copyright owners) (prohibitive to ask permission)

Opt-in for partner program to share revenue

Why did publishers sue in 2005?

Act of scanning may be infringement, made copies for libraries, even though public could only see snippet and may have increased the market for the work

Opt-out wasn’t good enough, burden should have been on Google (so say publishers)

Core question:was this fair use?

Proposed settlement Oct 2008

Only applies to books published before 1/5/09, no books going forward

Google can go forward with scanning in exchange for payment to owners

Book Rights Registry manages copyright (run by owners) solves the legal problem without addressing fair use issue and binds all the owners

Court still needs to approve it, since it is class action

Settlement services

Applies only to US users

Previews: analogous to snippet but more content

Consumer purchase

Institutional subscription

Default rule for out of print books (17.5 million):immediately available for all 3 services unless rights holder shows up and opts out *these are the heart of the settlement and lessens the panicky impact*

Default rule for in print book (2.5 million): not available for purchase or subscription unless owner opts in (not likely, they will make their money without Google)

(in-print means commercially available in any format)

Owners can opt out of the settlement altogether and sue Google on their own, or permit uses different from default rules

Previews

Analogous to snippets

Public domain:100%

In copyright, out of print (17.5 million) : was 3 snippets, now 20%

In copyright, in print (2.5 million): was 3 snippets, now bibliographic info

Consumer Purchase

Consumer can purchase perpetual online access to full text of a book

Google will set price algorithmically between $1.99 and $29.99 (80% below $10)

Can print 20 pages with one command, cut and paste 4 pages, make book annotations

Institutional Subscriptions (to libraries)

Annual subscription to get access to full text of all books in copyright, out of print (17.5 million); discipline based subsets

Access limited to “appropriate individuals/authorized users”

Can print 20 pages with one command, cut and paste 4 pages, annotations, link to e-reserves, no ILL

Remote access only for higher education

Google’s overall model is free or very low cost; we’ll see

Public Access service

One terminal per building for public libraries and higher ed (one terminal for 4,000 ftes at 2 year associate colleges, one terminal for 10,000 fte at 4 year colleges)

Print pages on per page fee

Participating Libraries (Michigan, Wisconsin, UC, Stanford, etc)

Libraries provide book to be scanned, receive digital copy in return

Libraries now must sign agreement with Registry, (Here is where Harvard dropped out)

many constraints, almost like dark archive until it comes into public domain, but released from liability Cooperating libraries (different from participating libraries)

Research Corpus

Non-consumptive research, computational analysis not for intellectual content, possible but with strict security requirement

Google’s obligations

Within 5 years must provide services for 85% of in-copyright, out of print books it has scanned

Must accommodate visual disabilities (could be huge)

Revenue sharing (with copyright owner)

$60 for each book scanned

Google keeps 37% of future revenue from advertising, subscriptions, sales, gives 63% to Registry

Usage fees for popular books

$200 inclusion fee when enough revenues are collected

Owner has to register to get revenue

Pricing

Google and Registry set price, if can’t agree, subject to arbitration

Based on FTE

Only higher ed has remote access

Status of Settlement

Library associations filed comments, asked court to closely supervise implementation

Court extended deadline to 9/4/09

Libraries worry about lack of competition, subscriptions could be priced too high, no matter what Google says,

Traditional library values of access, privacy, intellectual freedom could be undermined

Digital Preservation:the Future is Collaboration, Robin Dale, UC Santa Cruz

Think in terms of services that we can provide here and now rather than great repository in the sky.

Collaboration

  • Don’t do it for its own sake
  • Public good v pragmatism
  • Sustainability is hard
  • Cyclical drivers, evolve or die, sunset is sometimes a good thing

Local Digitization Imperatives

  • Digital preservation should be
    • an ongoing activity
    • understood responsibility
    • economically sustainable
    • cooperative effort

Shift from Silos to Service

  • In the beginning
    • Large institutional digital repositories
    • Major local investment
    • Low acceptance/use outside libraries
    • High cost, bit preservation with low sustainability
  • Now:
    • Incremental perspective with immediate action and future capabilities
    • Move away from imperative to tackle problem locally
    • Curation instead of preservation, look at the life cycle
    • Curation is an outcome, not a repository

University of California

  • First tried digital preservation repository
  • Shifted to

Web archiving service

HathiTrust

LOCKSS (rise of Private LOCKSS Networks (PLN))

New flexible repository service to manage digital objects

Meta Archive Cooperative

LOCKSS-based distributed digital preservation network

Hathi Trust (13 CIC (Big 10+), 10 UC libraries)

Archive and share digitized collections from the Google project

Goal to create and sustain public good – searchable, not just dark archive

Currently at 2,839,932 volumes (16% in public domain)

Role for Lyrasis

  • Facilitator to obtain existing services for the collaborative
  • Manager of LOCKSS PLN’s
  • Enable immediate access to services with management possibilities downstream

Preserving Oral Histories

Monday, January 19, 2009 10:11 am

Preserving Oral Histories

Tim Mitchell and I attended a webinar presented by Solinet on January 15, 2009 entitled: Preserving Oral Histories. This workshop was a discussion about the primary issues of preserving oral histories.

The activity of processing oral histories was covered first.The most important issue when processing is to prevent audio from being erased (either audio cassettes or CD’s).The processor should conduct a condition assessment to check for damage and if possible, play and listen to the material.A strong odor detected at this point would indicate deterioration.The items should then be labeled, re-housed; and new reformatted preservation copies made.

There are several free tools available for surveying oral history collections:

FACET (Field Audio Collection evaluation Tool) is a survey tool which is an open-sourced database that allows for recordinginformation about materials.

Preservation Tool for Audio and Moving Image Collections- Columbia University Libraries has developed and tested a tool to inventory and assess the physical condition of audio and moving image materials.

Damage to audio materials

Magnetic tape damage is usually referred to as “Sticky shed syndrome” and is the deterioration of audio material.

Acetate tape deterioration is the formation of acetic acid on the tape which is called “Vinegar Syndrome” because of the smell it gives.This material should be isolated in cold storage.The Image Permanence Institute has A-D strips to test for acetate decay.

Labeling Oral Histories- Guidelines for future users should be created that uses a consistency of format.Water-based markers (sold in specialty shops) or pencils should be used for marking on the material itself.CD’s should be marked on the inner hub.

Preserving Originals

-use highest quality format available

-make a copy of the original and use that copy for reformatting-put the original away in storage

-only use the master for making usable copies

-keep original hardware and software if possible

Housing

-use best quality materials

-arrange by material type or by format

-store the master separately

Paper/Board-use material that conforms with NISO Z39 standards

Plastics-use inert plastics-avoid PVC (polyester is a good inert plastic)

Temperature-the best temperature for audio materials is 50 degrees, 30-50 Relative Humidity

Avoid electromagnetic fields or UV radiation

Storage-film

-shelve vertically, except 16mm/35m which should be stored horizontally

-keep in a dust free environment

Storage-Magnetic media

-for optical media (CD-R), avoid light

Storage-Transcriptions

-use acid free paper

-for electronic transcriptions, store in multiple formats

Storage-Online

-RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks)- a technology that employs the simultaneous use of two or more hard disk drives to achieve greater levels of performance and reliability.

-LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)- based at Stanford University Libraries, is an international community initiative that provides libraries with digital preservation tools and support so that they can easily and inexpensively collect and preserve their own copies of authorized e-content.

-Dark Archives- a collection of materials preserved for future use but with no current access.This is associated with collections of online serial publications and databases that are held by an organization other than the publisher.

Preferred Digital Formats

Audio

.wav- considered the standard for audio archives

.bmv-broad cast wave- an open format with the inclusion of metadata

.mp3-a small file size, compressed file format that

Video

.MJ2 (Motion Jpeg 2000)- used by the Library of Congress as the standard format

.MXF- open source format that allows metadata inclusion

.AVI-Audio Video Interleave used primarily for video on the web

Audio Digitization Standards-the recommended rate for voice recordings:

Human Voice-sample rate- 96 kHz; bit depth- 24 bit

This workshop was thorough and illustrated that preservation issues for audio oral histories are unique and the housing materials, methods, and survey tools for them are specific to this audio material.

Craig Fansler

Care of Scrapbooks – Solinet Workshop

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:13 pm
Care of Scrapbooks Workshopan example of an old scrapbook

On Wednesday, July 16, Vicki Johnson and I attended a Solinet workshop on the care of scrapbooks. The workshop was presented by Jessica Leming of Solinet Preservation Services. This workshop covered a seldom addressed topic-the deterioration of older scrapbook collections. These scrapbooks take a variety of shapes and forms- ledgers, re-purposed sales catalogs, and bound materials of all kinds. At one time, it was apparently popular to take any bound item and paste your mementos inside as if all the pages were blank.

Jessica covered the general areas of assessment (condition), prevention treatments, housing(what to put a scrapbook in to protect it) and policies.

One of the main issues with preservation of historic scrapbooks is the use of “ground wood pulp paper”-a paper made from unbuffered wood pulp that is very acidic. This kind of paper was used heavily form around 1850-1900 to meet growing demands. Now, this paper is becoming brittle and causing problems. Other issues seen in historic scrapbooks is fading of photographs, staining from glues, binding failure de-lamination, brittle/yellowed cellophane tape, and faded inks.

Solutions for scrapbook preservation include:

* Interleaving of acid-free cotton rag paper-the step insulates each page from the other and can prevent staining and bleed through.
* Enclosures- drop spine or archival boxes can house an entire scrapbook to prevent further deterioration and light damage.

* Treatment

1. stabilization can be attained by mending or storage
2. Reformatting- making a preservation facsimile or a preservation microfilm copy will protect the original item while allowing access to the content.
3. Digitization- another way to allow access to the information of an item while protecting the actual item from handling damage.
4. Disbinding/Preservation- the scrapbook can actually be restored if the money and preservation skills are present

This workshop helped me to be aware of a growing area of preservation needs and the appropriate methods of protecting historic scrapbooks.

SAMM 08 – The Transformed Library

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:51 pm

On May 8th I attended the SOLINET Annual meeting held this year for the first time at the quite beautiful and neatly tucked away Emory Conference Center. Michael Stephens the morning keynoter was a good opening act. He was certain to awaken the audience as it was a bit of a challenge to follow him on stage as he moved from here to there and then up and then down. He was all over the place. Hired recently as an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Dominican University in Illinois, Stephens’ enthusiasm for Libraries is certain to rub off on at least a few of his students. While sharing with the audience his views for transforming libraries, Stephens made reference to a quote that our neighboring Davidson College used within a recent Librarian job posting. “Give us your newbie enthusiasm and your fresh ideas and we in return will mentor your growth.” Stephens also sited as an example of creative undertakings within libraries the Charlotte Public Library’s 2.0 training project.

The “Innovations in Next Generation Library Management Systems” session featured updates on three interesting developments in open-source library applications. John Little spoke on Duke University Libraries proposal for the Mellon Foundation to convene the academic library community in designing an open-source Integrated Library System. Andrew Nagy of Villanova discussed his work in developing VuFind. VuFind adds Web 2.0 functionality on top of the traditional interface and allows users to e-mail search results and save results to their favorites. Tim Daniels shared insights on Georgia Library’s PINES (Public Information Network for Electronic Services). This is the public library automation and lending network for more than 275 libraries in Georgia.

“The Other Side of the Library Coin: Georgia Tech’s Experience in Broadcasting Scholarly Information” was the title of my afternoon session. Tyler Walters discussed the transformation of scholarly communication and their development of the SMARTech institutional repository. Libraries are responding to this transformation as they in the process of adding new services are experiencing a transformation as well. “Cultivating active partnerships with faculty is how libraries will continue to transform into high value hubs of information services.” For a copy of Walters’ slide presentation and others from the SAMM meeting follow this link:

http://www.solinet.net/SAMM08/Sessions.aspx

SAMM 2008

Friday, May 9, 2008 1:55 pm

I attend the SOLINET Annual Membership Meeting each May mostly because I am a Board member and I am supposed to, but whenever I go I am pleasantly surprised at how strong the programming is and how glad I am I came. So while I’m at the airport waiting for my flight, I’ll share what I learned.

The opening keynote was by Michael Stephens, Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Dominican University in Illinois, and just a little over-enthusiastic for me. His theme was The Transformed Library and he had some great slides from libraries around the country to demonstrate how involved (or remote) libraries can be with their respective communities. Interestingly, he quoted from the OCLC Perceptions study that BOOKS are the universal library brand. It is interesting to me because Rosann Bazirjian and I did a replication study at Wake and UNCG last spring and one of our findings was that books is NOT the library brand at Wake Forest. Can you guess what is is? I’ll keep you in suspense until Rosann and I finish writing up our paper and present it at a staff meeting sometime. All in all, Michael’s talk was a lot like Karen Schneider’s which was the closing talk. Lots of 2.0 from all angles, flickr all over the place, tagging everywhere you can stand it, and good advice to let go the role of gatekeeper and encourage the role of the heart.

The next session I went to was about Next Generation Library Management Systems, with speakers from Duke, Georgia PINES and Villanova. Susan, Erik and I are cooking up plans to implement Villanova’s VuFind as an OPAC replacement for WebVoyage. The open source movement for library management systems is very exciting and these three speakers embodied my own feelings that we cannot stomach the thought of paying more big money to corporate vendors for user-hostile systems built on antique architecture. I don’t know how far we will get, but we have to try. More on that later.

I did my librarianly duty and attended the session on the Future of Bibliographic Control with Olivia Madison, co-chair of the Library of Congress Working Group. I have not stayed as abreast of this report as say, Erik has, so I was glad to get a briefing. The working group did yeomen’s work and recommended 102 action steps that the rest of the bibliographic world should be grateful for. It has been a controversial report but I believe it turns the big boat of bibliographic control more in the right direction.

There was a two hour business meeting with a discussion of the proposed merger with PALINET that I won’t detail. The merger is very exciting and a lot of smart, dedicated people are working hard on it. It is a privilege to participate in the discussions and I have learned a lot about the business side of the information profession because of it. There is a bright future out there, with or without OCLC, and we can hardly think too big.

This morning, I went to a delightful presentation on the Civil Rights Digital Library at the University of Georgia. It is a phenomenal resource (you know what a sucker I am for all things related to civil rights) and they have done it right. There was some discussion at the recent ASERL meeting of making this a project to which all ASERL libraries could contribute. It seems many local news affiliates across the South are looking for a home for their historical film footage and there are civil rights treasures within them. Maybe we should talk to WXII?

As previously mentioned, Karen Schneider closed the conference with a lively talk on library blogging. We already do many, if not most, of the things she mentioned here at ZSR. Current typing to the contrary, I am not a blogger at heart but resolved to try to blog my upcoming bike trip so that the family can enjoy the trials and triumphs of Barry and Lynn’s Great Adventure. I saw how valuable that could be to the folks back home during our South Course trip last summer. The most interesting thing in Karen’s talk was her mention of twitter and one of the posts that appeared live on the screen was our own laurenpressley’s twitter comment, “tree down in neighborhood – photo.” Actually, Lauren could have given the exact same talk as Karen as she is known nationally as a blogging/twittering guru!

OK, my flight is getting close to boarding so I’ll stop now and look forward to seeing ZSR under construction. I loved Craig’s photo of the busts from the Current Periodicals Room being loaded onto book trucks!

Part 2- Hurricane Preparedness/Solinet

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:14 pm

On Wednesday, September 12, the second portion of Solinet’s Hurricane Preparedness teleconference was broadcast. The Disaster Committee was given homework after our first session which consisted of completing a building survey checklist, which Scott Adair and I completed. This checklist involved checking electrical, storage areas, structural, office areas, housekeeping, building exterior, and fire and safety issues within our library. Scott and I even checked to see how far off the floor our lower range of stacks are (4 inches) and if the breaker boxes were labeled (yes they are).
The class in this second session covered the logistics of meeting a disaster situation head on. Issues of staff personalities and how that would affect recovery were mentioned using a barnyard analogy. During recovery, those can actually make it to the library are divided into teams who will sort, record, pack and photograph the process. Photographs can be very important in documenting the damage to individual items and spaces. They are also helpful if you have ‘before the disaster” photos on file. The instructor, Sharon Bennett, also covered security, safety and insurance issues

Lauren @ SOLINET: Library 2.0: Promoting Your Library in the New Social Digital Space

Friday, September 7, 2007 3:50 pm

I’m really not going to go into super detail for this session since we talk about a lot of these technologies at Wake all the time. If you want more details, feel free to contact me. I’d be happy to chat about the presentation! Now, onto live blogging:

  • Covered blogs, RSS, podcasting, wikis, flickr, social networking, youtube, second life, mobile social software (like Twitter!)
  • …but you know all about that. :)
  • SpringShare (vendor product) makes LibGuide (for subject guides) and LibMarks (social bookmarking, like del.icio.us) for about $900 each per year.

Lauren @ SOLINET: Scholarly Stats: Collecting Usage Statistics

Friday, September 7, 2007 2:47 pm

More live blogging…

  • MPS Technologies provides electronic resources in the publishing market.
  • Librarians said they wanted a portal with all stats in one place, that’s self-generating.
  • This is Scholarly Stats.
  • First thing they did in development was to send out an email to a list in the US and UK asking folks to help develop project.
  • Questions included: “How many of you are collecting usage data as frequently as you’d like?” “How easy is it comparing usage across multiple platforms?” “How often would you like to collect usage data?”
  • Several said “every month” in academia. Want to follow peaks and valleys in usage to understand marketing, find out the bang for buck for each database, etc.
  • Explained basic development process…reported some findings:
  • Stats are playing a big roll in subscription decisions, next most in justifying expenses. Much lower was “reporting” and “other” (which includes promoting, marketing, training, administrative, strategic planning, curiosity, etc).
  • Wanted to combine vendor stats, other data gathered from web logs, consortia reports, etc, fun code/subject, cost, etc.
  • Found biggest challenge from lack of standards, takes too much time, COUNTER standards help but there are some drawbacks.
  • Most useful statistics are: number of full-text downloads (not necessarily views), number of searches, number of sessions, COUNTER statistics, number of turnaways, others.
  • Tools that are out there now: ERMS (Innovative, ExLibris, Serials Solution), Thomson Scientific, ScholarlyStats, Project COUNTER, SUSHI, UKSG Usage Factor
  • On the ScholarlyStats site, they generate monthly reports available on your portal: Full text use on month-by-month and on a calendar year. Number of searches and sessions from all databases. Number of turnaways by database (for concurrent usage databases, not because of a technology issue on their end). Searches and Sessions for entire system.
  • Reports come in excel file and csv format. In the future, maybe xml, too.
  • On the ScholarlyStats site, they generate monthly dashboards reports available on your portal: most used titles by platform, least used titles by platform, etc.
  • Going forward, will allow you to save up to five years of data. (Not retrospective.)
  • There is no standard for consortia reporting by institution. EBSCO, ProQuest do a good job of it, but a lot of databases done. Since not all do, ScholarlyStats can’t.
  • How does this differ from Serials Solution’s option: SS gathers from federated search engine, but not from independent search interfaces.
  • Breaks out the same journal from various resources so you can see which is getting most usage.
  • Can generate a cost per use or search with this data.
  • Federated search searches each database, when you pick an item and go to it, that’s when it gets counted in the statistics.
  • Rank and list from most to least use, percentage of that use compared to the rest of what you’ve asked to collect, etc (long tail OR 80/20 rule thinking)
  • Can get a discount through SOLINET.

Lauren @ SOLINET: Ares E-Reserve System and Copyright

Friday, September 7, 2007 1:47 pm

This is a vendor demo of the Ares Automating Reserves system (Same folks who bring us Illiad).

  • Works with LDAP.
  • Instructor Side
  • Can post system alerts as well as custom user alerts on front page.
  • Pages are in HTML, so it’s customizable. Same (or similar) Illiad style sheets can be applied to this.
  • Instructors can: create a new class, look at previous classes taught, look at upcoming classes, and set proxy users.
  • Does allow for extra level of security (password a specific class, students only type it the very first time they register for classes within Ares).
  • Doesn’t default to email subscription, but you can get emails sent to students when they subscribe.
  • Can hold pdfs, free text, images as well as MP3s and videos.
  • Incorporates a way to “clone” class to carry documents forward to future sections of the class.
  • One-to-one document to class ratio. Each class that uses a document has its own copy. If a class gets deleted, the other files still stay.
  • A little electronic learning function built in: professor can have “chat” hours on the Ares system, and if students have questions they can chat with them on the site during those times. Chats can be saved as a reserve item and kept as part of the class.
  • Can look at usage by numbers, but also you can look up who is looking at items by name. Up to reserve staff to decide how to set this up.
  • Reserve staff can set up privileges for faculty to upload their own items, or can remove that option. Can also have it set up for faculty uploads to be reviewed by library staff before going up.
  • Item information form looks a lot like ILL form (not surprising), I wonder if this could be automated.
  • There is a question on the upload form: “Have you obtained Copyright permission for this item?” with a checkbox. Can change wording as much as you want.
  • Student Side
  • See same login and alerts.
  • Can create a hotlist of items they’ll look at a lot.
  • Can search classes by department, instructors, and course numbers.
  • Students can get RSS feed for reserve items. Erik, sound familiar?
  • Library Side
  • Looks like Illiad.
  • This is where you set up system alert.
  • Can search entire system by title, author, class info, etc. in case you need to find a missing document.
  • Item processing: awaiting processing lists all the items to be scanned, etc.,awaiting review is for library staff after faculty have uploaded.
  • Creates pull slips for students/staff who will find materials in the stacks.
  • Scanner interface is the same as Illiad.
  • Let them know what reports you’d like generated, and they will work up a SQL query.
  • Web administration suite has all webpage and server information and lists documents and lets you chose what types of documents you accept.
  • Has a dead-link checker and inform you of dead links in your system as well as generating email announcement to let you know.
  • Ares directly supported by Atlas.
  • Copyright
  • Click title and goes to Copyright Clearance Center. (it’s an anonymous lookup until you click on “special order from CCC.”)
  • Then you get: pages, ISSN, students it’s good for, prices, and terms. If you agree, click “submit” and you’re done.
  • Can also do an “alternative copyright provider” transaction to settle another way other than CCC.
  • Trying to give tools to libraries to handle copyright however they already handle copyright.
  • Can get “reserve history” to see how often an item is used by class, instructor, in general, etc. (to help you determine when something is past fair use).
  • Can cancel request and generate an email to instructor giving reason for cancellation.
  • Blackboard
  • Can add Ares to course tools.
  • Ares in Blackboard: The only time you go into Ares is if an instructor is trying to add an ereserve. Looks like Ares, but can be customized to look like Blackboard.
  • Students can view documents through Blackboard, and will come up in another tab (or however you’ve set it up).
  • Authentication through Blackboard for one login.

Lauren @ SOLINET: The Future of Library Education

Friday, September 7, 2007 11:56 am

Live blogging again. As you might imagine, I’m particularly interested in this as a recent MLIS grad…

The Future of Library Education
José-Marie Griffiths, Dean of SILS at UNC-Ch

  • Future is bright due to explosion in information availability and technology.
  • Discussed that online does not replace physical use of information, in fact, most use both physical and online (with the exception of college students).
  • More types of data: text, data sets, images, scans, and they need to be pulled together for most usefulness.
  • Librarian’s skills of organizing, synthesizing, indexing, etc, become very critical.
  • “We are going to have to change the way we’re doing things” as individuals, institutions, collaborators, in order to achieve what we need to be doing to stay current and relevant and best use our skills.
  • Recommends thinking about “possible futures” and what we can do that would be useful in the most different situations: all will need more info seeking skills, will be collaborating quickly and remotely, and “knowledge literacy” will be the new currency.
  • “Knowledge literacy” seemed to be the people who know the right information at the right time.
  • Roles of Knowledge Professional: knowledge of users we serve, knowledge of recorded knowledge domains.
  • From collection development to “knowledge prospector,” finding nuggets that contribute to collection domain on the web (validating collections of digital materials, relationship of digital materials to validated non-digital materials).
  • Classifiers, catalogers, indexers to metadata developers and “guidebook publishers” that provide tools that contain intellectual content, structural, procedural information.
  • Information retrieval to knowledge navigators, knowing about different finding tools, identify more useful, relevant materials quickly, and pioneering new knowledge frontiers.
  • Reference to information analysts/knowledge interpreters, helping users extract and interpret information, and close to users for context and analysis understanding.
  • She described residency rounds in a hospital where a librarian went with students, listening to conversation. Librarian left session, did searches on the topics of conversation, and brought back relevant materials. What would this look like in a classroom? This, to me, would be more intense and time consuming than the “traditional” embedded librarian role, but still an interesting prospect.
  • Working on a “Future of Library Workforce” study to determine the nature of the anticipated librarian shortage.
  • Talked about the UNC School of Information and Library Science.
  • UNC has a BS in LIS as well as the MLS and PhD. There’s a lot of overlap.
  • Several specializations through certificates and dual programs.
  • UNC investigating a significant growth plan.
  • When they build, they’ll also build in Second Life so that folks can see how it’ll look.

Update: Somehow some really weird spam got added to this post. I just deleted it and am emailing Kevin. (In the case that you saw it and were wondering why there were spam links in the post.)


Pages
About
Categories
ACRL
ALA
ALA Annual
ALA Midwinter
ALCTS
ALFMO
ANCHASL
ANSS
APALA
ARLIS
ASERL
ASIS&T
ATLA
Career Development for Women Leaders
Carolina Consortium
CASE Conference
Celebration: Entrepreneurial Conference
Charleston Conference
Coalition for Networked Information
code4lib
Conferences
CurateGear
DHSI
DigCCurr
Digital Forsyth
EDUCAUSE
edUI
Electronic Resources and Libraries
Elon Teaching and Learning Conference
Entrepreneurial Conference
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP)
Ex Libris Users of North America (ELUNA)
FDLP
First-Year Experience Conference
Handheld Librarian
ILLiad Conference
Immersion
Innovative Library Classroom Conference
IRB101
Journal reading group
LAUNC-CH
Leadership Institute for Academic Librarians
Library Assessment Conference
Lilly Conference
LITA
LITA National Forum
LLAMA
LOEX
Mentoring Committee
MERLOT
Metrolina
Music Library Association
NASIG
NC-LITe
NCCU Conference on Digital Libraries
NCICU
NCLA
NCPC
NCSLA
NISO
North Carolina Serials Conference
online course
Online Learning Summit
Open Repositories
Professional Development Center
RBMS
RTSS
RUSA
SACSCOC
Site Visits and Tours
Society of American Archivists
Society of North Carolina Archivists
SOLINET
Southeast Music Library Association
SPARC
STS
Sun Webinar Series
symposium
TALA Conference
UNC Teaching and Learning with Technology Conference
Uncategorized
University Libraries Group
Webinar
WebWise
WGSS
workshops
ZSR Library Leadership Retreat
Tags
Archives
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 WordPress.org, protected by Akismet. Blog with WordPress.com.