Fellow LITA Members:
By now you are aware of the violence that occurred overnight in Dallas, Texas. Five police officers were killed and nine officers and civilians were wounded when a gunman opened fire during a peaceful protest about the recent deaths of black men at the hands of police in other cities. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have had loved ones killed or injured, as well as to the residents of Dallas who will be facing a great deal of uncertainty in the coming days.
As you may know, LITA will hold its annual LITA Forum in Dallas’ sister city, Fort Worth, this November. LITA staff and leadership will monitor events in the Metroplex over the coming weeks and will stay in communication with our contacts at the Forum venue. We will pass along any LITA-related news or opportunities to support the community as they become available.
In the meantime, I would ask that you reach out to friends, family members, and colleagues who may be distressed by last night’s events. As we learned from the recent shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, you don’t have to be physically near to this kind of violence to be deeply affected by it. Often the most powerful thing we can do is to reach out with compassion to those who are hurting.
Be well. – Aimee
Aimee Fifarek, LITA President
If you’d told me upon joining the staff of ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) two-plus years ago that I’d be invited to spend a workday mulling over the proper way to credit creators of 3D printed objects, I would have told you to take your time machine back to Tomorrowland for repairs…It must be on the blink, because it transported you to a universe separate from our own…And if you’d informed me I’d spend that day with a gaggle of intellectual property lawyers and digital designers, I would have told you to scrap your time machine altogether. Luckily, I’ve had the privilege of immersing myself in the 3D space as a member of the OITP team, so when I found myself in this exact situation last week, I was confident I hadn’t lost my cosmic bearings.
While I wasn’t bewildered, I certainly was honored. The day consisted of a series of legal, design and technology discussions on the NASA Ames Campus in Mountain View, California. The discussions were sponsored by Creative Commons (CC) – the non-profit that offers standard open licenses for the use and remixing of copyrighted content. They brought together representatives from some very recognizable players in the 3D printing realm: MakerBot, Shapeways, Aleph Objects and the National Institutes of Health 3D Print Exchange, to name a handful.
In addition to feeling honored, I was just a bit tired. I arrived at the discussions straight from the ALA Annual Conference in Orlando. After tramping about the Orange County Convention Center and its expansive environs for six days, swinging out to The Golden State had me craving a jet-fuel-grade cup of coffee. But I digress.
The principal question at hand over the course of the day: How to create a standard method of author attribution for CC-licensed 3D designs once they’ve been built by a printer. Attributing the CC-licensed design in digital form is relatively straightforward. As Creative Commons staffer Jane Park mentions in a recent blog post, major digital design-sharing platforms allow for design files to be marked with Creative Commons licenses that include source metadata. But once a printer converts a CC-licensed design into physical form, the design’s Creative Commons and source information are lost.
Although it’s technically an open question whether or not clear attribution must be present on physical representations of CC-licensed designs, all but one Creative Commons license – CC0 – includes an attribution requirement. So, Creative Commons and all those supportive of the pro-information-access value on which they were founded, have a vested interest in finding a standard attribution mechanism for 3D printed objects. A standard attribution mechanism of this kind would also help 3D designers track when and how their designs are being used after the print button is pushed.
I wish I could say we found one, but we didn’t get that far. Last week’s discussions were only the beginning of what will surely be a robust and deliberative discourse. Several possible solutions were propounded – e.g., the use of RFID tags or barcodes (à la Thingiverse’s “print tag things”) – but none were explored from all angles. Nonetheless, one thing that gained significant traction was the idea that all of the attribution information that is gained about 3D printed objects moving forward should be indexed in a registry of some kind.
So, mile one of the marathon is in the books. ALA appreciates the opportunity to participate in the attribution discussion for 3D printed objects from the starting line. We – and I personally – would like to thank Creative Commons and Michael Weinberg of Shapeways for organizing and hosting the event. You can read Michael’s thorough overview on the challenge of attribution in 3D printing here. Do you have ideas on how to solve the challenge? Share them in the comments section.
The post California talks address challenge of attribution in 3D printing appeared first on District Dispatch.
Back in December I read an article about Seattle Public Library’s WiFi HotSpot lending program. At the time of the article they had 325 devices available for checkout and a waiting list of more than 1,000 patrons. The program was started via a grant with Google but at the end of the year SPL needed to find a permanent solution for paying for the program, which they did. Their goal is 775 units in all. You can see in the graphic above SPL has 566 HotSpots (as of July 7, 2016) with 1,211 holds.
It’s an ambitious program but given the size of the population they serve it may be too small. The New York Public Library has 10,000 devices in its HotSpot program, but again that’s probably not enough. In fact, according to their website all the devices are out (they’re doing a program where patrons get the HotSpot for up to a full year). Of course, comparing Seattle to New York City isn’t exactly apples to apples, but the goal is the same: providing home internet access to people who currently don’t have it.
Both SPL and NYPL started their programs with grants. They also have large taxing bodies in order to support such large programs. I opted to dedicate a portion of my budget to start a pilot program with five devices running unlimited data on both 5G and 2.4G networks. With practically no marketing—we put up signs in the library and included it in our newsletter—the HotSpots were all checked out on the first day they were available. Patrons check them out for one week at a time and can renew the HotSpot up to three times as long as there are no holds.
We have 37 holds on those five devices.
Clearly we need to expand the program. Almost immediately after launching our five HotSpots I got an email from TechSoup—they’re a non-profit who provides technology for other non-profits including libraries—detailing an offer for HotSpots through a company called Mobile Beacon. I requested maximum number of devices, ten, through TechSoup. We are cataloging and processing the HotSpots so we can get them into our patrons’ hands as quickly as possible.
Just like Seattle and New York, we want to provide mobile internet access to patrons. Our program is smaller in size and ambition but no less important to the people we serve. Our school district provides iPads to all students K-12. That works great when the students are in school or at the library, but many of them do not have internet access at home. Now they can check out a HotSpot and have that access at home.
We have patrons who take HotSpots up north camping. Coverage was about what you’d expect as you get more remote so we tell patrons to check the coverage map before they check out a HotSpot. Other patrons used the HotSpot on long road trips (we assumed the driver did not also use the HotSpot).
Will 15 HotSpots be enough for our patrons? Time will tell; we can always add more. I’d rather have fewer devices that I can turn over regularly than a lot of devices sitting unused.
Have you started a HotSpot program at your library?
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is premised on the notion that sharing success stories can encourage further experimentation and reform. This is certainly true with parliaments, where the Legislative Openness Working Group (LOWG) has repeatedly witnessed the value of sharing information and experience.
To ensure that good practice is effectively captured and shared, the Working Group has collected comparative, global information on legislative openness practices. That information, which was gathered through an open survey process, is now publicly available.
Interested in comparative information on legislative openness? Curious about global good practice? Analyse the collected information, download the raw data, or contribute to this growing database at: beta.openparldata.org.
Capturing and compiling good practice can help advance reform efforts. By offering inspiration and guidance, these success stories can encourage reformers to follow in the footsteps of their colleagues. Comparing performance around the world or within a specific region can also be a useful incentive to catalyze reform efforts and empower open parliament champions.
For the Open Knowledge network, this website can serve as a jumping off point for further research into legislative data availability or advocacy around access to legislative information. Inspired in part by the Open Data Index, this crowdsourced effort represents an attempt to assess availability of legislative information. Parliaments, as the representative organ of government, stand to benefit immensely from more fully embracing open data and play an enormous role in creating a broader culture of openness across government. Hopefully, this website can inspire and inform further work in this area by members of the community.
Please note that the site is currently in beta, and the administrators expect additional changes to improve functionality and further clean the collected data. If there are specific features you would like to see added, or existing features you would like to see changed, please reach out to: email@example.com. This is very much a work in progress, and your contributions and suggestions are hugely appreciated.
What does the site provide?
The Legislative Openness Data Explorer provides global, comparative information on legislative openness practices. The current dataset focuses on legislative transparency, specifically what types of information are available and how the public can access that information. The core feature of the site is a customizable data table and map that presents the collected information. Using a red, yellow, green color scheme, the Explorer offers users a general summary of performance on a particular issue. For more detailed information, users can click the colored icon to see additional, detailed information.
For those interested in specific countries or regions, there is the option to generate a unique map. These visualizations make it easy to compare performance between different chambers of parliament on specific issues, either regionally or globally.
Thirty one chambers of parliament are currently covered on the site, though the administrators anticipate that many additional countries will be added in the coming months. If you are interested in adding data for a new chamber of parliament or country, please see this page. During Global Legislative Openness Week 2016 (GLOW), the Working Group will lead a campaign to collect information on all OGP member countries.
The website also includes a collection of good practice examples, drawing on the OpenGov Guide and related resources. This is of course an incomplete list, and users are able to submit additional examples here. This section is intended to help inspire and guide reform efforts. If you are interested in committee transparency, for instance, this tool will provide you with a growing collection of examples in that area.
This website can be used in a number of ways. For parliaments, the data will allow them to easily gather examples of good practice, be it publishing draft legislation in open formats or streaming video of committee meetings online. These good practices can provide reform minded parliamentarians or staff with new ideas and and guidance. For civil society, the collected data will enable simple comparisons between parliaments, which could be used to inform advocacy efforts and incentivize openness reform. Ultimately, the Working Group developed this resource to help support the creation of strong legislative openness commitments in OGP member countries.
How can I contribute?
It is important to note that this site is a work in progress. The site administrators anticipate making continual tweaks and improvements to the site and would welcome thoughts, comments, or questions. Additionally, users are able to submit new information on countries not yet covered, suggest edits to the existing data, or contribute a good practice example. For more information on how you can contribute, see this page. This resource was created by the global legislative openness community, and its usefulness will rely on the community’s continued engagement and support. For more information on the Legislative Openness Data Explorer, please see this page.
The Working Group would like to thank KohoVolit, a Czech and Slovak parliamentary monitoring organization, for their efforts and support. KohoVolit was responsible for building and supporting the design of the site.
D-Lib: Deploying Islandora as a Digital Repository Platform: a Multifaceted Experience at the University of Denver Libraries
D-Lib: The Pathways of Research Software Preservation: An Educational and Planning Resource for Service Development
D-Lib: In Brief: Supporting the uptake of Research Data Management (RDM): Introducing the LEARN Project
Consider and register for this new LITA web course:
- Jessica Olin, Director of the Library, Robert H. Parker Library, Wesley College; and
- Holly Mabry, Digital Services Librarian, Gardner-Webb University
Starting August 1, 2016
A Moodle based web course with asynchronous weekly content lessons, tutorials, assignments, and group discussions.
Universal Design is the idea of designing products, places, and experiences to make them accessible to as broad a spectrum of people as possible, without requiring special modifications or adaptations. This course will present an overview of universal design as a historical movement, as a philosophy, and as an applicable set of tools. Students will learn about the diversity of experiences and capabilities that people have, including disabilities (e.g. physical, learning, cognitive, resulting from age and/or accident), cultural backgrounds, and other abilities. The class will also give students the opportunity to redesign specific products or environments to make them more universally accessible and usable.
By the end of this class, students will be able to…
- Articulate the ethical, philosophical, and practical aspects of Universal Design as a method and movement – both in general and as it relates to their specific work and life circumstances
- Demonstrate the specific pedagogical, ethical, and customer service benefits of using Universal Design principles to develop and recreate library spaces and services in order to make them more broadly accessible
- Integrate the ideals and practicalities of Universal Design into library spaces and services via a continuous critique and evaluation cycle
Is the Director of the Library, Robert H. Parker Library, Wesley College. Ms. Olin received her MLIS from Simmons College in 2003 and an MAEd, with a concentration in Adult Education, from Touro University International. Her first position in higher education was at Landmark College, a college that is specifically geared to meeting the unique needs of people with learning differences. While at Landmark, Ms. Olin learned about the ethical, theoretical, and practical aspects of universal design. She has since taught an undergraduate course for both the education and the entrepreneurship departments at Hiram College on the subject.
Holly Mabry received her MLIS from UNC-Greensboro in 2009. She is currently the Digital Services Librarian at Gardner-Webb University where she manages the university’s institutional repository, and teaches the library’s for-credit online research skills course. She also works for an international virtual reference service called Chatstaff. Since finishing her MLIS, she has done several presentations at local and national library conferences on implementing universal design in libraries with a focus on accessibility for patrons with disabilities.
August 1 – September 9, 2016
- LITA Member: $135
- ALA Member: $195
- Non-member: $260
Moodle login info will be sent to registrants the week prior to the start date. The Moodle-developed course site will include weekly new content lessons and is composed of self-paced modules with facilitated interaction led by the instructor. Students regularly use the forum and chat room functions to facilitate their class participation. The course web site will be open for 1 week prior to the start date for students to have access to Moodle instructions and set their browser correctly. The course site will remain open for 90 days after the end date for students to refer back to course material.
Register Online, page arranged by session date (login required)
Mail or fax form to ALA Registration
call 1-800-545-2433 and press 5
Questions or Comments?
For all other questions or comments related to the course, contact LITA at (312) 280-4268 or Mark Beatty, firstname.lastname@example.org
Guest Blogger Rebeccah Baker served as the Student-to-Staff Program participant for the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) at the 2016 ALA Annual Conference. Rebeccah completed her M.L.S. at the University of Maryland’s College of Information Studies in May 2016.
“Half of American families that earn less than $25,000 annually are not connected to the internet,” said Larra Clark, deputy director of the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP), who moderated the session “Addressing Digital Disconnect for Low-Income Americans” at the 2016 ALA Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida. This OITP session focused on the collaborative efforts among libraries, government agencies, and nonprofits to connect disadvantaged Americans to the digital world. From the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development’s (HUD) ConnectHome effort and nonprofit EveryoneOn initiative, to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Lifeline Program, ALA and libraries are actively playing leadership roles in connecting low-income Americans online.
Veronica Creech, chief programs officer of the Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit EveryoneOn introduced the organization and its partnership with the White House initiative to close the digital divide and support both the ConnectHome and ConnectEd initiatives. EveryoneOn partners with local internet service providers to offer free or $9.95 home internet service in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The organization also works with device refurbishers to facilitate the purchase of discounted computers, and collaborates with libraries to advertise free digital literacy training. EveryoneOn has helped over 200,000 households connect to the internet and hopes to connect an additional 350,000 households by the year 2020. The organization’s platform aggregates location-specific results for discount internet offers, device providers, and digital literacy centers.
Felton Thomas, director of the Cleveland Public Library and president-elect of the Public Library Association (PLA), shared how the public libraries in Cleveland, one of 28 communities participating in the ConnectHome pilot, are expanding digital opportunities for individuals in HUD housing. The Cleveland ConnectHome program provides internet access hotspots to 350 children who both live in HUD housing and participate in after-school programs. The library staff train the students and their parents how to use the hotspots, navigate the internet, and understand the importance of internet safety.
With the success of the pilot program, there are hopes that the ConnectHome project will scale to connect HUD households in the rest of the country. The one-year anniversary of the program takes place July 15, 2016, so stay tuned for more news.
Lauren Wilson, legal advisor to the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the FCC, discussed the Lifeline Program’s expansion to broadband as a result of a vote for the Lifeline Modernization Order in March. Beginning December 1, 2016, Lifeline will support broadband services by giving individuals $9.25 per month and $25 more on tribal lands. Individuals eligible for benefit programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Veterans Pension and Survivors Benefit Programs, Tribal-specific programs, and those with an income at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines are eligible.
Public libraries serve their communities by providing a trusted non-judgmental space where individuals can access information through library services such as no-fee public access to the internet, digital collections, and training. This position gives these libraries the opportunity to actively play leadership roles in connecting low-income Americans to the internet. By assisting patrons with digital literacy training and promoting awareness of programs such as ConnectHome, ConnectEd, EveryoneOn, and Lifeline, we can help ensure that these programs will be successful in bringing millions more Americans online.
The post ALA conference panel explores resources for digital inclusion appeared first on District Dispatch.
Over the past year and half, I’ve been working with MarcEdit to provide the ability for users interested in doing URI entification against various known vocabularies, as well as adding these vocabularies into an authority processing workflow. The processes work well for the handful (15-20) defined indexes that MarcEdit currently queries. But long-term, libraries may see a proliferation of indexing services, and the ability to add custom linking services into MarcEdit will become more important.
So, with the next version of MarcEdit – I’ll be making a change. While MarcEdit will still have custom code that handles some of the larger national indexes (because this makes sense) – all the information about the collections, their internal labels, and JSON object paths (for values) will be moved into the rules file. The upside to this is that users will be able to customize the queries MarcEdit is making against a linked data service (if they want) – but more important, they can add their own linked data services. Initially, custom services will need to return well-formed JSONLD, where the value for the specified URI can be referenced as a JSON object path (i.e., this the path used with the AAT index: results.bindings.subj.value), but if it matches that criteria, you’ll be able to add your own services into MarcEdit, and if MarcEdit encounters your defined index label within your metadata, it will ping the service.
Within the rules file, you’ll see this new structure represented as:
<name>US Library of Congress Subject Heading</name>
Since many of the indexes (national indexes) MarcEdit queries now do not use JSON in their return (or MarcEdit utilizes a special, optimized process) – these will not have paths. But for other sources like MESH headings, Getty headings, you’ll be able to see how this structure is being utilized.
I’m still testing these changes – as the changes to the linked data framework affect a number of parts of the application – but these will be part of the next update.
The American Library Association touts the importance of the free flow of information and access to information especially from the government and the public sector. A lack of government transparency only leads to speculation and a distrust of the government. ALA has a Government Documents Round Table whose members focus on effective access to government information. The ALA Washington Office regularly advocates for government transparency. The Intellectual Freedom Office fights censorship. Access to information is a core value of librarianship. Obviously this access thing is a big deal for the library profession. We are heavily invested in information access and government transparency—tenets that support democracy.
So, it’s no wonder that librarians were surprised to hear at the ALA Annual conference that the U.S. Copyright Office planned to hold closed meetings to discuss revision of Section 108, the “library exception.” The process was announced in the Federal Register on June 2. Interested parties were asked to schedule a meeting with the Copyright Office, located in Washington, DC. (Soon after the announcement the Copyright Office said that phone conversations could also be scheduled). There will be no public record of who attends the meetings or what is discussed. The Library Copyright Alliance has scheduled a private meeting with the Copyright Office to share our thoughts on section 108 revision – after all, libraries are the beneficiaries of the “library exception.” And we have already shared what we think about revision of the law (repeatedly), and we are against it. But the very fact that these discussions are confidential takes a lot of nerve. We have never heard of an instance where a government agency seeking public comment does not provide public access to the comments. This is not a national security issue after all. Section 108 is about interlibrary loan, preservation and replacement of library resources, and copies that libraries can make for users, not global surveillance programs.
Admittedly, the Copyright Office has been upfront about it. They believe that Section 108 needs to be updated to better reflect the digital environment. Indeed, they have said that Section 108 needs to be re-written altogether. They have already drafted Section 108 legislation that we haven’t seen. In short, they have already made a decision on what they are going to recommend to Congress, and the purpose of these closed meetings is merely a consummation.
I stopped by the Library of Congress exhibit space while at ALA Annual, talked to a representative from the Copyright Office and asked why the Office chose to have confidential meetings. He did a fine job of talking to me for a good 10 minutes without answering my question. I did glean that the Copyright Office was ready to move forward. They want to wrap up this issue. Now is not the time to solicit comments that would be publicly posted from a bunch of Internet whackos who don’t know what they’re talking about. It will only lead to more confusion and time wasted. Let’s not wrangle with another SOPA. They know what they are doing.