Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Kyle Banerjee]

> The third code4lib conference was hosted in Portland, and the venue was a
> hotel. Costs were **much** higher in Portland, due mainly to the type of
> venue (hotel) and Portland being a larger city. To keep the registration
> fee at $125 (which I think it was, if memory serves me correctly), we
> needed to get $40k worth of sponsorships, which was about 4x the amount of
> either the previous two years. It was hectic and a bit nerve-wracking, but
> we hustled and worked hard and brought in the necessary sponsorships
> without the need to provide any special events - all of the sponsors we
> willing to sponsor us based on the general sponsorship levels that we've
> put out each year.
>

This is exactly what is going on in Seattle.

If we can attract $40K in sponsorships, the registration fee will be kept
low. But that gives people an idea of what is being dealt with in the
background as that works out to nearly $200 per attendee. Not trivial to do
in today's climate, but you can be sure everyone will try their best.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Frumkin, Jeremy]

Just some clarification on the 1st and 3rd c4l conferences:

The first code4lib conference had about 85 attendees, and was situated on
the Oregon State campus. We still paid for the conference space, food,
conference support, shuttle buses to / from downtown, and signed a
contract with a nearby hotel that committed us to filling a percentage of
rooms. We were able to get about $12k in sponsorships to cover costs and
keep the registration fee to $100.

The third code4lib conference was hosted in Portland, and the venue was a
hotel. Costs were **much** higher in Portland, due mainly to the type of
venue (hotel) and Portland being a larger city. To keep the registration
fee at $125 (which I think it was, if memory serves me correctly), we
needed to get $40k worth of sponsorships, which was about 4x the amount of
either the previous two years. It was hectic and a bit nerve-wracking, but
we hustled and worked hard and brought in the necessary sponsorships
without the need to provide any special events - all of the sponsors we
willing to sponsor us based on the general sponsorship levels that we've
put out each year.


Without knowing the specifics of the amount of sponsorship needed for
code4lib Seattle, I still believe that we can likely get the required
sponsorship needed to make the conference break even and to keep the
registration costs in line with prior code4libs, without the need to look
at new forms of sponsorship. If the sponsorship amount is more in the
range of Portland than Corvallis, then we should make a concerted effort
to bring together a hard-working sponsorship committee and start working
on this now.

Tangental to all of this, btw, is the question of any proceeds from
code4lib Bloomington being transferred to this year's conference - this
year's hosts should probably contact Indiana to check into this.

-- jaf

Jeremy Frumkin
Assistant Dean / Chief Technology Strategist
University of Arizona Libraries

+1 520.626.7296
frumk...@u.library.arizona.edu

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts
can be counted."‹Albert Einstein














On 6/14/11 3:19 PM, "Joe Hourcle"  wrote:

>On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
>
>>> So what I'm curious about, is how did the first 3-4 Code4Lib's manage
>>>to
>>> happen in a way that satisfied us, had low conf registration, and had
>>>lower
>>> sponsorship contributions and lower sponsor privileges than it is
>>>suggested
>>> is now required?
>>> 
>> 
>> I can't speak with authority as I wasn't involved in planning any of
>>them.
>> But I've done a number of other conferences and I worked at Oregon
>>State for
>> a long time. My recollection was that facilities and bandwidth were
>>free. No
>> need to pay for bandwidth or equipment. Generous institutions were
>> intentionally or unintentionally covering costs. The uni caterer was
>>very
>> reasonable.
>
>I suspect that this is likely a large chunk of the difference ...
>
>When I worked for a university, we could get space for cheap (student
>groups could get it for free), and internet access was free, too.
>
>When you grow to the size that you have to look at conference centers /
>hotels / whatever to hold the event, it gets expensive very, very quickly.
>
>And thinking that the 'free' wireless that some conference centers offer
>is adequate for a decent size group of geeks is a joke ... I'm actually
>at a conference right now, and it crapped out entirely today.  (and as
>there's no afternoon sessions for today, I think they might've given up
>on fixing it ... a few of us started advertising SIDs like 'convention
>center
>wifi sucks' ... and then it went downhill from there.)
>
>...
>
>One other thing to consider is location -- some places just cost more.
>You likely wouldn't hold a conference in downtown New York city.
>(Although, I did once go to one that was held in a middle school on
>Roosevelt Island)
>
>Unfortunately, the cheaper places may not be as well connected
>(larger airports nearby, etc.) so even if you're able to keep the
>costs of running the conference down, the cost to attendees might
>not.(eg, I'm currently in Las Cruces, New Mexico ... but the closest
>airport was El Paso, so it almost required people to rent a car
>(we tried coordinating flights to reduce the number of cars, but
>there were so many delayed flights, etc, that it turned into a
>nightmare unless people were on the exact same flight)
>
>Universities nearby can help, if the conference is in the summer
>or when their dorms aren't in use ... some offer renting out their
>rooms by the day if it's for a university-affiliated event.
>
>...
>
>
>One other option, rather than sponsorship is grants -- if this were
>a science related conference, you could put in for a grant from NSF.
>I've gone through the IMLS grants, and the only one that seems
>like it might fi

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Cary Gordon]

I was the events manager for the Drupal Association, for the past few
years, and our conferences have gone from mid 30s to over 3,000 in the
US and 1,200 in Europe. We are expecting over 1,500 for our London
conference in August.

Having outgrown the hotel rooms and free venues that we had through
2007, we set a goal of keeping the ticket price under $400 for the
events that included food. This has meant that we need sponsors to
cover about half of the revenue. We need to have positive cash-flow on
our conferences in order to cover percs such as servers. Even though
it is free software, folks really expect those to work.

It has been tough to define what support activities are appropriate.
We haven't gotten to selling naming rights -- the Oracle DrupalCon...
Nice ring. We do provide an exhibit space and a lot of branding
opportunities in the program and on swag-bags.

There is a certain synergy between us and our sponsors. Hosting
companies, for example, are frequent sponsors and also take part in a
sponsored referral service (clearly identifies) on our website. While
not perfect, it does give us a channel to let providers know if they
are doing a good job. Hosting companies that do not behave ethically
or reliably are given the boot.

While I think that Code4Lib is a pretty singular event, I don't think
that it is harmed by being open to sponsorship. I, for one, would love
to see some major ILS vendor get actively involved, if only to see how
they would respond to being called on every bogus promise of openness
they've made.

Thanks,

Cary


-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Joe Hourcle]

On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:

>> So what I'm curious about, is how did the first 3-4 Code4Lib's manage to
>> happen in a way that satisfied us, had low conf registration, and had lower
>> sponsorship contributions and lower sponsor privileges than it is suggested
>> is now required?
>> 
> 
> I can't speak with authority as I wasn't involved in planning any of them.
> But I've done a number of other conferences and I worked at Oregon State for
> a long time. My recollection was that facilities and bandwidth were free. No
> need to pay for bandwidth or equipment. Generous institutions were
> intentionally or unintentionally covering costs. The uni caterer was very
> reasonable.

I suspect that this is likely a large chunk of the difference ...

When I worked for a university, we could get space for cheap (student
groups could get it for free), and internet access was free, too.

When you grow to the size that you have to look at conference centers /
hotels / whatever to hold the event, it gets expensive very, very quickly.

And thinking that the 'free' wireless that some conference centers offer
is adequate for a decent size group of geeks is a joke ... I'm actually 
at a conference right now, and it crapped out entirely today.  (and as
there's no afternoon sessions for today, I think they might've given up
on fixing it ... a few of us started advertising SIDs like 'convention center
wifi sucks' ... and then it went downhill from there.)

...

One other thing to consider is location -- some places just cost more.
You likely wouldn't hold a conference in downtown New York city.
(Although, I did once go to one that was held in a middle school on
Roosevelt Island)

Unfortunately, the cheaper places may not be as well connected
(larger airports nearby, etc.) so even if you're able to keep the 
costs of running the conference down, the cost to attendees might
not.(eg, I'm currently in Las Cruces, New Mexico ... but the closest
airport was El Paso, so it almost required people to rent a car
(we tried coordinating flights to reduce the number of cars, but
there were so many delayed flights, etc, that it turned into a
nightmare unless people were on the exact same flight)

Universities nearby can help, if the conference is in the summer
or when their dorms aren't in use ... some offer renting out their 
rooms by the day if it's for a university-affiliated event.

...


One other option, rather than sponsorship is grants -- if this were
a science related conference, you could put in for a grant from NSF.
I've gone through the IMLS grants, and the only one that seems
like it might fit is the "Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program" :

http://www.imls.gov/applicants/grants/21centuryLibrarian.shtm

Does anyone know of any other government or foundation grants
that could be used for conferences?

-Joe

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Jonathan Rochkind]

On 6/14/2011 5:34 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:


C4l was much smaller then. The smaller the event, the less complicated 
things are and the more options you have. There are quite a few 
regional c4l events. We held one for a capacity crowd in Portland 
yesterday. It was about the same size as the first c4l for roughly the 
same cost. There is no way we'd be able to do it so cheaply if we had 
to triple the size of that same event.


As size goes up, you find fewer venues capable of hosting it.


I think this is probably a large part of it.  As Kyle says, a larger 
conf ends up costing more per-seat. (At least until you get even much 
more larger).


So, not neccesarily for this year, becuase the venue is already in place 
and such, but we the community should collectively consider:


Do we want the larger (then the first 1-4 years) conf we've got, which 
requires more sponsorship and such? Or we rather have a conf the size of 
the first few years, knowing that means fewer people will get to go, but 
that it will be easier to put on, cheaper, and require less sponsorship?


It is not set in stone that C4L conf needs to keep getting larger and 
larger every year. And there are downsides to the conf planning and budget.


Also, I think there are some 'extras' that we should not neccesarily 
assume are mandatory:  Kyle mentions food at meals and breaks as being 
killer expenses. The food at meals is probably non-negotiable (although 
breakfast might be), but food at breaks?  If I were on the conf planning 
committe and that were a significant expense, I'd say, eh, skip it, 
code4lib is not supposed to be a fancy ass conf, we don't need granola 
bars and soda at our break (and I'm pretty sure we didn't have such at 
the first 1-4 confs; I don't think we even had 'free' breakfast 
neccesarily, as we did last year and maybe the year before.).


I think the general trend of code4lib getting more and more expensive to 
put on every year, with more and more amenities, should be resisted.  
The trend is becuase everyone figures they should do everything that was 
done previously, and oh, hey, let's increase conf capacity just 20 or 30 
seats too, we can manage it, and hey, let's add food at breaks too, it 
doesn't add THAT much. And then the next year, thinks they have to do 
everything previous and then adds in a few more too. And the complexity, 
expsense, and amount of work conf organizers (volunteers!) have to do 
keeps edging up and up, and it's harder and harder to pull off how we 
want.  We should figure out how to resist that trend.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Kyle Banerjee]

> So what I'm curious about, is how did the first 3-4 Code4Lib's manage to
> happen in a way that satisfied us, had low conf registration, and had lower
> sponsorship contributions and lower sponsor privileges than it is suggested
> is now required?
>

I can't speak with authority as I wasn't involved in planning any of them.
But I've done a number of other conferences and I worked at Oregon State for
a long time. My recollection was that facilities and bandwidth were free. No
need to pay for bandwidth or equipment. Generous institutions were
intentionally or unintentionally covering costs. The uni caterer was very
reasonable.

Or have the expenses of putting on a conf gone up for reasons other than
> increased services?  Maybe more stuff used to be done by volunteers that now
> needs to be paid for?  I don't know.
>

C4l was much smaller then. The smaller the event, the less complicated
things are and the more options you have. There are quite a few regional c4l
events. We held one for a capacity crowd in Portland yesterday. It was about
the same size as the first c4l for roughly the same cost. There is no way
we'd be able to do it so cheaply if we had to triple the size of that same
event.

As size goes up, you find fewer venues capable of hosting it. Space alone
can run well over $20K, equipment and bandwidth can run well into the
thousands, $30K buys very little in terms of food if you're feeding 200+
people -- nonintuitively, the price is often higher per capita than with
smaller groups because of options available or you're required to use a
particular caterer. Mikes, stands, etc all cost money. You'd probably be
amazed what each can of soda and tureen of coffee costs. Food for breaks and
meals is a killer.

In practice, exact charges are hard to nail down because many costs will be
waived or at least reduced substantially depending on what else you get and
factors like room blocks for people coming out of town also make a big
difference. List price if you bought everything a la carte is totally
insane.


> Basically, what I don't understand is how 'we' managed to do 3-5 conf's
> with low registration fees, and sponsorships that could be acquired by only
> offering limited sponsorship exposure -- but now we can't anymore. What has
> changed?


I'm certain the committee will work like crazy to make next year's
conference as cheap as possible while providing a great experience. I expect
costs will go up noticeably because everything actually has to be paid for
at market value in an expensive city.

Anyone interested in sharing their knowledge and learning should be welcome,
> but they should not get 20 minutes or an hour in front of a captive audience
> becuase they paid money, rather than becuase the community collectively
> decided we wanted to hear the content, through our usual means.


I'm not sure I've heard any sentiments to the contrary. Good presentations
and participation in discussions are always welcome, shilling is not. The
how and when of recognition is open to discussion.

It's worth pointing out that vendor's get plenty of benefit (as do all other
> participants) when they simply register their staff in the usual way, and
> the staff comes to the conf as an attendee, presents in the usual way (if
> accepted, or lightning), talk to people over meals and in hallways, etc
>
 ...What is at issue isn't vendor 'participation', it's sponsorship, how
> much we need, and what we need to offer to get it.
>

Exactly -- it's all about what's OK and when. My own take is that such
sponsorship should never affect content, but other possibilities are at
least worth discussing.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Edward M. Corrado]

While I agree with the idea of keeping costs down so as to not rely on sponsors 
as much I am not sure how realistic this is without looking at the numbers. 
Comparing the first one or two conferences with lower attendance at university 
facilities to what we had the last few years is probably not that applicable 
unless we are proposing making a smaller conference (which means restricting 
attendance to a much smaller number). 

Outside of knowing the numbers, if the question is can Organization X (be it a 
commercial vendor, non-profit vendor, university, foundation, etc.) spend Y 
dollars to host something outside of the core Code4Lib conference (be it a 
dinner, reception, trip to a hockey game, pre-conference, or whatever) my 
answer would be as long as the org fully covered all the expenses with 
hopefully a bit left over to cover other conference expenses, I am fine with 
it. Where I would most likely not be fine with is if that organization was 
provided some level of editorial control of the content of the conference 
because of a direct economic incentive they provided. 

Edward

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 14, 2011, at 18:17, Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:

> When sponsors have sponsored pre-conf activities, that 'sponsoring' of 
> pre-confs was just that their staff were the 
> presenters/facilitators/instructors at those pre-confs.  So that is more 
> exposure, but it was formally unconnected with their sponsorship donation -- 
> in the sense that _anyone_ can propose and host a pre-conf (and thus get the 
> exposure), if there's space and interest in their topic -- you don't need to 
> donate sponsor $$ to do this.
> 
> I don't think anyone who's wanted to do a pre-conf has ever been denied the 
> chance to do it -- although there's certainly the possibility there wouldn't 
> be enough space for all proposed pre-confs at some conf. Would it be okay to 
> say sponsors get guaranteed space (effectively bumping non-sponsors?).  I 
> dunno, it's pushing it, but probably okay. Only an issue if there isnt' 
> enough space for all pre-confs, which hasn't happened before.
> 
> In the past, sponsors have also had their own advert-inserts in the program 
> material given to each attendee, which everyone has thought was fine.  And 
> sponsors of course get on the t-shirt, and I think have had placards in the 
> registration area too (i forget if those placards existed, but I think so, 
> and I think they're fine).
> 
> Last year, people were a bit more iffy on a sponsor getting their name on a 
> dinner/banquet, and even more so on the sponsor getting to present to a 
> captive audience at that dinner/banquet. People generally didn't like that 
> idea. People definitely woudln't like the sponsor getting a 'keynote' during 
> conf program.
> 
> Basically, we just want to make sure the conference remains a DIY sort of 
> thing where we present and discuss with each other on things we're interested 
> in that we decide ourselves as peers, not a program who's content is 
> controlled (even in part) by those vendors paying for it.
> 
> In the past, we've gotten sponsors to donate with only this. Do we need more? 
> Maybe potential sponsors have tighter purse strings then in the past.  Or 
> maybe the conf has gotten more expensive such that we need more money and 
> thus more incentive to sponsor. (First priority -- try to keep the conf from 
> getting more expensive so this doesn't happen).  But basically, I'd 
> personally suggest trying to get sponsors without giving them more than 
> they've gotten in the past -- but if it becomes clear to you that more 
> incentives are needed (perhaps becuase potentials sponsors say so) -- I'd 
> just run your ideas for incentives/exposure by the listserv (either here or 
> the conf-specific listserv at code4lib...@googlegroups.com), and see what the 
> community reaction is. In the end, the decision is yours.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On 6/14/2011 11:50 AM, Anjanette Young wrote:
>> Excellent!
>> 
>> I've been kicking around ideas with Kyle about sponsorship. I noticed in the
>> past that OCLC and DLF had sponsored pre-conference activities.  I'd
>> appreciate more thoughts on walking the line between maximum exposure for
>> sponsors and intrusiveness on conference attendees.
>> 
>> --Anj
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Nagy  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Anj - I just wanted to let you know that Serials Solutions is working
>>> out
>>> a plan to better support the conference.  We'd possibly like to sponsor an
>>> evening event, we will have more information for you later in the summer.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrew
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Anjanette Young>>> wrote:
 Code4Lib Seattle 2012 update.  Thanks to Elizabeth Duell of Orbis Cascade
 Alliance and Cary Gordon of chillco.com, we finally have a venue with
 adequate (hopefully) bandwidth and wireless access points, a reasonable
 food
 &  beverage minimum, and chairs!  The Renaissance Ho

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Kevin S. Clarke]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:

> So what I'm curious about, is how did the first 3-4 Code4Lib's manage to
> happen in a way that satisfied us, had low conf registration, and had lower
> sponsorship contributions and lower sponsor privileges than it is suggested
> is now required?

Perhaps much of this is information that is now lost to us, but I
think it would be interesting to put up a page with a costs
spreadsheet from each conference so we can get an overall picture of
what's involved (and what's changing from year-to-year).  This would
also, I think, help future hosts as they think about what's involved
with hosting the conference (learn from past experiences).  Concerns,
I guess, would be whether folks (sponsors) would want what they
contributed public knowledge like that (I assume they don't mind since
we've lumped them into levels with amounts associated with them
already, but I'm not positive).  I know we've been sharing these
things via email between hosts but perhaps a more stable location
would be better (and encourage their collection)?  Are these sorts of
things already lost from the early years?

Kevin

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Jonathan Rochkind]

On 6/14/2011 4:00 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:

  Or maybe the conf has gotten more expensive such that we need more
money and thus more incentive to sponsor. (First priority -- try to keep the
conf from getting more expensive so this doesn't happen)


Costs can be kept down by securing sponsorships, reducing what is provided,
and/or by increasing registration fees. The reality is that people have
gotten accustomed to major costs of c4l effectively being subsidized. Space
and bandwidth are very expensive and when these are generously provided at
low or no cost, it makes c4l look much cheaper than it is.


So what I'm curious about, is how did the first 3-4 Code4Lib's manage to 
happen in a way that satisfied us, had low conf registration, and had 
lower sponsorship contributions and lower sponsor privileges than it is 
suggested is now required?


Apparently our _expenses_ (not registration fees, but the overall 
expense column on the conf) have gone up. What happened?  Is it that the 
conf is providing more than it used to be?  If so, does the community 
want a more full-featured conf that has increased sponsorship, or 
instead a conf like it used to be?


Or have the expenses of putting on a conf gone up for reasons other than 
increased services?  Maybe more stuff used to be done by volunteers that 
now needs to be paid for?  I don't know.


Or is something else going on? Maybe the expenses haven't gone up, but 
instead it's harder to get the level of sponsorship we had at those 
first few confs, without giving them more privileges then we did at 
those first few confs?


Basically, what I don't understand is how 'we' managed to do 3-5 conf's 
with low registration fees, and sponsorships that could be acquired by 
only offering limited sponsorship exposure -- but now we can't anymore. 
What has changed?




I don't think that's a barrier to funding. Those who help make things
possible deserve recognition whether their domain name ends in .com, .edu,
or whatever and recognition doesn't imply content control. Anyone interested
in sharing their knowledge and learning should be welcome. Vendor
participation done properly benefits attendees and vendors alike, so we
should be able to find some common ground.


I'm not talking about whether their name ends in .com, .edu, or whatever.

I'm saying I don't like the idea that someone gets time in front of the 
conf because they paid money, rather then because it was decided upon by 
our usual community process (voting on proposals etc).  Anyone 
interested in sharing their knowledge and learning should be welcome, 
but they should not get 20 minutes or an hour in front of a captive 
audience becuase they paid money, rather than becuase the community 
collectively decided we wanted to hear the content, through our usual 
means.   I don't think I'm alone in not liking that.  If this has not 
been neccesary before, what's changed?



It's worth pointing out that vendor's get plenty of benefit (as do all 
other participants) when they simply register their staff in the usual 
way, and the staff comes to the conf as an attendee, presents in the 
usual way (if accepted, or lightning), talk to people over meals and in 
hallways, etc.  We've always had vendor staff participation like this, 
it is indeed good thing (for the vendors exposure, and for the rest of 
us having them there to exchange info with), and I don't expect it would 
stop if we didn't have any sponsors at all. What is at issue isn't 
vendor 'participation', it's sponsorship, how much we need, and what we 
need to offer to get it.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Kyle Banerjee]

>   Or maybe the conf has gotten more expensive such that we need more
> money and thus more incentive to sponsor. (First priority -- try to keep the
> conf from getting more expensive so this doesn't happen)


Costs can be kept down by securing sponsorships, reducing what is provided,
and/or by increasing registration fees. The reality is that people have
gotten accustomed to major costs of c4l effectively being subsidized. Space
and bandwidth are very expensive and when these are generously provided at
low or no cost, it makes c4l look much cheaper than it is.

That there was only one proposal this year is scary, and I suspect part of
the reason there weren't more is because there the number of institutions
willing/able to absorb these costs is limited.

To be healthy in the long run, the conference needs to cover real expenses.
Getting a few dozen people in a room is easy using resources at hand.
Securing a venue that provides hundreds of people with food, fast internet,
etc is significantly more complicated and requires someone to sign a
contract that involves considerable financial exposure.

 ... We want our program controlled by ourselves as peers, not by the
> funders.  I think we're all pretty keen on sticking to this, and have not
> needed to violate it in past confs to get funding.


I don't think that's a barrier to funding. Those who help make things
possible deserve recognition whether their domain name ends in .com, .edu,
or whatever and recognition doesn't imply content control. Anyone interested
in sharing their knowledge and learning should be welcome. Vendor
participation done properly benefits attendees and vendors alike, so we
should be able to find some common ground.

kyle

[CODE4LIB] Fwd: CfP: Linked Science 2011 @ ISWC 2011

[Jodi Schneider]

Of possible interest. -Jodi

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-xg-...@w3.org
> From: Tomi Kauppinen 
> Date: 9 June 2011 04:44:26 EDT
> To: public-xg-...@w3.org
> Subject: CfP: Linked Science 2011 @ ISWC 2011
> 
> CALL FOR PAPERS
> 1st International Workshop on Linked Science 2011 (LISC2011)
> Collocated with the 10th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2011)
> October 23rd or 24th, 2011
> Bonn, Germany
> 
> http://linkedscience.org/events/lisc2011
> 
> OBJECTIVES
> 
> Scientific efforts are traditionally published only as articles, with an 
> estimate of millions of publications worldwide per year; the growth rate of 
> PubMed alone is now 1 paper per minute. The validation of scientific results 
> requires reproducible methods, which can only be achieved if the same data, 
> processes, and algorithms as those used in the original experiments were 
> available. However, the problem is that although publications, methods and 
> datasets are very related, they are not always openly accessible and 
> interlinked. Even where data is discoverable, accessible and assessable, 
> significant challenges remain in the reuse of the data, in particular 
> facilitating the necessary correlation, integration and synthesis of data 
> across levels of theory, techniques and disciplines. In the LISC 2011 (1st 
> International Workshop on Linked Science) we will discuss and present results 
> of new ways of publishing, sharing, linking, and analyzing such scientific 
> resources motivated by driving scientific requirements, as well as reasoning 
> over the data to discover interesting new links and scientific insights.
> 
> Making entities identifiable and referenceable using URIs augmented by 
> semantic, scientifically relevant annotations greatly facilitates access and 
> retrieval for data which used to be hardly accessible. This Linked Science 
> approach, i.e., publishing, sharing and interlinking scientific resources and 
> data, is of particular importance for scientific research, where sharing is 
> crucial for facilitating reproducibility and collaboration within and across 
> disciplines. This integrated process, however, has not been established yet. 
> Bibliographic contents are still regarded as the main scientific product, and 
> associated data, models and software are either not published at all, or 
> published in separate places, often with no reference to the respective paper.
> 
> In the workshop we will discuss whether and how new emerging technologies 
> (Linked Data, and semantic technologies more generally) can realize the 
> vision of Linked Science. We see that this depends on their enabling 
> capability throughout the research process, leading up to extended 
> publications and data sharing environments. Our workshop aims to address 
> challenges related to enabling the easy creation of data bundles---data, 
> processes, tools, provenance and annotation---supporting both publication and 
> reuse of the data. Secondly, we look for tools and methods for the easy 
> correlation, integration and synthesis of shared data. This problem is often 
> found in many disciplines (including astronomy, biology, climate change 
> research, geosciences, cultural heritage, etc.), as they need to span 
> techniques, levels of theory, scales, and disciplines. With the advent of 
> Linked Science, it is timely and crucial to address these identified research 
> challenges through both practical and formal approaches.
> 
> SUBMISSIONS
> 
> We invite two kinds of submissions:
> - Research papers. These should not exceed 12 pages in length.
> - Position papers. Novel ideas, experiments, and application visions from 
> multiple disciplines and viewpoints are a key ingredient of the workshop. We 
> therefore strongly encourage the submission of position papers. Position 
> papers should not exceed 5 pages in length.
> 
> 
> Submissions should be formatted according to the Lecture Notes in Computer
> Science guidelines for proceedings available at 
> http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-7-72376-0. Papers should be 
> submitted in PDF format. All submissions will be done electronically via the 
> LISC2011 web submission system.
> 
> At least one author of each accepted paper must register for the workshop.
> Information about registration will appear soon on the ISCW2011 Web pages.
> 
> 
> TOPICS OF INTEREST
> 
> In both categories, papers are expected in (but not restricted to) the 
> following topics:
> 
> - Key research life cycle challenges in enabling linked science and proposed 
> solution strategies
> - Interrelationship of existing traditional solutions and new linked science 
> solutions
> - Formal representations of scientific data
> - Ontologies for scientific information
> - Reasoning mechanisms for linking scientific datasets
> - Integration of quantitative and qualitative scientific information
> - Ontology-based visualization of scientific data
> - Semantic similarity in s

[CODE4LIB] euroHCIR2011 - participate/schedule

[Max L. Wilson]

This message has been cross-posted - but do pass on!

euroHCIR2011 - The 1st European Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and 
Information Retrieval
=
Newcastle, UK - July 4th 2011 - at HCI2011

We'd like to invite participation in the euroHCIR2011 Workshop, sponsored by 
LexisNexis. 

The event is for people who are focused on UX, Usability, User Interface Design 
with Information Retrieval Systems. The 9 papers and 3 posters, from almost as 
many European countries, are now listed on the euroHCIR2011 website (see 
below). Presenters are from a mix of backgrounds, from designers working with 
core IR algorithmic researchers, to academic research, and practitioner 
reports. The workshop will involve demos, discussions, and other interactive 
activities, as well as a keynote from Ann Blandford (UCL, UK).

http://fitlab.eu/euroHCIR2011/schedule.php

Details for attending can be found here:  

http://fitlab.eu/euroHCIR2011/attending.php

We hope to see you join us in Newcastle!

Max L. Wilson, Tony Russell-Rose, Birger Larson, James Kalbach
euroHCIR2011 co-chairs

--
n - Dr Max L Wilson
e - m.l.wil...@swansea.ac.uk
w - www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csmax/
t - +44 (0) 1792 602611
--

Re: [CODE4LIB] stemming in author search?

[Erik Hatcher]

It's documented in that wiki page link below as "true/false -- true will add 
tokens to the stream, false will replace the existing token"

So if you index "cat" and it the phonetic filter turns it into "KT", it can 
either index cat and KT or just KT.

Erik


On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:45 , Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

> Hey Erik, in that wiki documentation the example it gives is:
> 
>  inject="true"/>
> 
> 
> Do you know what that 'inject' argument is about, and where (if anywhere) I'd 
> find it (and other available arguments for PhoneticFilterFactory, which may 
> or may not differ depending on encoder chosen?) documented?
> 
> On 6/14/2011 8:31 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 08:10 , Keith Jenkins wrote:
>> 
>>> Does Solr support Soundex?  (Soundex was originally developed to
>>> assist with alternate spellings of names)
>> Indeed.  And several other phonetic algorithms:
>> 
>>
>> 
>> 
>>  Erik
>> 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Jonathan Rochkind]

On 6/14/2011 12:14 PM, Mark Jordan wrote:

-before negotiating with sponsors, have a policy on whether sponsorship gets 
them a slot on the program. IIRC there was a long discussion about this on the 
c4l planning list.


That is the thing the community has really not liked the idea of in the 
past. We want our program controlled by ourselves as peers, not by the 
funders.  I think we're all pretty keen on sticking to this, and have 
not needed to violate it in past confs to get funding.



-some sponsors might want to distribute branded material, and if you're 
planning on not handing out a log of swag, this might be a problem.


On the other hand, THIS is something that has been done before, and 
nobody has had a problem with, it seems like a fine idea. Of course, 
presumably the sponsors pay for and provide their own swag or adverts -- 
if the conf pays for that then it obviously diminishes the monetary 
value of the sponsorship (in worst case making it a loss!).



And it's also worth pointing out that all sponsors should be treated the 
same -- if one gets a certain benefit at a certain monetary level, 
everyone at that monetary level should -- the benefits they get at 
monetary levels out to be documented somewhere.


Somewhere in the past I know there's been a documented page with 
sponsorship benefits -- but now I can't find it. Getting people to help 
you find that documented policy/list of benefits sounds like a good 
idea, to use or refine for this year.


The importance of treating all sponsors the same contradicts a bit my 
earlier suggestion about "wait and see if sponsors require more" -- 
although you could still do wait and see, you'd just have to go back and 
notify people who already committed that now they get more (or could get 
more at a higher level), if you add more. It would get a bit weird 
though.  So I think you're doing well to be thinking about this now, way 
in advance, and ideally create a policy and stick to it.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Jonathan Rochkind]

When sponsors have sponsored pre-conf activities, that 'sponsoring' of 
pre-confs was just that their staff were the 
presenters/facilitators/instructors at those pre-confs.  So that is more 
exposure, but it was formally unconnected with their sponsorship 
donation -- in the sense that _anyone_ can propose and host a pre-conf 
(and thus get the exposure), if there's space and interest in their 
topic -- you don't need to donate sponsor $$ to do this.


I don't think anyone who's wanted to do a pre-conf has ever been denied 
the chance to do it -- although there's certainly the possibility there 
wouldn't be enough space for all proposed pre-confs at some conf. Would 
it be okay to say sponsors get guaranteed space (effectively bumping 
non-sponsors?).  I dunno, it's pushing it, but probably okay. Only an 
issue if there isnt' enough space for all pre-confs, which hasn't 
happened before.


In the past, sponsors have also had their own advert-inserts in the 
program material given to each attendee, which everyone has thought was 
fine.  And sponsors of course get on the t-shirt, and I think have had 
placards in the registration area too (i forget if those placards 
existed, but I think so, and I think they're fine).


Last year, people were a bit more iffy on a sponsor getting their name 
on a dinner/banquet, and even more so on the sponsor getting to present 
to a captive audience at that dinner/banquet. People generally didn't 
like that idea. People definitely woudln't like the sponsor getting a 
'keynote' during conf program.


Basically, we just want to make sure the conference remains a DIY sort 
of thing where we present and discuss with each other on things we're 
interested in that we decide ourselves as peers, not a program who's 
content is controlled (even in part) by those vendors paying for it.


In the past, we've gotten sponsors to donate with only this. Do we need 
more? Maybe potential sponsors have tighter purse strings then in the 
past.  Or maybe the conf has gotten more expensive such that we need 
more money and thus more incentive to sponsor. (First priority -- try to 
keep the conf from getting more expensive so this doesn't happen).  But 
basically, I'd personally suggest trying to get sponsors without giving 
them more than they've gotten in the past -- but if it becomes clear to 
you that more incentives are needed (perhaps becuase potentials sponsors 
say so) -- I'd just run your ideas for incentives/exposure by the 
listserv (either here or the conf-specific listserv at 
code4lib...@googlegroups.com), and see what the community reaction is. 
In the end, the decision is yours.


Jonathan

On 6/14/2011 11:50 AM, Anjanette Young wrote:

Excellent!

I've been kicking around ideas with Kyle about sponsorship. I noticed in the
past that OCLC and DLF had sponsored pre-conference activities.  I'd
appreciate more thoughts on walking the line between maximum exposure for
sponsors and intrusiveness on conference attendees.

--Anj

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Nagy  wrote:


Hi Anj - I just wanted to let you know that Serials Solutions is working
out
a plan to better support the conference.  We'd possibly like to sponsor an
evening event, we will have more information for you later in the summer.

Cheers
Andrew


On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Anjanette Young
wrote:
Code4Lib Seattle 2012 update.  Thanks to Elizabeth Duell of Orbis Cascade
Alliance and Cary Gordon of chillco.com, we finally have a venue with
adequate (hopefully) bandwidth and wireless access points, a reasonable
food
&  beverage minimum, and chairs!  The Renaissance Hotel (515 Madison St.,
Seattle, WA 98104) is located in the chilly heart of downtown Seattle,
still
close to the University district, but even closer to the restaurants,

bars,

breweries and distilleries in the Belltown, Downtown, Pioneer Square, and
Capitol Hill neighborhoods.

We could use lots of help, please consider volunteering for a committee:

http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/2012_committees_sign-up_page

--Anj
--
Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: 206.616.2867

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Mark Jordan]

Hi Anjanette,

We're just wrapping up the sponsorship drive for Access 2011, and can say we 
learned:

-you can't start soliciting sponsorships too soon; a lot of organizations 
allocate their conference and sponsorship money very early
-before negotiating with sponsors, have a policy on whether sponsorship gets 
them a slot on the program. IIRC there was a long discussion about this on the 
c4l planning list.
-some sponsors might want to distribute branded material, and if you're 
planning on not handing out a log of swag, this might be a problem.

Some of the perks we offered potential sponsors are listed at 
http://access2011.library.ubc.ca/sponsorships/ (in fact some of this might have 
been cribbed from c4l 2011).

Mark

Mark Jordan
Head of Library Systems
W.A.C. Bennett Library, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
Voice: 778.782.5753 / Fax: 778.782.3023 / Skype: mark.jordan50
mjor...@sfu.ca

- Original Message -
> Excellent!
> 
> I've been kicking around ideas with Kyle about sponsorship. I noticed
> in the
> past that OCLC and DLF had sponsored pre-conference activities. I'd
> appreciate more thoughts on walking the line between maximum exposure
> for
> sponsors and intrusiveness on conference attendees.
> 
> --Anj
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Nagy 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Anj - I just wanted to let you know that Serials Solutions is
> > working
> > out
> > a plan to better support the conference. We'd possibly like to
> > sponsor an
> > evening event, we will have more information for you later in the
> > summer.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Anjanette Young
> >  > >wrote:
> >
> > > Code4Lib Seattle 2012 update. Thanks to Elizabeth Duell of Orbis
> > > Cascade
> > > Alliance and Cary Gordon of chillco.com, we finally have a venue
> > > with
> > > adequate (hopefully) bandwidth and wireless access points, a
> > > reasonable
> > > food
> > > & beverage minimum, and chairs! The Renaissance Hotel (515 Madison
> > > St.,
> > > Seattle, WA 98104) is located in the chilly heart of downtown
> > > Seattle,
> > > still
> > > close to the University district, but even closer to the
> > > restaurants,
> > bars,
> > > breweries and distilleries in the Belltown, Downtown, Pioneer
> > > Square, and
> > > Capitol Hill neighborhoods.
> > >
> > > We could use lots of help, please consider volunteering for a
> > > committee:
> > >
> > > http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/2012_committees_sign-up_page
> > >
> > > --Anj
> > > --
> > > Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
> > > University of Washington Libraries
> > > Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
> > > Phone: 206.616.2867
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
> Phone: 206.616.2867

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Frumkin, Jeremy]

This might be better for the planning list, but I think we do need a broader 
discussion about our normal approach to working with sponsors. We typically 
have not had sponsored events, and this has been purposeful in intent (last 
year was an exception; I don't believe the topic was brought up with the 
community).

-- jaf

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:54 AM, "Anjanette Young"  wrote:

> Excellent!
> 
> I've been kicking around ideas with Kyle about sponsorship. I noticed in the
> past that OCLC and DLF had sponsored pre-conference activities.  I'd
> appreciate more thoughts on walking the line between maximum exposure for
> sponsors and intrusiveness on conference attendees.
> 
> --Anj
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Nagy  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Anj - I just wanted to let you know that Serials Solutions is working
>> out
>> a plan to better support the conference.  We'd possibly like to sponsor an
>> evening event, we will have more information for you later in the summer.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Andrew
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Anjanette Young >> wrote:
>> 
>>> Code4Lib Seattle 2012 update.  Thanks to Elizabeth Duell of Orbis Cascade
>>> Alliance and Cary Gordon of chillco.com, we finally have a venue with
>>> adequate (hopefully) bandwidth and wireless access points, a reasonable
>>> food
>>> & beverage minimum, and chairs!  The Renaissance Hotel (515 Madison St.,
>>> Seattle, WA 98104) is located in the chilly heart of downtown Seattle,
>>> still
>>> close to the University district, but even closer to the restaurants,
>> bars,
>>> breweries and distilleries in the Belltown, Downtown, Pioneer Square, and
>>> Capitol Hill neighborhoods.
>>> 
>>> We could use lots of help, please consider volunteering for a committee:
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/2012_committees_sign-up_page
>>> 
>>> --Anj
>>> --
>>> Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
>>> Phone: 206.616.2867
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
> Phone: 206.616.2867

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

[Anjanette Young]

Excellent!

I've been kicking around ideas with Kyle about sponsorship. I noticed in the
past that OCLC and DLF had sponsored pre-conference activities.  I'd
appreciate more thoughts on walking the line between maximum exposure for
sponsors and intrusiveness on conference attendees.

--Anj

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Nagy  wrote:

> Hi Anj - I just wanted to let you know that Serials Solutions is working
> out
> a plan to better support the conference.  We'd possibly like to sponsor an
> evening event, we will have more information for you later in the summer.
>
> Cheers
> Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Anjanette Young  >wrote:
>
> > Code4Lib Seattle 2012 update.  Thanks to Elizabeth Duell of Orbis Cascade
> > Alliance and Cary Gordon of chillco.com, we finally have a venue with
> > adequate (hopefully) bandwidth and wireless access points, a reasonable
> > food
> > & beverage minimum, and chairs!  The Renaissance Hotel (515 Madison St.,
> > Seattle, WA 98104) is located in the chilly heart of downtown Seattle,
> > still
> > close to the University district, but even closer to the restaurants,
> bars,
> > breweries and distilleries in the Belltown, Downtown, Pioneer Square, and
> > Capitol Hill neighborhoods.
> >
> > We could use lots of help, please consider volunteering for a committee:
> >
> > http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/2012_committees_sign-up_page
> >
> > --Anj
> > --
> > Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
> > University of Washington Libraries
> > Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
> > Phone: 206.616.2867
> >
>



-- 
Anjanette Young | Systems Librarian
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900 | Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: 206.616.2867

Re: [CODE4LIB] stemming in author search?

[Jonathan Rochkind]

Hey Erik, in that wiki documentation the example it gives is:




Do you know what that 'inject' argument is about, and where (if 
anywhere) I'd find it (and other available arguments for 
PhoneticFilterFactory, which may or may not differ depending on encoder 
chosen?) documented?


On 6/14/2011 8:31 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:

On Jun 14, 2011, at 08:10 , Keith Jenkins wrote:


Does Solr support Soundex?  (Soundex was originally developed to
assist with alternate spellings of names)

Indeed.  And several other phonetic algorithms:




Erik

Re: [CODE4LIB] stemming in author search?

[Jonathan Rochkind]

That's an interesting idea, I might try creating author fields with 
Soundex normalization rather than the standard English language 
'stemming' normalization.


Still curious to get more feedback on what others have done, even if you 
didn't consider it carefully, if you're doing it in production and it 
works good enough, it's a useful data point!


On 6/14/2011 8:31 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:

On Jun 14, 2011, at 08:10 , Keith Jenkins wrote:


Does Solr support Soundex?  (Soundex was originally developed to
assist with alternate spellings of names)

Indeed.  And several other phonetic algorithms:




Erik

[CODE4LIB] LITA Mobile Computing IG meeting at ALA 2011

[Bohyun Kim]

*apologies for cross-posting*

*LITA Mobile Computing IG meeting*

June 26, Sunday, 10:30 am – 12pm. Intercontinental New Orleans - Poydras
room
http://connect.ala.org/node/137605

*We invite you to the great discussion and 4 short presentations at the
Mobile Computing IG meeting at ALA 2011. *
*Presentations*
*Case Studies: Developing Mobile Access to Digital Collections
*Carmen Mitchell, Loyola Marymount University and Daniel Suchy, University
of California at San Diego

While much has been written and discussed about the development of library
mobile websites, very little of the conversation has focused on mobile
access to digital collections. Libraries and museums spend significant
resources in the effort to identify, digitize, ingest, describe, store, and
display items in their digital asset management systems (DAMs). The latest
challenge for libraries is to adapt and grow our digital collections to meet
the needs of an increasingly mobile user. We will present the findings from
four in-depth case studies of selected institutions and university
libraries. These institutions were chosen because they already offer mobile
services built around their digital collections, and are thus leading the
effort to present them in unique and mobile-centric ways.

*Mobile Services and QR Codes
*Benjamin Rawlins, Systems Librarian, Kentucky State University

As mobile services continue to expand, libraries are looking for ways to
connect users to their mobile content.  One solution is through the use of
QR codes.  This presentation will show how Paul G. Blazer Library at
Kentucky State University has been using QR codes as a way to reach our
mobile users.  QR codes are being used in the library’s online catalog, in
the Mobile Services booklet, and on our library trading cards.

*Maps and Library Wayfinding*
Jim Hahn and Alaina Morales, University of Illinois, Undergraduate Library

Many mobile map-based guidance systems heavily feature architecturally
designed CAD maps for building guidance. While this is a logical first step,
it would also seem to be only a starting place and not the preferred
interface for the users of undergraduate collections. Basic and applied
studies on building wayfinding has found that students approach the library
building with a bookstore frame of reference and prefer distorted maps based
on broad subject areas. This presentation will show the iteration of maps
displayed on a mobile device to help users get to desired items within a
library’s undergraduate collections. Next directions for additional data
points in map-based guidance will be discussed.

*Mobile Learning, Mobile Library: Connecting iPads, a Mobile Library
Website, and Library Instruction
*Willie Miller, Assistant Librarian, IUPUI University Library

IUPUI University Library moved into the mobile environment in 2009 with a
mobile site. Assistant Librarian, Willie Miller took this technology and
integrated into library instruction on iPads. In this presentation, Miller
shares his experiences teaching  with a mobile device in a mobile
environment, changes made to the mobile website based on in-class use, and
some of the surprising feedback he has received from students (they all
don't like iPads, some prefer computers).

*Discussion Topic*

*The Library's mobile presence: what do users want to have on the go?*
Discussion led by Ridie Wilson Ghezzi, Head, Research & Instruction
Services, Dartmouth College Baker-Berry Library

Here at Dartmouth College Library we are in the process of designing our
first mobile web presence for the library. We will discuss the process we've
gone through to this point but focus on the decisions we have made in regard
to what to include on the library's mobile site and what steps we took to
reach those decisions. Our goal is to have this mobile library site fully
operational by First-Year Orientation in September 2011. I think our
experience might be helpful to others as they move in this direction as
well. This discussion will provide an opportunity to share experiences and
questions.


--

Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS.

LITA Mobile Computing IG Chair

Digital Access Librarian | 305.348.1471

Florida International University Medical Library
http://medlib.fiu.edu | http://medlib.fiu.edu/m (Mobile)

Re: [CODE4LIB] stemming in author search?

[Erik Hatcher]

On Jun 14, 2011, at 08:10 , Keith Jenkins wrote:

> Does Solr support Soundex?  (Soundex was originally developed to
> assist with alternate spellings of names)

Indeed.  And several other phonetic algorithms:

   


Erik

Re: [CODE4LIB] stemming in author search?

[Keith Jenkins]

Does Solr support Soundex?  (Soundex was originally developed to
assist with alternate spellings of names)

Keith


On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:
> In a Solr-based search, stemming is done at indexing time, into fields with 
> stemmed tokens.
>
> It seems typical in library-catalog type applications based on Solr to have 
> the default (or even only) searches be over these stemmed fields, thus 
> 'auto-stemming' to the user. (Search for 'monkey', find 'monkeys' too, and 
> vice versa).
>
> I am curious how many people, who have Solr based catalogs (that is, I'm 
> interested in people who have search engines with majority or only content 
> originally from MARC), use such stemmed fields ('auto-stemming') over their 
> _author_ fields as well.
>
> There are pro's and con's to this. There are certainly some things in an 
> author field that would benefit from stemming (mostly various kinds of 
> corporate authors, some of whose endings end up looking like english language 
> phrases). There are also very many things in an author field that would not 
> benefit from stemming, and thus when stemming is done it sometimes(/often?) 
> results in false matches, "pluralizing" an author's last name in an 
> inappropriate way for instance.
>
> So, wanna say on the list, if you are using a Solr-based catalog, are you 
> using stemmed fields for your author searches? Curious what people end up 
> doing.  If there are any other more complicated clever things you've done 
> than just stem-or-not, let us know that too!
>
> Jonathan
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] stemming in author search?

[Bill Dueber]

We had stemming on for authors at first (maybe was the VUFind default way
back when?) and turned it off as soon as we noticed. The initial complaint
was that searching on "Rowles" gave records for "Rowling." and of course
it's not hard to find other examples, esp. with the -ing suffix.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:

> In a Solr-based search, stemming is done at indexing time, into fields with
> stemmed tokens.
>
> It seems typical in library-catalog type applications based on Solr to have
> the default (or even only) searches be over these stemmed fields, thus
> 'auto-stemming' to the user. (Search for 'monkey', find 'monkeys' too, and
> vice versa).
>
> I am curious how many people, who have Solr based catalogs (that is, I'm
> interested in people who have search engines with majority or only content
> originally from MARC), use such stemmed fields ('auto-stemming') over their
> _author_ fields as well.
>
> There are pro's and con's to this. There are certainly some things in an
> author field that would benefit from stemming (mostly various kinds of
> corporate authors, some of whose endings end up looking like english
> language phrases). There are also very many things in an author field that
> would not benefit from stemming, and thus when stemming is done it
> sometimes(/often?) results in false matches, "pluralizing" an author's last
> name in an inappropriate way for instance.
>
> So, wanna say on the list, if you are using a Solr-based catalog, are you
> using stemmed fields for your author searches? Curious what people end up
> doing.  If there are any other more complicated clever things you've done
> than just stem-or-not, let us know that too!
>
> Jonathan
>



-- 
Bill Dueber
Library Systems Programmer
University of Michigan Library