Re: [CODE4LIB] Anybody using pinboard?
I've been using it for years as a personal bookmarking tool, and thinks it's excellent. Jason may be doing more complex things with it, though. - Daniel. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Brad Coffield bcoffield.libr...@gmail.com wrote: https://pinboard.in/ First saw this in a webinar led by Jason Clark and thought it was cool. Thinking about it again and feel like I should do it. But I'm worried it's just my tendency to want it because its something neato. Anybody using it and recommend it? (or signed up and regret it?) I already work evernote hard so I'm wondering if it's useful enough separate from that. Thanks! -- Brad Coffield, MLIS Assistant Information and Web Services Librarian Saint Francis University 814-472-3315 bcoffi...@francis.edu -- Daniel Lovins Head of Knowledge Access, Design Development Knowledge Access Resource Management Services New York University, Division of Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor New York, NY 10003-7112 daniel.lov...@nyu.edu 212-998-2489
Re: [CODE4LIB] best way to make MARC files available to anyone
Thanks very much, Eric. I'll definitely take a look at your blog post. - Daniel Daniel Lovins Head of Knowledge Access, Design Development Knowledge Access Resource Management Services New York University, Division of Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor New York, NY 10003-7112 daniel.lov...@nyu.edu 212-998-2489 On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Daniel Lovins daniel.lov...@nyu.edu wrote: If anyone from HathiTrust is watching this thread, I'd also be curious if they're considering bulk record downloads via something other than OAI [1]. [1] http://www.lib.umich.edu/michigan-digitization-project-oai-harvesting While the process may not be exactly what you are looking for, it is possible to use the HathiTrust Research Center's services to do bulk downloads (of MARC and data records). [2] In a nutshell process is to: 1. create an account 2. create a work set 3. fill the set with HathiTrust items 4. use the Marc_Downloader algorithm to obtain metadata 5. use their Data API to obtain full text [3] I blogged, very briefly, on this subject. [4] [2] https://htrc2.pti.indiana.edu/HTRC-UI-Portal2/ [3] http://wiki.htrc.illinois.edu/display/COM/HTRC+Data+API+Users+Guide [4] http://dh.crc.nd.edu/blog/2013/05/htrc/ -- Eric Lease Morgan University of Notre Dame
Re: [CODE4LIB] best way to make MARC files available to anyone
If anyone from HathiTrust is watching this thread, I'd also be curious if they're considering bulk record downloads via something other than OAI [1]. Thanks. Daniel [1] http://www.lib.umich.edu/michigan-digitization-project-oai-harvesting -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:12 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] best way to make MARC files available to anyone Doh! I read all the emails in the thread except for Eric's, which asked the same question. Either way, his or mine, nevertheless curious. Kevin -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Eric Phetteplace Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:57 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] best way to make MARC files available to anyone Dana - perhaps a public Dropbox folder? Or just put the files up on your site somewhere, served with a Content-Disposition: attachment header so they trigger a download when accessed? E.g. here's a StackOverflowhttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/9195304/how-to-use- content-disposition-for-force-a-file-to-download-to-the-hard- drivethread on that. If they must be a recognized MIME type, you could compress them as .zip or .tar.gz files on the server, which would reduce download time either way. I did try clicking the links on your site and they never downloaded, the request just timed out. Not to discredit what you're doing, which is great, but aren't MARC records already available for Project Gutenberg? See their offline catalogshttp://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Offline_Catalogs#MARC _ Records_.28offsite.29page. Best, Eric Phetteplace Emerging Technologies Librarian Chesapeake College Wye Mills, MD On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Dana Pearson dbpearsonm...@gmail.comwrote: I have crosswalked the Project Gutenberg RDF/DC metadata to MARC. I would like to make these files available to any library that is interested. I thought that I would put them on my website via FTP but don't know if that is the best way. Don't have an ftp client myself so was thinking that that may be now passé. I tried using Google Drive with access available via the link to two versions of the files, UTF8 and MARC8. However, it seems that that is not a viable solution. I can access the files with the URLs provided by setting the access to anyone with the URL but doesn't work for some of those testing it for me or with the links I have on my webpage.. I have five folders with files of about 38 MB total. I have separated the ebooks, audio books, juvenile content, miscellaneous and non- Latin scripts such as Chinese, Modern Greek. Most of the content is in the ebook folder. I would like to make access as easy as possible. Google Drive seems to work for me. Here's the link to my page with the links in case you would like to look at the folders. Works for me but not for everyone who's tried it. http://dbpearsonmlis.com/ProjectGutenbergMarcRecords.html thanks, dana -- Dana Pearson dbpearsonmlis.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Actually, my sense from last year's meeting, with significant contingents from Europe and Japan, is that code4lib has become an international conference. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Michael J. Giarlo leftw...@alumni.rutgers.edu wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier. To me, the best way to solve the problem is to simply have more conferences. I, personally, would like to do with away with the regional brand and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location] (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the past tense, anyway). This way, there is no 'main' event. There are just events. And I'd wager that our national events are largely attended by folks who live in the host's region. 'Course I could be wrong. I would support THATCampizing code4lib in such a way; in fact, we're moving CURATEcamp towards the same model. +1 -Mike -- Daniel Lovins Head of Knowledge Access, Design Development Knowledge Access Resource Management Services New York University, Division of Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor New York, NY 10003-7112 daniel.lov...@nyu.edu 212-998-2489
Re: [CODE4LIB] Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions
+1 On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Fleming, Declan dflem...@ucsd.edu wrote: +1 -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross Singer Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:47 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions As unwilling commissioner of elections, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say, to hear of improprieties with the voting process. That said, I'm not shocked (and we've seen it before). I am absolutely opposed to: 1) Setting weights on voting. 0 is just as valid a vote as 3. 2) Publicly shaming the offenders in Code4Lib. If you run across impropriety in a forum, make a friendly, yet firm, reminder that ballot stuffing is unethical, undemocratic and tears at the fabric that is Code4Lib. Sometimes it just takes a simple reminder for people to realize what they're doing is wrong (it certainly works for me). 3) Selection committees. We are, as Dre points out, anarcho-democratic as our core. anarcho-bureaucratic just sounds silly. This current situation is largely our doing. We even publicly said that getting your proposal voted in is the backdoor into the conference. The first allotment of spaces sold out in an hour. This is, literally, the only way that a person that was not able to register and is buried on the wait list is going to get in. And we've basically told them that. One thing I would be open to is to put a disclaimer splash page before any ballot (only to be seen the first time a person votes) briefly explaining how the ballot works and to mention that ballot stuffing is unethical, undemocratic and tears at the fabric that is Code4Lib or some such. I would welcome contributions to the wording. What would people think about that? -Ross. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Richard, Joel M richar...@si.edu wrote: I disagree with this suggestion. Personally I vote for only those I find interesting and useful to me, but I don't put an response for every talk listed. I only respond on those I'm interested. Everyone else gets 0 points. I would expect that others do this, too. Katherine's suggestion also puts an burden on those who are legitimately participating while doing nothing to prevent those who are misbehaving. I like Edwards's suggestions, which are easy to implement and don't really impact the process that much. Personally, I believe that the proper response to this is to: 1. Publicly shame those who are participating in this. :) 2. Delete their votes, or at least those you can identify. 3. Disqualify the person who is receiving illegitimate votes. See #1. 4. Eliminate voting altogether and have a committee of 10-15 people from the community select from the proposed talks. Isn't this what other conferences do? In the end, the conference organizers can invite whoever they want to speak. The voting ends up being a courtesy to the rest of us. --Joel Joel Richard Lead Web Developer, Web Services Department Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/ (202) 633-1706 | richar...@si.edu On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Lynch,Katherine wrote: I was actually going to suggest just this, Kåre! Another way to handle it, or perhaps an additional way, would be give a user's votes a certain amount of weight proportionate to the number of sessions they voted on. So if they evaluated all of them and voted, 100% of their vote gets counted. If they evaluated half, 50%, and so on? Not sure if this is worth the effort, but I know it's worked for various camps that I've been to which fall prey to the same problem. Sincerely, Katherine On 12/1/11 6:55 AM, Kåre Fiedler Christiansen k...@statsbiblioteket.dk wrote: From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael B. Klein snip In any case, I'm interested to see how effective this current call for support is. Me too! Could someone with access to the voting data perhaps anonymously pull out how many voters have given points to only a single talk or two? If the problem is indeed real, perhaps simply stating on the page that you are expected to evaluate _all_ proposals, and not just vote up a single talk, would help the issue? It might turn away some of the wrong voters. Requiring to give out at least, say, 10 points, could be perhaps be a way to enforce some participation? Best, Kåre -- Daniel Lovins Head of Knowledge Access, Design Development Knowledge Access Resource Management Services New York University, Division of Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor New York, NY 10003-7112 daniel.lov...@nyu.edu 212-998-2489
