Re: [CODE4LIB] request for sample content strategy docs
excellent. I'll see if I can share what we are revising. We are looking again at our website and all of what goes into it. I think the only piece we have that is current is about our governance. Thanks ann From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Nina Mchale [milehighbrar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:04 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] request for sample content strategy docs ***apologies for cross-posting*** Hey, all, Chris Evjy (Jeffco Libraries, Colorado) and I are presenting a full-day preconference at Annual in Anaheim about content strategy, and we're looking for examples of the following types of documents from any and all types of libraries: Content strategy document Information architecture diagram Workflow statement Content model Website governance documentation If your library has created some/all of these, and you wouldn't mind sharing the wealth with our preconference attendees, please send (as attachments or links, if publicly posted) them my way at milehighbrar...@gmail.com (this email account). Proper credit/attribution will be given, of course! Thanks in advance! -- Nina Nina McHale, MA/MSLS milehighbrarian.net Facebook & Twitter: @ninermac
[CODE4LIB] request for sample content strategy docs
***apologies for cross-posting*** Hey, all, Chris Evjy (Jeffco Libraries, Colorado) and I are presenting a full-day preconference at Annual in Anaheim about content strategy, and we're looking for examples of the following types of documents from any and all types of libraries: Content strategy document Information architecture diagram Workflow statement Content model Website governance documentation If your library has created some/all of these, and you wouldn't mind sharing the wealth with our preconference attendees, please send (as attachments or links, if publicly posted) them my way at milehighbrar...@gmail.com (this email account). Proper credit/attribution will be given, of course! Thanks in advance! -- Nina Nina McHale, MA/MSLS milehighbrarian.net Facebook & Twitter: @ninermac
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
Is Roy Tennant smarter than Chuck Norris is tough? -- jaf Sent from my iPad On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:51 PM, "Roy Tennant" wrote: > Roy Tennant is too smart to have an official position on this. Best to work > it out yourselves. :-) > Roy > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote: > >> The begs the question, what is the official Roy Tennant position on baloney >> vs. bologna? May I suggest a viaf-like resource for food, in which I may >> prefer the baloney label while allowing my data to be cross-searchable with >> bologna records? Is there an RDF ontology for this??? >> >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson >>> wrote: >>> > Bacon == Seal of Approval > Bologna == Seal of Disapproval > Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships >>> between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal >>> of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its >>> appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of >>> disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in >>> its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a >>> quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, >>> perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn >>> about one's approval or lack thereof. What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness >>> of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is >>> strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. >>> >>> I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken >>> livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd >>> stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That >>> seems appropriate. >>> >>> Fwiw... >>> Kevin >>>
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
45 CFR 46.102(f)(2): (f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) Identifiable private information. [. . .] Private information includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record). [. . .] Private information - this isn't stuff you go telling everyone. It's fine to review results of a FOIA request, or a set of publications, and try to make something of the authors' culture or views. The IRB has limited time. While not getting a required approval is a bad career move, it's also unethical to go to the IRB with things that aren't supposed to go there because then you are bogging down the approval process or distracting the IRB in the decisions it is supposed to make. -Wilhelmina Randtke On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Joseph Montibello < joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu> wrote: > ++ > > Mark N's comments made me wonder, "what kinds of things *don't* require > IRB approval?" Here's a link to a page with the US's HHS department, > Office for Human Research Protections. > > http://1.usa.gov/OHRPchart > > Nice little flowchart / decision tree. Looks like Paul's particular bit of > research wouldn't require IRB approval. (import > standardLegalDisclaimer.notALawyer) > > Joe Montibello, MLIS > Library Systems Manager > Dartmouth College Library > 603.646.9394 > joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu > > > > > > > On 6/5/12 12:19 PM, "Notess, Mark H" wrote: > > >They are public: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1206&L=CODE4LIB > > > >Have at it. > > > >While I fully support ethical research and even IRBs, we do everyone a > >disservice by appealing to IRBs to approve things that don't require their > >approval, even if we're just doing so to be "careful." It reminds me of > >the disservice we libraries sometimes do by asking for permission to use > >things when we could instead make a fair use argument. > > > >Best, > > > >Mark > > > >On 6/5/12 11:31 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" wrote: > > > >>I think our list archives ought to be public, and ought ideally to be > >>available to anyone without even having to make an out of band request > >>to ELM. Are they not, can't you just download them from the web without > >>even having to ask? Either way, yes, anyone should be able to get the > >>archives to use them for whatever research they want. > >> > >>On 6/4/2012 4:54 PM, Edward M. Corrado wrote: > >>> I personally don't have any objections to this, and in fact, would be > >>> interested to find out what you discover. Make sure you check with your > >>>IRB > >>> to see if they require anything (sometimes even an anonymous survey can > >>> require IRB approval) if you are considering publishing your results. > >>> > >>> Also, if you are concerned or interested about any potential ethical > >>> issues, you may want to check out the Assocation of Internet > >>>Researchers: > >>> http://aoir.org/ > >>> > >>> Edward > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi all, > > I'm interested in analyzing the list archives with a goal of studying > how > concepts move through the list over time, the relationship (or > non-relationship) between discussions in the list and eventual > implementations and practices in the broader library community, the > zeitgeist over time of an active development community, etc. I'm not > sure > about the tools and products at the moment, but the outcomes would be > anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially > and > specifically any commercial harvesting. An initial idea as an example > of > what I'm thinking about is to generate word clouds that could give a > snapshot of what's going on over some defined period of time, or > concepts > most closely associated with a particular term, or an overlap analysis > against one of the library science databases. Stuff like that. > > Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, > but > I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. > > Cheers, > > Paul > -- > > --**--** > > *Paul Orkiszewski* > Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor > University Library > Appalachian State University > 218 College Street > P.O. Box 32026 > Boone, NC 28608-2026 > > E-mail: orkiszews...@appstate.edu > Phone: 828 262 6588 > Fax: 828 26
[CODE4LIB] oracle apex
I wonder if anybody here working on Ex Libris' Voyager. My question actually is anybody uses APEX to retrieve data from Voyager for Web development or reporting purposes? Kelly Zhu **Bronze+Blue=Green** The University of Central Oklahoma is Bronze, Blue, and Green! Please print this e-mail only if absolutely necessary! **CONFIDENTIALITY** This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
Roy Tennant is too smart to have an official position on this. Best to work it out yourselves. :-) Roy On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote: > The begs the question, what is the official Roy Tennant position on baloney > vs. bologna? May I suggest a viaf-like resource for food, in which I may > prefer the baloney label while allowing my data to be cross-searchable with > bologna records? Is there an RDF ontology for this??? > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson >> wrote: >> Bacon == Seal of Approval Bologna == Seal of Disapproval Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed >>> >>>This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships >> between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal >> of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its >> appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of >> disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in >> its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a >> quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, >> perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn >> about one's approval or lack thereof. >>> >>> What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness >> of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is >> strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. >> >> I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken >> livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd >> stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That >> seems appropriate. >> >> Fwiw... >> Kevin >>
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Truitt, Marc wrote: > On 06/05/2012 02:18 PM, Michele R Combs wrote: >> >> I dunno, it's hard to imagine anything that's been sitting on a bar stool >> since before I was born as being remotely attractive. > > > Hmm... sounds as though you've not ever lived with a Labrador Retriever! > Most Labs I've met would be in dog heaven at the thought of this kind of... > umm... "delicacy". :) > > - mt > > -- > * > Marc Truitt > Associate University Librarian, > Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770 > Technology Services e-mail : marc.tru...@ualberta.ca > University of Alberta Libraries fax : 780-492-9243 > Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356 > Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8 > > "It remains difficult to know when and how much to trust the wisdom of > crowds [...] Crowds turn all too quickly into mobs, with their time- > honored manifestations: manias, bubbles, lynch mobs, flash mobs, > crusades, mass hysteria, herd mentality, goose-stepping, conformity, > groupthink [...]. Collective judgment has appealing possibilities; > collective self-deception and collective evil have already left a > cataclysmic record." > -- , 2011 > *
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
On 06/05/2012 02:18 PM, Michele R Combs wrote: I dunno, it's hard to imagine anything that's been sitting on a bar stool since before I was born as being remotely attractive. Hmm... sounds as though you've not ever lived with a Labrador Retriever! Most Labs I've met would be in dog heaven at the thought of this kind of... umm... "delicacy". :) - mt -- * Marc Truitt Associate University Librarian, Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770 Technology Services e-mail : marc.tru...@ualberta.ca University of Alberta Libraries fax: 780-492-9243 Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356 Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8 "It remains difficult to know when and how much to trust the wisdom of crowds [...] Crowds turn all too quickly into mobs, with their time- honored manifestations: manias, bubbles, lynch mobs, flash mobs, crusades, mass hysteria, herd mentality, goose-stepping, conformity, groupthink [...]. Collective judgment has appealing possibilities; collective self-deception and collective evil have already left a cataclysmic record." -- , 2011 *
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
I'd have to disagree. Clearly, IMHO, seitan is the vegan Seal of No Approval Needed. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson > wrote: > > >> Bacon == Seal of Approval > >> Bologna == Seal of Disapproval > >> Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed > >> > > > > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships > between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal > of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its > appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of > disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in > its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a > quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, > perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn > about one's approval or lack thereof. > > > > What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness > of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is > strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. > > I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken > livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd > stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That > seems appropriate. > > Fwiw... > Kevin > -- Ellen Knowlton Wilson Instructional Services Librarian Room 250, University Library University of South Alabama 5901 USA Drive North Mobile, AL 36688 (251) 460-6045 Please note new email address: ewil...@southalabama.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Becky Yoose wrote: > We need a meat that is disapproved of universally. May I suggest "pickled > pig's ears that have been sitting in a jar on a bar counter since you've > been born"? There are cultural assumptions in this disapproval. I suggest you retract this proposal immediately.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
I dunno, it's hard to imagine anything that's been sitting on a bar stool since before I was born as being remotely attractive. But that might just be because I'm old. Well, old-ish. Michele -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark A. Matienzo Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 4:17 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum) On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Becky Yoose wrote: > We need a meat that is disapproved of universally. May I suggest > "pickled pig's ears that have been sitting in a jar on a bar counter > since you've been born"? There are cultural assumptions in this disapproval. I suggest you retract this proposal immediately.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
On 06/06/12 06:11, Doran, Michael D wrote: Without asking permission of the list, I hereby assign this new category of things requiring OCLC oversight as "salami" on the charcuterie spectrum. Bologna == Seal of Disapproval There appears to be a typo here: Soylent Green == Seal of Disapproval cheers stuart -- Stuart Yeates Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
[CODE4LIB] Academic libraries - Will dev for pay models?
Any academic libraries out there doing consulting or application development work for hire on their campuses? -- not freebie work, but where actual money exchanges across campus accounting lines. I would be curious to hear how you go about pricing out your services, or if you have a selection process for the work you choose to perform. Cheers, - Eric -- Eric Larson Web Application Developer Shared Development Group University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries elar...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
Perhaps spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans egg and spam? Michele -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin S. Clarke Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 4:02 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum) On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson wrote: > Alas, bologna as the seal of disapproval might fall a bit short. While one > might > jump to proffer spam in its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all > in a > bit of a quandary.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
I vote for worms. I go to the garden to eat them when nobody loves me and everybody hates me On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Becky Yoose wrote: > Chicken gizzards, when prepared right (fried), are a delicacy. While I am > not a gizzard fan, many in my immediate and extended family are, so... > > We need a meat that is disapproved of universally. May I suggest "pickled > pig's ears that have been sitting in a jar on a bar counter since you've > been born"? Adhering to RDA guidelines, I am not using abbreviations to > describe the material at hand at the bar. > > Thanks, > Becky, who consulted her family cookbook for this email. > > Chicken feet can be good as well... > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Kevin S. Clarke > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson > > wrote: > > > > >> Bacon == Seal of Approval > > >> Bologna == Seal of Disapproval > > >> Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed > > >> > > > > > > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships > > between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the > appeal > > of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its > > appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of > > disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam > in > > its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a > > quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, > > perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn > > about one's approval or lack thereof. > > > > > > What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the > aboutness > > of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is > > strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. > > > > I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken > > livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd > > stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That > > seems appropriate. > > > > Fwiw... > > Kevin > > > -- -- Kyle Banerjee Digital Services Program Manager Orbis Cascade Alliance baner...@orbiscascade.org / 503.999.9787
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
Chicken gizzards, when prepared right (fried), are a delicacy. While I am not a gizzard fan, many in my immediate and extended family are, so... We need a meat that is disapproved of universally. May I suggest "pickled pig's ears that have been sitting in a jar on a bar counter since you've been born"? Adhering to RDA guidelines, I am not using abbreviations to describe the material at hand at the bar. Thanks, Becky, who consulted her family cookbook for this email. Chicken feet can be good as well... On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson > wrote: > > >> Bacon == Seal of Approval > >> Bologna == Seal of Disapproval > >> Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed > >> > > > > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships > between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal > of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its > appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of > disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in > its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a > quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, > perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn > about one's approval or lack thereof. > > > > What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness > of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is > strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. > > I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken > livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd > stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That > seems appropriate. > > Fwiw... > Kevin >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
+1 Tempeh == Seal of No Approval Needed, though finding an appropriate icon may be a challenge... -- HARDY POTTINGER University of Missouri Library Systems http://lso.umsystem.edu/~pottingerhj/ https://MOspace.umsystem.edu/ "The bigger the smile you give, the bigger the smile you get. Works every time." --Alan Shapiro On 6/5/12 3:02 PM, "Kevin S. Clarke" wrote: >On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson >wrote: > >>> Bacon == Seal of Approval >>> Bologna == Seal of Disapproval >>> Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed >>> >> >> This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships >>between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the >>appeal of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in >>its appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of >>disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam >>in its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a >>quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, >>perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn >>about one's approval or lack thereof. >> >> What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the >>aboutness of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more >>often than is strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. > >I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken >livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd >stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That >seems appropriate. > >Fwiw... >Kevin
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
The begs the question, what is the official Roy Tennant position on baloney vs. bologna? May I suggest a viaf-like resource for food, in which I may prefer the baloney label while allowing my data to be cross-searchable with bologna records? Is there an RDF ontology for this??? On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson > wrote: > > >> Bacon == Seal of Approval > >> Bologna == Seal of Disapproval > >> Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed > >> > > > > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships > between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal > of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its > appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of > disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in > its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a > quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, > perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn > about one's approval or lack thereof. > > > > What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness > of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is > strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. > > I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken > livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd > stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That > seems appropriate. > > Fwiw... > Kevin >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BWS Johnson wrote: >> Bacon == Seal of Approval >> Bologna == Seal of Disapproval >> Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed >> > > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships > between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal of > the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its appeal, > that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of disapproval might > fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in its place, > Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a quandry. Olive loaf, > perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, perhaps fois gras more > aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn about one's approval or lack > thereof. > > What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness of > meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is strictly > necessary in our mortal affairs. I'm vegan now, but having eaten it as a child, may I suggest chicken livers for the Seal of Disapproval? Blech! And, as a vegan, I'd stretch bounds of the Seal of No Approval Needed to tempeh. That seems appropriate. Fwiw... Kevin
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list (Charcuterie Spectrum)
Salvete! > Without asking permission of the list, I hereby assign this new category of > things requiring OCLC oversight as "salami" on the charcuterie > spectrum. > > Bacon == Seal of Approval > Bologna == Seal of Disapproval > Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed > This has some serious flaws. I'm concerned about the relationships between the desirability of the bespoke seals as they relate to the appeal of the meats themselves. While yea, bacon is nearly universal in its appeal, that one seems on the mark. Alas, bologna as the seal of disapproval might fall a bit short. While one might jump to proffer spam in its place, Hawai'ians quite like spam, leaving us all in a bit of a quandry. Olive loaf, perhaps? And while salame is a most excellent meat, perhaps fois gras more aptly conveys the aboutness of not giving a damn about one's approval or lack thereof. What say you cataloguing mafia? Surely we must honour the aboutness of meat and approval lest we needs OCLC to intervene more often than is strictly necessary in our mortal affairs. Ox tongue in cheek, Brooke
[CODE4LIB] Free IMLS-JCDL workshop: Digitization cost (June 14, GWU, Washington, DC)
Hi All, We got a grant extension from IMLS to organize an international event around Digitization Cost Analysis. It's part of JCDL 2012. You're invited to attend. It's free but RSVP is required. Thursday June 14, 2012 1:00 to 3:00 pm Room 702 Estelle and Melvin Gelman Library George Washington University Washington, DC, Metro Foggy Bottom RSVP Martha Whittaker (mart...@gwu.edu) More here http://jcdl2012.info/workshops/digital-cost-analysis Karim B Boughida kbough...@gmail.com bough...@gwu.edu
[CODE4LIB] Systems Librarian - Univ Wisc - Whitewater
ANDERSEN LIBRARY, UW-WHITEWATER POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT Position Vacancy: Systems Librarian Academic Staff, Annual Renewable Appointment Full-time, 12-month appointment Starting Date: Immediate Position Summary This position provides leadership, vision, and expertise related to library systems, technologies, software, and hardware that increase and enhance access to academic resources at UW-Whitewater. The individual in this position identifies, evaluates, coordinates, and teaches the use of technologies to library staff. S/he resolves problems, proposes new and better ways of using technology and, by collaborating with and by offering substantive training to library staff, thereby empowers them in performing their own functions. The individual represents the Library in technology issues on campus and within the UW System. This position also performs other duties as assigned. Essential Duties and Responsibilities Serve as the Library’s Systems/Technology Coordinator as detailed below: 1. Manage, plan, and administer the integrated library system. Includes liaison work with library staff, remote server administrators, integrated library system vendor; deployment and support for associated hardware and desktop client software for library staff. 2. Advise and consult with library staff to maximize effective use of technology; provide regular and on-demand training; seek to make library staff independent and proficient users of technology. 3. Create reports and extract management data from library software as needed by library staff; assist colleagues in designing and running reports for their own needs; provide statistical reports as requested. 4. Collaborate with colleagues in investigating, evaluating, recommending, and implementing technologies to improve service and optimize the information technology resources. 5. Understand the functional, operational, and service needs of the Library in order to develop gateways between the Library’s online resources and locally developed or third party application. 6. Be responsible for installing and maintaining library software, including communication with software vendors. 7. Develop training and documentation to share with library staff. 8. Create new applications and adapt existing systems to meet Library needs. 9. Serve as the primary liaison to campus technology service units, UW System library committees, and participate in statewide discussions and decisions impacting the UW System libraries. 10. Maintain a working knowledge of metadata schemes appropriate for digital information. 11. Manage and support, in collaboration with library and/or campus technology units, the Library’s population of desktop, laptop, and handheld computing devices and related technologies, including all staff computers, public computers, and printers. 12. Serve on library committees, task forces, UW System, and professional committees as elected or appointed. 13.Work with campus colleagues on issues related to development of an institutional digital repository. 14.Perform administrative duties, such as automation budget oversight and student supervision. 15. Perform other duties as assigned. Required Qualifications, Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities ALA-accredited MLS or equivalent; understanding of library data encoding standards (e.g. MARC21, AACR2, RDA etc.,); relevant professional experience in management and maintenance or integrated library system; experience with technical support for library electronic information resources; successful participation in web and systems projects; knowledge of scripting languages necessary to Voyager & other library software (e.g. PHP, SQL, Java, C/C++, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.); experience with relational database queries and presentations in UNIX and Windows environments; knowledge of library web design and scripting languages; ability to troubleshoot hardware and software problems; commitment to professional development; excellent interpersonal and communication skills and the commitment to work as part of a team; demonstrated success in working with diverse populations; commitment to public service; desire and ability to instruct others in new technologies; interest in empoweri! ng colleagues with technology. Preferred Qualifications, Knowledge, Skills & Abilities: Training or degree in computer/information technology; academic library experience; successful experience teaching colleagues; understanding of technological trends and developments relevant to academic libraries and information delivery on a university campus; experience with ExLibris Voyager integrated library system, SFX, MetaLib, ILLiad, and OCLC; familiarity with remote patron authentication (EZProxy). Salary is commensurate with candidate’s qualifications and experience. For a description of the Library and the University, please visit our web site: http://library.uww.edu/ Applications: Send letter of application, res
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
Without asking permission of the list, I hereby assign this new category of things requiring OCLC oversight as "salami" on the charcuterie spectrum. Bacon == Seal of Approval Bologna == Seal of Disapproval Salami == Seal of No Approval Needed -- Michael # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian # University of Texas at Arlington # 817-272-5326 office # 817-688-1926 mobile # do...@uta.edu # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of > Paul Orkiszewski > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:04 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list > > Exactly the kind of observation that makes this list worth studying -- > Paul > > On 6/5/12 12:57 PM, Daniel Suchy wrote: > > Folks: aren't we forgetting the first step? Do we even have OCLC's > > permission?! > > > > Sorry :) > > Dan > > > > On 6/5/12 9:52 AM, "Truitt, Marc" wrote: > > > >> On 06/04/2012 02:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski wrote: > >>> the outcomes would be anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest > of > >>> any kind, especially and specifically any commercial harvesting. > [...] > >>> > >>> Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the > list, > >>> but I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. > >> Funny... and here I thought that Paul was simply being considerate of > >> the possible sensitivities of list members by asking first! > >> > >> I appreciated the question and the explanation of his intended use. I > >> guess I'm just too olde-school... > >> > >> [sigh], > >> > >> - mt > >> > >> -- > >> > * > >> Marc Truitt > >> Associate University Librarian, > >> Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770 > >> Technology Services e-mail : marc.tru...@ualberta.ca > >> University of Alberta Libraries fax: 780-492-9243 > >> Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356 > >> Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8 > >> > >> "It remains difficult to know when and how much to trust the wisdom of > >> crowds [...] Crowds turn all too quickly into mobs, with their time- > >> honored manifestations: manias, bubbles, lynch mobs, flash mobs, > >> crusades, mass hysteria, herd mentality, goose-stepping, conformity, > >> groupthink [...]. Collective judgment has appealing possibilities; > >> collective self-deception and collective evil have already left a > >> cataclysmic record." > >> -- , 2011 > >> > * > > -- > > > *Paul Orkiszewski* > Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor > University Library > Appalachian State University > 218 College Street > P.O. Box 32026 > Boone, NC 28608-2026 > > E-mail: orkiszews...@appstate.edu > Phone: 828 262 6588 > Fax: 828 262 2797 >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
Exactly the kind of observation that makes this list worth studying -- Paul On 6/5/12 12:57 PM, Daniel Suchy wrote: Folks: aren't we forgetting the first step? Do we even have OCLC's permission?! Sorry :) Dan On 6/5/12 9:52 AM, "Truitt, Marc" wrote: On 06/04/2012 02:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski wrote: the outcomes would be anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially and specifically any commercial harvesting. [...] Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, but I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. Funny... and here I thought that Paul was simply being considerate of the possible sensitivities of list members by asking first! I appreciated the question and the explanation of his intended use. I guess I'm just too olde-school... [sigh], - mt -- * Marc Truitt Associate University Librarian, Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770 Technology Services e-mail : marc.tru...@ualberta.ca University of Alberta Libraries fax: 780-492-9243 Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356 Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8 "It remains difficult to know when and how much to trust the wisdom of crowds [...] Crowds turn all too quickly into mobs, with their time- honored manifestations: manias, bubbles, lynch mobs, flash mobs, crusades, mass hysteria, herd mentality, goose-stepping, conformity, groupthink [...]. Collective judgment has appealing possibilities; collective self-deception and collective evil have already left a cataclysmic record." -- , 2011 * -- *Paul Orkiszewski* Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor University Library Appalachian State University 218 College Street P.O. Box 32026 Boone, NC 28608-2026 E-mail: orkiszews...@appstate.edu Phone: 828 262 6588 Fax: 828 262 2797
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
Folks: aren't we forgetting the first step? Do we even have OCLC's permission?! Sorry :) Dan On 6/5/12 9:52 AM, "Truitt, Marc" wrote: >On 06/04/2012 02:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski wrote: >> the outcomes would be anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of >> any kind, especially and specifically any commercial harvesting. [...] >> >> Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, >> but I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. > >Funny... and here I thought that Paul was simply being considerate of >the possible sensitivities of list members by asking first! > >I appreciated the question and the explanation of his intended use. I >guess I'm just too olde-school... > >[sigh], > >- mt > >-- >* >Marc Truitt >Associate University Librarian, >Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770 > Technology Services e-mail : marc.tru...@ualberta.ca >University of Alberta Libraries fax: 780-492-9243 >Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356 >Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8 > >"It remains difficult to know when and how much to trust the wisdom of >crowds [...] Crowds turn all too quickly into mobs, with their time- >honored manifestations: manias, bubbles, lynch mobs, flash mobs, >crusades, mass hysteria, herd mentality, goose-stepping, conformity, >groupthink [...]. Collective judgment has appealing possibilities; >collective self-deception and collective evil have already left a >cataclysmic record." >-- , 2011 >*
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
On 06/04/2012 02:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski wrote: the outcomes would be anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially and specifically any commercial harvesting. [...] Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, but I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. Funny... and here I thought that Paul was simply being considerate of the possible sensitivities of list members by asking first! I appreciated the question and the explanation of his intended use. I guess I'm just too olde-school... [sigh], - mt -- * Marc Truitt Associate University Librarian, Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770 Technology Services e-mail : marc.tru...@ualberta.ca University of Alberta Libraries fax: 780-492-9243 Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356 Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8 "It remains difficult to know when and how much to trust the wisdom of crowds [...] Crowds turn all too quickly into mobs, with their time- honored manifestations: manias, bubbles, lynch mobs, flash mobs, crusades, mass hysteria, herd mentality, goose-stepping, conformity, groupthink [...]. Collective judgment has appealing possibilities; collective self-deception and collective evil have already left a cataclysmic record." -- , 2011 *
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
Wholeheartedly agree. Simply asking permission implies whoever you're asking has more business determining whether you have the right to do something than you do. It also implies you expect them to offer an opinion. People who don't know what's going on say "no" in such situations. The result is everything gets bogged down and no work gets done. A much better way to go is to use the "front page test." If your picture is plastered on the front page of the newspaper along with an explanation of what you did, are you sorry (this is not the same as asking if someone disapproves)? In the case at hand, your project should not be jeopardized if a bonehead among us doesn't get that info they make freely available on the open Web might actually be used... kyle On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Notess, Mark H wrote: > They are public: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1206&L=CODE4LIB > > Have at it. > > While I fully support ethical research and even IRBs, we do everyone a > disservice by appealing to IRBs to approve things that don't require their > approval, even if we're just doing so to be "careful." It reminds me of > the disservice we libraries sometimes do by asking for permission to use > things when we could instead make a fair use argument. > > Best, > > Mark >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
++ Mark N's comments made me wonder, "what kinds of things *don't* require IRB approval?" Here's a link to a page with the US's HHS department, Office for Human Research Protections. http://1.usa.gov/OHRPchart Nice little flowchart / decision tree. Looks like Paul's particular bit of research wouldn't require IRB approval. (import standardLegalDisclaimer.notALawyer) Joe Montibello, MLIS Library Systems Manager Dartmouth College Library 603.646.9394 joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu On 6/5/12 12:19 PM, "Notess, Mark H" wrote: >They are public: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1206&L=CODE4LIB > >Have at it. > >While I fully support ethical research and even IRBs, we do everyone a >disservice by appealing to IRBs to approve things that don't require their >approval, even if we're just doing so to be "careful." It reminds me of >the disservice we libraries sometimes do by asking for permission to use >things when we could instead make a fair use argument. > >Best, > >Mark > >On 6/5/12 11:31 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" wrote: > >>I think our list archives ought to be public, and ought ideally to be >>available to anyone without even having to make an out of band request >>to ELM. Are they not, can't you just download them from the web without >>even having to ask? Either way, yes, anyone should be able to get the >>archives to use them for whatever research they want. >> >>On 6/4/2012 4:54 PM, Edward M. Corrado wrote: >>> I personally don't have any objections to this, and in fact, would be >>> interested to find out what you discover. Make sure you check with your >>>IRB >>> to see if they require anything (sometimes even an anonymous survey can >>> require IRB approval) if you are considering publishing your results. >>> >>> Also, if you are concerned or interested about any potential ethical >>> issues, you may want to check out the Assocation of Internet >>>Researchers: >>> http://aoir.org/ >>> >>> Edward >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski >>> wrote: >>> Hi all, I'm interested in analyzing the list archives with a goal of studying how concepts move through the list over time, the relationship (or non-relationship) between discussions in the list and eventual implementations and practices in the broader library community, the zeitgeist over time of an active development community, etc. I'm not sure about the tools and products at the moment, but the outcomes would be anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially and specifically any commercial harvesting. An initial idea as an example of what I'm thinking about is to generate word clouds that could give a snapshot of what's going on over some defined period of time, or concepts most closely associated with a particular term, or an overlap analysis against one of the library science databases. Stuff like that. Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, but I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. Cheers, Paul -- --**--** *Paul Orkiszewski* Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor University Library Appalachian State University 218 College Street P.O. Box 32026 Boone, NC 28608-2026 E-mail: orkiszews...@appstate.edu Phone: 828 262 6588 Fax: 828 262 2797 --**--** >>> >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
They are public: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1206&L=CODE4LIB Have at it. While I fully support ethical research and even IRBs, we do everyone a disservice by appealing to IRBs to approve things that don't require their approval, even if we're just doing so to be "careful." It reminds me of the disservice we libraries sometimes do by asking for permission to use things when we could instead make a fair use argument. Best, Mark On 6/5/12 11:31 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" wrote: >I think our list archives ought to be public, and ought ideally to be >available to anyone without even having to make an out of band request >to ELM. Are they not, can't you just download them from the web without >even having to ask? Either way, yes, anyone should be able to get the >archives to use them for whatever research they want. > >On 6/4/2012 4:54 PM, Edward M. Corrado wrote: >> I personally don't have any objections to this, and in fact, would be >> interested to find out what you discover. Make sure you check with your >>IRB >> to see if they require anything (sometimes even an anonymous survey can >> require IRB approval) if you are considering publishing your results. >> >> Also, if you are concerned or interested about any potential ethical >> issues, you may want to check out the Assocation of Internet >>Researchers: >> http://aoir.org/ >> >> Edward >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm interested in analyzing the list archives with a goal of studying >>>how >>> concepts move through the list over time, the relationship (or >>> non-relationship) between discussions in the list and eventual >>> implementations and practices in the broader library community, the >>> zeitgeist over time of an active development community, etc. I'm not >>>sure >>> about the tools and products at the moment, but the outcomes would be >>> anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially >>>and >>> specifically any commercial harvesting. An initial idea as an example >>>of >>> what I'm thinking about is to generate word clouds that could give a >>> snapshot of what's going on over some defined period of time, or >>>concepts >>> most closely associated with a particular term, or an overlap analysis >>> against one of the library science databases. Stuff like that. >>> >>> Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, >>>but >>> I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Paul >>> -- >>> >>> --**--** >>> >>> *Paul Orkiszewski* >>> Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor >>> University Library >>> Appalachian State University >>> 218 College Street >>> P.O. Box 32026 >>> Boone, NC 28608-2026 >>> >>> E-mail: orkiszews...@appstate.edu >>> Phone: 828 262 6588 >>> Fax: 828 262 2797 >>> --**--** >>> >>> >>
Re: [CODE4LIB] Studying the email list
I think our list archives ought to be public, and ought ideally to be available to anyone without even having to make an out of band request to ELM. Are they not, can't you just download them from the web without even having to ask? Either way, yes, anyone should be able to get the archives to use them for whatever research they want. On 6/4/2012 4:54 PM, Edward M. Corrado wrote: I personally don't have any objections to this, and in fact, would be interested to find out what you discover. Make sure you check with your IRB to see if they require anything (sometimes even an anonymous survey can require IRB approval) if you are considering publishing your results. Also, if you are concerned or interested about any potential ethical issues, you may want to check out the Assocation of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org/ Edward On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski wrote: Hi all, I'm interested in analyzing the list archives with a goal of studying how concepts move through the list over time, the relationship (or non-relationship) between discussions in the list and eventual implementations and practices in the broader library community, the zeitgeist over time of an active development community, etc. I'm not sure about the tools and products at the moment, but the outcomes would be anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially and specifically any commercial harvesting. An initial idea as an example of what I'm thinking about is to generate word clouds that could give a snapshot of what's going on over some defined period of time, or concepts most closely associated with a particular term, or an overlap analysis against one of the library science databases. Stuff like that. Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list, but I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it. Cheers, Paul -- --**--** *Paul Orkiszewski* Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor University Library Appalachian State University 218 College Street P.O. Box 32026 Boone, NC 28608-2026 E-mail: orkiszews...@appstate.edu Phone: 828 262 6588 Fax: 828 262 2797 --**--**
