Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib mugs?
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Aha, funding the audio and video is a great idea. Meets Code4Lib needs, and also meets sponsor advertising needs, because all the videos and audio could go up with a capture of this content was sponsored by Insert Vendor Here link. I think Bill's idea is great. Someone would still need to be found to volunteer to recruit and supervise this hypothetical student. A Talis sponsored mug: Benefits everyone that attends the conference a little A Talis sponsored scholarship: Benefits only one person and if it's like some of the previous scholarship excludes some from being eligible to receive it. A Talis sponsorship of audio/video support: Not only benefits attendees but benefits those that can't attend the conference and can watch the audio/video captures after the conference. Seems to me that #3 is a clear winner.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib mugs?
John Fereira wrote: A Talis sponsorship of audio/video support: Not only benefits attendees but benefits those that can't attend the conference and can watch the audio/video captures after the conference. Seems to me that #3 is a clear winner. That does seem like a win-win option. Especially given Kevin Clarke's suggestion that a Talis acknowledgement could be included in the videos. -- Michael # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian # University of Texas at Arlington # 817-272-5326 office # 817-688-1926 mobile # [EMAIL PROTECTED] # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Fereira Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:28 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib mugs? Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Aha, funding the audio and video is a great idea. Meets Code4Lib needs, and also meets sponsor advertising needs, because all the videos and audio could go up with a capture of this content was sponsored by Insert Vendor Here link. I think Bill's idea is great. Someone would still need to be found to volunteer to recruit and supervise this hypothetical student. A Talis sponsored mug: Benefits everyone that attends the conference a little A Talis sponsored scholarship: Benefits only one person and if it's like some of the previous scholarship excludes some from being eligible to receive it. A Talis sponsorship of audio/video support: Not only benefits attendees but benefits those that can't attend the conference and can watch the audio/video captures after the conference. Seems to me that #3 is a clear winner.
Re: [CODE4LIB] release management
I second the notion for Fogel's book. From: Code for Libraries [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Metcalfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:42 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] release management 2008/10/29 Jonathan Rochkind [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Can anyone reccommend any good sources on how to do 'release management' in a small distributed open source project. Or in a small in-house not open source project, for that matter. The key thing is not something assuming you're in a giant company with a QA team, but instead a small project with a a few (to dozens) of developers, no dedicated QA team, etc. Anyone have any good books to reccommend on this? Karl Fogel's book Producing Open Source Software is an excellent choice, though it is not solely focused on release management. http://producingoss.com/ Cheers, Randy -- Randy Metcalfe
Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
Thank you, Owen! A few comments interspersed... Stephens, Owen wrote: Hi Karen, Yes - the document on DCAP makes sense (this maybe the first time I've ever uttered these words on a first reading of DCMI documentation - so well done!) wow I would question what the benefit of doing a full DCAP is as opposed to doing the bits that are clearly of practical value. Although I buy the argument that it they promote sharing/linking of data in theory, I haven't seen any real-world examples of this - has SWAP had more of an impact because there is a DCAP for it? Not that I'm aware of. DCAP (as well as DCAM) are pretty much in their embryonic stages and haven't had real world proof yet. There are APs that use some of the DCAP concepts but not all, and in fact it would be very difficult at this point to create a full AP for libraries since we don't have our vocabularies all defined in RDF. So I agree that an intermediate approach makes sense at this moment in time. If we were starting from scratch a DCAP would be (at least) as good a way as any other of capturing stuff like functional requirements and Usage Guidelines - but since these don't actually add to the functionality of the metadata scheme you end up with as far as I can see, where we already have this stuff in other forms (as suggested in the Usage Guidelines) then what would be the tangible benefits of restating for a DCAP? (I suppose the flip side of this is - would it be much work to do so?) I think this is an excellent question, and one that needs to be addressed by the DC community. It is incumbent on them to make the case for their standards in a way that translates to a real motivation for metadata developers. The DCAP document goes further in this direction than other documents, but the benefits of DCAM are less clearly expressed. Touching on the Usage Guidelines - I'd question whether the example given of AACR2 as an existing set of usage guidelines which you could refer to in the DCAP is completely accurate? Doesn't AACR2 hold a mixture of things that are usage guidelines, and things that would live in the DSP? If this is so, it may be worth being explicit about this to avoid misunderstandings. I'm not sure that AACR2 (or RDA) go much beyond usage guidelines. They don't define data elements as such, and they don't provide a record format. They are about making decisions about the description of something. But I think I know what you mean, because we don't have anything BUT the cataloging rules to go on so they seem to embody our data definitions as well. But not the formal data definitions, which then gets done after the fact in MARC. It's not a good approach to define and manage these two standards separately. Further on the Usage Guidelines, one of the examples of a possible guideline is For works of multiple authorship, the order of authors and how many to include (e.g. first 3, or no more than 20). I'm not clear why you would express 'no more than 20' here, rather than as part of the relevant Description Template in the DSP? It's just an example, but I see that it's confusing. In fact, you could have those kinds of instructions either in the DSP or the usage guidelines, or in both. For example, you can use Dublin Core fields, which have no limitations on repeatability or mandatoriness, but can include rules in the usage guidelines that aren't enforced in the DSP. However, I'll change this example to be about the ORDER of authors, which makes more sense in guidelines. Does that sound better? In terms of the library world, a question that occurs is that if we went down this route, would we find that we ended up with a single DCAP for libraries? As I think about it I wonder if we would find multiple DCAPs were required - perhaps Public Libraries would have a different DCAP to Research Libraries. Possibly more likely different types of collections would require different DCAPs. For example, it seems likely to me that the Functional Requirements for a rare books collection is different to that of the DVD collection. Further, it seems likely to me that the requirements for the DVD collection in my local public library is different to that of the DVD collection at my local media-arts college. Personally, I am totally for multiple APs for the library world. One of the things that makes the cataloging rules so complex, and our records so complex, is that they try to cover every possible type of resource for every possible type of library. And therefore they fail for some percentage of the cases. Your examples here make perfect sense to me. If this is the case, what are the implications of mixing DCAPs within or across libraries? How would different DCAPs work together? What would be the implications for sharing records? Am I looking for problems here, or anticipating real issues? (I did read the document on Interoperability, but not sure I understand what it is getting at yet - however, I'm not sure
Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
Karen, I don't have anything useful to add, but just wanted to express my gratitude and second Owen's comment that this document is very nicely done. The breakdown of key components (e.g., functional requirements vs. domain model vs. usage guidelines, etc.) is quite helpful, as is the diagram of the Singapore Framework. I also appreciated the concrete example of the Bookshelf DCAP, and the demonstration of RDF triples in the context of a domain model (i.e., book and author as entities; title and name as properties; is authored by as a relationship). I'm intrigued by the possibility of integrating more dynamic, visually interesting applications of LCSH (http://lcsh.info/) and other vocabularies into our catalogs, and this document helps me better understand the prerequisites and opportunities to keep in mind. / Daniel -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:07 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008] Thank you, Owen! A few comments interspersed... Stephens, Owen wrote: Hi Karen, Yes - the document on DCAP makes sense (this maybe the first time I've ever uttered these words on a first reading of DCMI documentation - so well done!) wow
Re: [CODE4LIB] de-dupping (was: marc4j 2.4 released)
Hi Michael: Thanks for your email. No we haven't implemented any merging system. Our software currently just tries to do clustering of similar/identical records. We may consider creating a merge algorithm that is generic, which might then be customized to make some of your pointed canonicalizations eas(ier) to do. As for integrating it with marc4j, currently we don't have specific plans for this (although we'd appreciate any interested folks who'd like to help). So back to the de-dup thing (things got busy here). Has anyone implemented a merging algorithm like this one: http://www.kcoyle.net/temp/merge.html It's the referred to via openlibrary here: http://openlibrary.org/about/lib Putting something like this in marc4j would be sweet. Mike Beccaria Systems Librarian Head of Digital Initiatives Paul Smith's College 518.327.6376 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, Min -- Min-Yen KAN (Dr) :: Assistant Professor :: National University of Singapore :: School of Computing, AS6 05-12, Law Link, Singapore 117590 :: 65-6516 1885(DID) :: 65-6779 4580 (Fax) :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (E) :: www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~kanmy (W) Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.
