The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is aggressively funding efforts to support new forms of academic publishing, which researchers say could further legitimize digital scholarship.
The foundation in May sent university press directors a request for proposals to a new grant-making initiative for long-form digital publishing for the humanities. In the e-mail, the foundation noted the growing popularity of digital scholarship, which presented an “urgent and compelling” need for university presses to publish and make digital work available to readers.Note in particular:
The foundation’s proposed solution is for groups of university presses to ... tackle any of the moving parts that task is comprised of, including “...(g) distribution; and (h) maintenance and preservation of digital content.”Below the fold, some thoughts on this based on experience from the LOCKSS Program.
Since a Mellon-funded meeting more than a decade ago at the NYPL with humanities librarians, the LOCKSS team has been involved in discussions of, and attempts to, preserve the "long tail" of smaller journal publishers, especially in the humanities. Our observations:
- The cost of negotiating individually with publishers for permission to preserve their content, and the fact that they need to take action to express that permission, is a major problem. Creative Commons licenses and their standard electronic representation greatly reduce the cost of preservation. If for-pay access is essential for sustainability, some standard electronic representation of permission and standard way of allowing archives access is necessary.
- Push preservation models, in which the publisher sends content for preservation, are not viable in the long tail. Pull preservation, in which the archive(s) harvest content from the publisher, is essential.
- Further, the more the "new digital work flows and publication models" diverge from the e-book/PDF model, the less push models will work. They require the archive replicating the original publishing platform, easy enough if it is delivering static files, but not so easy once the content gets dynamic.
- The cost of pull preservation is dominated by the cost of the first publisher on a given platform. Subsequent publishers have much lower cost. Thus driving publishing to a few, widely-used platforms is very important.
- Once a platform has critical mass, archives can work with the platform to reduce the cost of preservation. We have worked with the Open Journal System (OJS) to (a) make it easy for publishers to give LOCKSS permission by checking a box, and (b) provide LOCKSS with a way of getting the content without all the highly variable (and thus impossibly expensive) customization. See, for example, work by the Public Knowledge Project.
- The problem with OJS has been selection - much of the content is too low quality to justify the effort of preserving it. Finding the good stuff is difficult for archives because the signal-to-noise ratio is low.
There are significant differences between the University Press market for long-form digital humanities and the long tail of humanities journals. The journals are mostly open-access and many are low-quality. The content that Mellon is addressing is mostly paid access and uniformly high-quality; the selection process has been done by the Presses. But these observations are still relevant, especially the cost implications of a lack of standards.
It is possible that no viable cost-sharing model can be found for archiving the long tail in general. In the University Press case, a less satisfactory alternative is a "preserve in place" strategy in which a condition of funding would be that the University commit to permanent access to the output of its press, with an identified succession plan. At least this would make the cost of preservation visible, and eliminate the assumption that it was someone else's problem.
John Miedema: Hierarchy has a bad rap but language is infused with it. We must find ways to tear down hierarchy almost as quickly as we build it up.
Hierarchy has a bad rap. Hierarchy is a one-sided relation, one thing set higher than another. In society, hierarchy is the stage for abuse of power. The rich on the poor, white on black, men on women, straight on gay. In language too, hierarchy is problematic. Static labels are laden with power and stereotypes, favoring some over others. Aggressive language, too, can overshadow small worthy ideas.
I read Lila the year it was published, 1991. I have a special fondness for this book because my girlfriend bought it for me; she is now my wife. Lila is not a romantic book, and I don’t mean in the classic-romantic sense of Pirsig’s first famous book. I re-read Lila this year. Philosophy aside, I cringe at Pirsig’s portrayal of his central female character, Lila. She is a stereotype, a dumb blonde, operating only on the level of biology and sexuality, the subject of men’s debates about quality. Pirsig is more philosopher than storyteller.
We cannot escape that many of the good things we love about language are essentially hierarchical. Narrative is linear: a beginning, middle, and end. Order shapes the story. Hierarchy gives a bird’s eye view, a table of contents, a summary that allows a reader to consider a work as a whole. For the reader’s evaluation of a book, or for choosing to only enter a work at a particular door, the table provides a map. Hierarchy is a tree, a trunk on which the reader can climb, and branches on which the reader can swing.
Granted, a hierarchy is just one view, an author’s take on how the work should be understood. There is merit in deconstructing the author’s take and analyzing the work in other ways. It is static hierarchy that is the problem.
Many writers are inspired to start a project with a vision of the whole, a view of how all the pieces hang together, as if only keystrokes were needed to fill in the details. The writer gets busy, happily tossing content into categories. Inevitably new material is acquired and new thinking takes place. Sooner or later a crisis occurs — the new ideas do not fit the original view. Either the writer does the necessary work to uproot the original categories and build a new better view, or the work will flounder. Again, it is static hierarchy that is the problem.
We must find ways to tear down hierarchy almost as quickly as we build it up. Pirsig’s metaphysics is all about the tension between static and dynamic quality. My writing technology, Lila, named after Pirsig’s book, uses word qualities to compute hierarchy. What word qualities measure hierarchy? I have several ideas. I propose that passages with abstract words are higher order than those with more concrete words. Closer to Pirsig’s view, passages that are dynamic — measured by agency, activity, and heat — are higher order than those that are static. Or does cool clear static logic trump heated emotion? There are several ways to measure it, and plenty of issues to work out. It will take more posts.
Join us for a two-day hackathon during DPLAfest 2015 (Indianapolis, April 17-18) to collaborate with members of the DPLA community and build something awesome with our API. A hackathon is a concentrated period of time for creative people to come together and make something new. In their excellent hackathon planning guide, DPLA community reps Chad Nelson and Nabil Kashyap described a hackathon as “an alternative space–outside of day-to-day assignments, project management procedures, and decision-making processes–to think differently about a problem, a tool, a dataset, or even an institution.”
The hackathon at DPLAfest 2015 will provide a space for people to build off the DPLA API, which provides access to almost 9 million (and counting!) CC0 licensed metadata records from America’s libraries, archives, and museums in a common metadata format. We support this open API so that the world can access our common cultural heritage, and use it to build something transformative. Our ever-growing app library has examples of innovative projects that have been built using the API. Many people have also contributed ideas for apps and tools – perhaps someone at the hackathon will take one on!
Coders of all levels – from beginning to advanced – are welcome at the hackathon. During the first hour on Friday, we will cover API basics, the capabilities of the DPLA API, available toolsets, and tips for using records from the API effectively. After that, there will be ample opportunity to teach and learn from one another as we build our apps. As always, you can find helpful documentation on our website, such as the API codex and the glossary of terms.
Non-programmers are also welcome. Whatever your expertise – design, metadata, business development – you can help generate ideas and create prototypes. The only requirements for participation are curiosity and a desire to collaborate.
The hackathon is Friday, April 17, 1:30pm-4:00pm, and Saturday, April 18, 10:30am-3:00pm (with a break for lunch). It culminates with a Developer Showcase on Saturday at 3:15pm. Visit the full schedule to find out more about what’s happening at DPLAfest 2015. Registration is still open!
Last updated: April 1, 2015
- What Information Do We Collect?
- How Is This Information Used?
- What Security Measures Are Used?
- User-Generated Content Forums
- Other Information
WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT?Information You Provide to UsWe will request information from you if you establish a personal profile to gain access to certain content or services, if you ask to be notified by e-mail about online content, or if you participate in surveys we conduct. This requires the input of personal information and preferences that may include, but is not limited to, details such as your name, address (postal and e-mail), telephone number, or demographic information. You can't use secure communications to give us this information, so you should consider anything you tell us to be public information. If you request paid content from NEJM.org, including subscriptions, we will also ask for payment information such as credit card type and number. Our payment providers won't actually let us see your credit card number, because there are federal regulations and such.
We may also use clear gifs which are tiny graphics with unique identifiers that function similarly to cookies to help us to track site activity. We do not use these to collect personally identifying information, because that's impossible. We also do not use clear gifs to shovel snow, even though we've had a whole mess of it. Oh and by the way, some of our partners have used "flash cookies", which you can't delete. And maybe even "canvas fingerprints". But they pay us money or give us services, so we don't want to interfere.
HOW IS THIS INFORMATION USED?
Information that you provide to us will be used to process, fulfill, and deliver your requests for content and services. We may send you information about our products and services, unless you have indicated you do not wish to receive further information.
We may report aggregate information about usage to third parties, including our service vendors and advertisers. These advertisers may include your competitors, so be careful. For additional information, please also see our Internet Advertising Policy. We may also disclose personal and demographic information about your use of NEJM.org and our digital applications to the countless companies and individuals we engage to perform functions on our behalf. Examples may include hosting our Web servers, analyzing data, and providing marketing assistance. These companies and individuals are obligated to maintain your personal information as confidential and may have access to your personal information only as necessary to perform their requested function on our behalf, which is usually to earn us more money, except as detailed in their respective privacy policies. So of course, these companies may sell the data collected in the course of your interaction with us.
WHAT SECURITY MEASURES ARE USED?
When you submit personal information via NEJM.org or our digital applications, your information is protected both online and offline with what we believe to be appropriate physical, electronic, and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect. For information submitted via NEJM.org, we use the latest Secure Socket Layer (SSL) technology to encrypt your credit card and personal information. But other information is totally up for grabs.
USER-GENERATED CONTENT FORUMS
Any data or personal information that you submit to us as user-generated content becomes public and may be used by MMS in connection with NEJM.org, our digital applications, and other MMS publications in any and all media. For more information, see our User-Generated Content Guidelines. We'll have the right to publish your name and location worldwide forever if you do so, and we can sue you if you try to use a pseudonym.
Do Not Track SignalsLike most web services, at this time we do not alter our behavior or change our services in response to do not track signals. In other words, our website tracks you, even if you use technical means to tell us you do not want us to track you.
Compliance with Legal ProcessWe may disclose personally identifying information if we are required to do so by law or we in good faith believe that such action is necessary to (1) comply with the law or legal process; (2) protect our rights and property; (3) protect against misuse or the unauthorized use of our Web site; or (4) protect the personal safety or property of our users or the public. So, for example, if you are involved in a divorce proceeding, we can help your spouse verify that you weren't staying late at your office reading up on the latest research like you said you were.
Children NEJM.org is not intended for children under 13 years of age. We do not knowingly collect or store any personal information from children under 13. If we did not have this disclaimer, our lawyer would not let us do things we want to do. If you are under 13, we're really impressed, you should spend more time outside getting fresh air.
This is the fifth post in a series of posts related to metadata edit events for the UNT Libraries’ Digital Collections from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. If you are interested in the previous posts in this series, they talked about the when, what, who, and first steps of duration.
In this post we are going to try and come up with the “average” amount of time spent on metadata edits in the dataset.
The first thing I wanted to do was to figure out which of the values mentioned in the previous post about duration buckets I could ignore as noise in the dataset.
As a reminder the duration data for metadata edit events is started when a user opens a metadata record in the edit system, and finished when they submit the record back to the system as a publish event. The duration is the difference in seconds of those two time timestamps.
There are a number of factors that can cause the duration data to vary wildly, a user can have a number of tabs open at the same time while only working on one of them. They may open a record and then walk off without editing that record. They could also be using a browser automation tool like Selenium that automates the metadata edits and therefore pushes the edit time down considerably.
In doing some tests of my own editing skills it isn’t unreasonable to have edits that are four or five seconds in duration if you are going in to change a known value from a simple dropdown. For example adding a language code to a photograph that you know should be “no-language” doesn’t take much time at all.
My gut feeling based on the data in the previous post was to say that edits that have a duration of over one hour should be considered outliers. This would remove 844 events from the total 94,222 edit events leaving me 93,378 (99%) of the events. This seemed like a logical first step but I was curious if there were other ways of approaching this.
I had a chat with the UNT Libraries’ Director of Research & Assessment Jesse Hamner and he suggested a few methods for me to look at.
IQR for calculating outliers
I took a stab at using the Interquartile Range of the dataset as the basis for identifying the outliers. With a little bit of R I was able to find the following information about the duration dataset.Min. : 2.0 1st Qu.: 29.0 Median : 97.0 Mean : 363.8 3rd Qu.: 300.0 Max. :431644.0
With that I have Q1 of 29 and a Q3 of 300, this gives me an IQR of 271.
So the range for outliers is Q1–1.5 × IQR for the low end and Q3+1.5 × IQR on the high end.
With the numbers that says that values under -377.5 or over 706.5 should be considered outliers.
Note: I’m pretty sure there are some different ways of dealing IQR and datasets that end at Zero so that’s something to investigate.
For me the key here is that I’ve come up with 706.5 seconds being the ceiling for a valid event duration based on this method. Thats 11 minutes and 47 seconds. If I limit the dataset to edit events that are under 707 seconds I am left with 83,239 records. That is now just 88% of the dataset with 12% being considered an outlier. I thought this seemed to be too many records to ignore so after talking with my resident expert in the library I had a new method.Two Standard Deviations
I took a look at what the timings would look look like if i based my outliers on the standard deviations. Edit events that are under 1,300 seconds (21 min 40 sec) in duration amount to 89,547 which is 95% of the values in the dataset. I also wanted to see what 2.5% of the dataset would look like. Edit durations under 2,100 seconds (35 minutes) result in 91,916 usable edit events for calculations which is right at 97.6%.Comparing the methods
The following table takes the four duration ceilings that I tried. (IQR, 95 and 97.5, and gut feeling one hour) and makes them a bit more readable. The total number of duration events in the dataset before limiting is 94,222.Duration Ceiling Events Remaining Events Removed % remaining 707 83,239 10,983 88% 1,300 89,547 4,675 95% 2,100 91,916 2,306 97.6% 3,600 93,378 844 99%
Just for kicks I calculated the average time spent on editing records across the datasets that remained for the various cutoffs to get an idea how the ceilings changed things.Duration Ceiling Events Included Events Ignored Mean Stddev Sum Average Edit Duration Total Edit Hours 707 83,239 10,983 140.03 160.31 11,656,340 2:20 3,238 1,300 89,547 4,675 196.47 260.44 17,593,387 3:16 4,887 2,100 91,916 2,306 233.54 345.48 21,466,240 3:54 5,963 3,600 93,378 844 272.44 464.25 25,440,348 4:32 7,067 431,644 94,222 0 363.76 2311.13 34,274,434 6.04 9,521
In the table above you can see how the different duration ceilings do to the data analyzed. I calculated the mean of the various datasets, and their standard deviations (really Solr statsComponent did that). I converted those Means into minutes and seconds in the “Average Edit Duration” column and the final column is the number of person hours that were spent editing metadata in 2014 based on the various datasets.
In going forward I will be using 2,100 seconds as my duration ceiling and ignoring the edit events that took longer than that period of time. I’m going to do a little work in figuring out the costs associated with metadata creation in our collections for the last year. So check back for the next post in this series.
As always feel free to contact me via Twitter if you have questions or comments.
Visit the LITA Job Site for more available jobs and for information on submitting a job posting.
CrossRef International Workshop, April 29, Shanghai, China - Ed Pentz and Pippa Smart presenting.
CSE 2015 Annual Meeting, May 15-18, Philadelphia, PA - Rachael Lammey and Chuck Koscher presenting.
MLA '15 "Librarians Without Limits", May 15-20, Austin, TX. Exhibiting at booth number 234.
2015 SSP 37th Annual Meeting, May 27-29, Arlington, VA. Exhibiting at table 6.
CrossRef International Workshop, June 11, Vilnius, Lithuania - Ed Pentz and Pippa Smart presenting.
PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference 2015, August 11-14, Vancouver, BC - Karl Ward attending.
ISMTE 8th Annual North American Conference, August 20-21, Baltimore, MD - Rachael Lammey presenting.
ALPSP Conference, 9-11 September, London, UK - CrossRef staff attending.
I write in bits and pieces. I expect most writers do. I think of things at the oddest moments. I surf the web and find a document that fits into a writing project. I have an email dialog and know it belongs with my essay. It is almost never a good time to write so I file everything. Evernote is an excellent tool for aggregating all of the bits in notebooks. I have every intention of getting back to them. Unfortunately, once the content is filed, it usually stays buried and forgotten.
I need a way to keep my content alive. The solution is a daily email, a link to a random Evernote note. I can read the note to keep it fresh in memory. I can edit the note, even just one change to keep it growing.
I looked around for a service but could not find one. I did find an IFTTT recipe for emailing a daily link to a random Wikipedia page. IFTTT sends the daily link to a Wikipedia page that automatically generates a random entry. In the end, I had to build an Evernote page to do a similar thing.
You can set up Evernote Random too, but you need a few things.
- An Evernote account, obviously.
- A web host that supports PHP.
- A bit of technical skill. I have already written the Evernote script that generates the random link. But you have to walk through some technical Evernote setup steps, like generating keys and testing your script in their sandbox.
- The Evernote Random script. It has all the instructions.
- An IFTTT recipe. That’s the easy part.
Take the script. Improve it. Share it. Sell it. Whatever you like. I would enjoy hearing about it.
What was the most viewed image on NYPL's Digital Collections platform in March 2015?
It was a door.
Specifically, a door on the north side of 52nd Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. (Pictured at right; you can see what it looks like today at the bottom of this post.)
Why was that image the most viewed? Here's the story: The image comes from "The Roy Colmer New York City doors photograph collection," which includes 3,122 images related to a set of "photographic prints used in Colmer's conceptual art piece, Doors, NYC (1976)" (from the collection description).
A blog post from early 2014 commemorating Colmer and his work describes the project a bit more fully:
From November 1975 to September 1976, Colmer photographed more than 3,000 doors, inclusive and in sequence, on 120 intersections and streets of Manhattan from Wall Street to Fort Washington. The project, although documentary in nature, was essentially conceptual to Colmer, for whom Doors, NYC was as much an exploration of the serial possibilities of photography as of its ability to capture a place.
Meanwhile, for quite some time David Lowe, a specialist in our photography division, has been working with the division's metadata to create what he calls the Photo Geographies. Colmer's door project was among the first mapping projects of Lowe's geodata work (see map embedded below).
This project in turn attracted the attention of NPR's History Dept. (among others). And it was this NPR post that drove the most traffic to our Digital Collections site, and the photo above in particular.
That's the story for this month! Check back in a few weeks for more stories from our Digital Collections.
The view of 52nd st. today:
In light of the upcoming adoption of HTTP/2, the Evergreen web team decided to survey the space of online information-sharing protocols.
Since a span of 26 years has evidently not proven sufficient to shake all the bugs out of HTTP, we’ve decided to hedge our bets and extend our Internet presence to include support for a protocol that’s been patiently waiting in the wings… just in case.
We are therefore pleased to announce the availability of
We are proud to join the ever-expanding Gophersphere, and hope members of the Evergreen community find this to be a useful, if light-hearted, historical resource.
The IMLS, the US Institute for Museum and Library Services, has announced that it will be funding a $2M proposal to build a turnkey and cloud-ready Hydra solution over the next 2.5 years. DPLA, Stanford & DuraSpace submitted the joint proposal; alignment with the Hydra community, and distributed input on the design, specification and development is structurally built into the grant.
The text of the announcement reads:
“The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), Stanford University, and DuraSpace will foster a greatly expanded network of open-access, content-hosting “hubs” that will enable discovery and interoperability, as well as the reuse of digital resources by people from this country and around the world. At the core of this transformative network are advanced digital repositories that not only empower local institutions with new asset management capabilities, but also connect their data and collections. Currently, DPLA’s hubs, libraries, archives, and museums more broadly use aging, legacy software that was never intended or designed for use in an interconnected way, or for contemporary web needs. The three partners will engage in a major development of the community-driven open source Hydra project to provide these hubs with a new all-in-one solution, which will also allow countless other institutions to easily join the national digital platform.”
This work provides a wonderful chance to accelerate the convergence of the Hydra community on robust, broadly useful, and common codebase. It also looks likely to rapidly expand the Hydra user base not only in the US but worldwide. Our congratulations to all concerned!
I recommend Bruce Schneier’s new book Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World to everyone.
Schneier, as you probably know, is a security expert. A real one, a good one, and a thoughtful one. He wrote the book on implementing cryptography in software, he design the playing card encryption method used in Neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon, he was helped reporters understand the Snowden documents.
This is his post-Snowden book, on everything that’s known about how we’re being monitored every second of our lives, by whom, why this is a very serious problem, and what we can do about it. His three section headings set it out clearly: The World We’re Creating, What’s at Stake, and What to Do About It. In each section he explains things clearly and understandably without requiring any major technical knowledge. Often there isn’t time to get into technical details, anyway: we are monitored so minutely online, and what the NSA and other spy agencies do is so staggeringly intrusive, that the briefest description of one technique or system is all that’s needed to get the point across before moving on to another.
Data and Goliath is the book I’ve been waiting for, the one that lays it all out and brings all of the recent discoveries and revelations together. It has much that is new, such as discussions of why privacy is necessary so that people have the freedom to break some laws that ultimately lead to societal change (homosexuality is one of his examples), and good arguments against the “but I have nothing to hide, I don’t care” idiocy of people who ignorantly give up all their privacy. (Glenn Greenwald’s No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the U.S. Surveillance State has more good arguments, such as: you may not care, but millions of people around the world trying to make things better do, and they’re in danger of being arrested and beaten just for speaking their mind).
He ends with what we can do, from the small scale (paying cash, browser privacy extensions, leaving cell phones at home) to the large (major political action). Here’s the final paragraph of the penultimate chapter:
There is strength in numbers, and if the public outcry grows, governments and corporations will be forced to respond. We are trying to prevent an authoritarian government like the one portrayed in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and a corporate-ruled state like the ones portrayed in countless dystopian cyberpunk science fiction novels. We are nowhere near either of those endpoints, but the train is moving in both those directions, and we need to apply the brakes.
Schneier’s page about the book has lots of links to excerpts and reviews. Have a look, then get the book. You should read it.
Here in Canada, just this week we learn that the Communications Security Establishment continues to spy on people worldwide and see the Conservatives push Bill C-51. Schneier’s book helps here as everywhere else: what is happening, why it matters, and what to do.
The MarcEdit 101 Webinar Series were created over the course of multiple months for the CARLI (http://www.carli.illinois.edu/) consortium in Spring 2015. In late March 2015, CARLI reached out to me and requested that these webinars be made available to the larger MarcEdit community, so if you find these webinars useful, please reach out and thank the folks at CARLI.
Couple of notes, these webinars are being made available as is, save for the following modifications:
- Attendee names have been anonymized. While I’m certain most attendees would have no problem with their names showing up in these webinar lists, the original intended audience was locally scoped to CARLI and it’s members. Masking attendees was done primarily because of this change of scope.
- The Q/A at the end of the sessions has generally been removed from the webinars. Again, these are localized webinars and questions asked during the webinars tend to be within the scope of this consortia.
I’ll be making these video available over the next couple of months. Again, if you find these webinars useful, please make sure you let the folks at CARLI know.
Series URL: http://marcedit.reeset.net/marcedit-101-workshop
We’ve seen big announcements recently about unlimited cloud storage offerings for a flat monthly or fee. Dropbox offers it for subscribers to its Business plan. Similarly, Google has unlimited storage for Google Apps for Business customers. In both cases, though, you have to be part of a business group of some sort. Then Microsoft unlimited storage for any subscriber of all Office 365 customers (Home, School, and soon Business) as bundled offering of OneDrive with the Office suite of products. Now comes word today from Amazon of unlimited storage to consumers…no need to be part of a business grouping or have bundled software come with it.
Today a colleague asked why all of this cloud storage couldn’t be used as file storage for the Islandora hosting service that is offered by LYRASIS. On the surface, it would seem to be a perfect backup strategy — particularly if you subscribed to multiple of these services and ran audits between them to make sure that they were truly in sync. Alas, the terms of service prevent you from doing something like that. Here is an excerpt from Amazon:
It did get me wondering, though. Decades ago the technology community created RAID storage: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. The concept is that if you copy your data across many different disks, you can survive the failure of one of those disks and rebuild the information from the remaining drives. We also have virtual storage systems like iRODS and distributed file systems like Google File System and Apache Hadoop Distributed File System. I wonder what it would take to layer these concepts together to have a cloud-independent, cloud-redundant storage array for personal backups. Sort of like a poor-man’s RAID over Dropbox/Amazon/Microsoft/Google. Something that would take care of the file verifications, the rebuilding from redundant copies, and the caching of content between services. Even if we couldn’t use it for our library services, it would be a darn good way to ensure the survivability of our cloud-stored files against the failure of a storage provider’s business model.Link to this post!
The Evergreen community is pleased to announce the release of version 2.8.0 of the Evergreen open source integrated library system. Please visit the download page to get it!
New features and enhancements of note in Evergreen 2.8.0 include:
- Acquisitions improvements to help prevent the creation of duplicate orders and duplicate purchase order names.
- In the select list and PO view interfaces, beside the line item ID, the number of catalog copies already owned is now displayed.
- A new Apache access handler that allows resources on an Evergreen webs server, or which are proxied via an Evergreen web server, to be authenticated using user’s Evergreen credentials.
- Copy locations can now be marked as deleted. This allows information about disused copy locations to be retained for reporting purposes without cluttering up location selection drop-downs.
- Support for matching authority records during MARC import. Matches can be made against MARC tag/subfield entries and against a record’s normalized heading and thesaurus.
- Patron message center: a new mechanism via which messages can be sent to patrons for them to read while logged into the public catalog.
- A new option to stop billing activity on zero-balance billed transaction, which will help reduce the incidence of patron accounts with negative balances.
- New options to void lost item and long overdue billings if a loan is marked as claims returned.
- The staff interface for placing holds now offers the ability to place additional holds on the same title.
- The active date of a copy record is now displayed more clearly.
- A number of enhancements have been made to the public catalog to better support discoverability by web search engines.
- There is now a direct link to “My Lists” from the “My Account” area in the top upper-right part of the public catalog.
- There is a new option for TPAC to show more details by default.
For more information about what’s in the release, check out the release notes.
As release manager, I would like to thank the many people and institutions who contributed to this release in various ways, including testing, writing documentation, writing code, helping project teams and committees to run smoothly, and providing financial support.
At the LITA Blog, we know you look to us as a source for what’s going on in technology and librarianship. When we discovered Desk Set, a recent documentary that takes the viewer through the process of one library’s struggle to integrate a new technology, we knew you would want to know our responses. Never fear: the LITA bloggers are here with the kind of hard-hitting commentary you’ve come to expect from us.Not a Bunny Watson Lauren H.
Office romance, machines, corporate mergers, and job security, what tiresome topics for a documentary. Desk Set should represent the good work librarians do every day, but instead the writers and directors choose to represent a view of librarianship that no longer exists in the modern world. Librarians are smart, intelligent workers who deserve respect and for a documentary to show them conducting intellectual work.
Furthermore, why are the librarians only women? Men should have equal representation. Those working on the film might have thought they were helping raise the view of women by having a single working women run the library, but instead they succumbed to stereotypes. There is certainly a troubling lack of interaction in this workplace.Shame on the Federal Broadcasting Network Lindsay C.
In addition to the many other troubling questions raised in this odd documentary, Desk Set, as a librarian, I find the work site conditions and management particularly unsettling. What sort of workplace implements technology like the EMERAC without an advance audit and training? I can only suggest that FBN stakeholders be engaged in the process of reassessing such reckless deployments and untested software patches. Perhaps a staff member could be sent to an assessment training session- I would suggest the obviously under appreciated Peg Costello, so that an appropriate implementation plan could be developed.
The erroneous pink slip incident is particularly telling. Had library and other staff been properly trained in the automation process, panic and morale issues could have been completely avoided.
Beyond these gentle suggestions though, I must insist that Richard Sumner review his own product design, as a self-destruct button seems like a dangerous liability for any computer.Mike Cutler, a Harassment Suit in Waiting John K.
If the problems in the office were only limited to EMERAC. The man, and of course it’s a man, who oversees the reference department at FBN has Bunny Watson wrapped around his finger. Mike Cutler is reprehensible as a boss. He rarely shows himself in the reference department and when he does it’s only to press advances on Ms. Watson or give her his work to finish. Ms. Watson is very clear that she does not want Mr. Cutler touching her in the office and yet he pays no heed to her wishes, only serving to fulfill his base desires.
Not only does Mr. Cutler harass Ms. Watson at work, but the documentary shows that he’s stalking her. Mr. Cutler shows up at Ms. Watson’s house, unannounced, barges through the front door, and makes advances on her, even going so far as to demand food and drink. Thank goodness Mr. Sumner was there—for an evening of intellectual discussion it seems—to keep things from getting out of hand. As if Ms. Watson didn’t have enough to worry about!
If he hadn’t gotten transferred to FBN’s West Coast offices, I would have expected Ms. Watson to file a harassment suit against her boss. Only in today’s office environment’s could a cad like Mr. Cutler get a promotion after the unprofessional way in which he acted.
Are you looking for an adorable, classic, and entirely charming (and entirely fictional) film with librarians and super computers? Desk Set is the perfect option for you this April Fool’s Day. We hope you’ll post your own responses below, and know that you can always count on us to know when to take a topic seriously.
Categories? Very eighteenth century. Tags? So Web 2.0. Pretty cryptic stuff. What will Lila do differently? Let’s take another step.
Tags are messier than categories; I called tags evil. But tags are easier to manage than the next level down, the words themselves. Tags are messy when left to humans, but tags can be managed with automation. Many services auto-suggest tags, controlling the vocabulary. Lila will generate its own tags, refreshing them on demand. Tags can be managed.
Words are the true pit of chaos. People conform to the rules of language when they write, or they don’t. People make up words on the fly. Down the rabbit hole. But is it so bad? It happens time and again that we think an information problem is too complex to be automated, only to analyze it and discover that we can do a good chunk of what we hoped following a relatively simple set of rules. One mature technology is keyword search. Keyword search is so effective we take it for granted. Words can be managed with the right technologies.
Another mature technology is Natural Language Processing (NLP). Its history dates back to the 1950’s. The field is enjoying a resurgence of interest in the context of cognitive computing. Consider that a person can learn basic capability in a second language with only a couple thousand words and some syntax for combining them. Words and syntax. Data and rules. Build dictionaries with words and their variant forms. Assign parts-of-speech. Use pattern recognition to pick out words occurring together. Run through many examples to develop context sensitivity. Shakespeare it is not, but human meaning can be extracted from unstructured text in this way for many useful purposes.
Lila’s purpose is to make connections between passages of text (“slips”) and to suggest hierarchical views, e.g., a table of contents. I’ve talked a lot about how Lila can compute connections. Keywords and NLP can be used effectively to find common subjects across passages. Hierarchy is something different. How can the words in a passage say something about how it should be ordered relative to other external passages? We can go no deeper than the words. It’s all we have to work with. To compute hierarchy, Lila needs something different, something special. Stay tuned.
The DPLAFest schedule is packed with interesting sessions–everything from ebooks, to project management, to digitization, and education, has a space in the lineup. A set of those programs is related to the DPLA Hubs and the work that they do. In addition to showcasing the incredible work being done by institutions that are part of the DPLA Hub network, it’s a great way for attendees from aspiring Hubs to find out more about the application process. Here are some Hub Highlights from this year’s fest:
Best Practices for Establishing a DPLA Service Hub in Your State/Region: Gear up for the 2015 Content Hub or Service Hub open calls by learning more about what it takes to be a DPLA network Hub. Session speakers include DPLA’s Director for Content Emily Gore, Assistant Director for Content Amy Rudersdorf, and Data Services Coordinator Gretchen Gueguen.
Best Practices for Digitization Training: Want to know more about designing a digitization training program curriculum? Join this session led by two members of the DPLA Hub Network and participants in the Public Library Partnerships Project.
Newspapers and the DPLA: Extra, extra! Learn all about it in this session exploring the potential to integrate newspaper content into the DPLA. Speakers include Head of the Digital Scholarship Center, University of Oregon Libraries, Karen Estlund, and DPLA’s Emily Gore. We’d love to hear your ideas and expertise as we explore this new opportunity.
DPLA Hubs Showcase: The Hubs Showcase will combine a lot of learning with a little bit of fun as we give nine speakers five minutes each to talk about the innovative and unique work they’re doing at their institutions across the US. Topics will range from geospatial metadata best practices in the Mountain West to Fedora/Blacklight systems aggregating South Carolina content, image sharing via the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF), access to digitized newspapers in North Carolina, and much more. Set your timer for an information-packed hour.
The post Speak at Revolution 2015: Call for Papers open through May 8 appeared first on Lucidworks.