Filed under: Uncategorized
I’m itching in my underwear. Have since last night. I think it may be that I used too much soap in the laundry yesterday, in an effort to finish off the container amongst the two loads. Either that, or I was too rough with the plastic “loofah” or washing-sponge or whatever you actually call it. I thought maybe I didn’t rinse enough in the shower, so I re-rinsed myself before bed, put on some hydrocortisone, changed underwear. The itching is better today, but it is still there. Perhaps it’s still there because I’m thinking about it. I may go buy some new underwear at Filene’s Basement after work. I needed some new underwear anyway, and this is a good excuse to finally motivate myself to get some, I suppose.
I worried that maybe the itching was because I handled some poinsettia leaves, and the sap is supposed to be an irritant. But then I realized that I had showered and put on my underwear before I handled the leaves. I was also worried because the dog had gotten to the leaves when he was in the bedroom. There were a few leaves on the plant which were low enough for him to pick off. He’s doing okay though, and didn’t get into any sap–just leaves, and has gotten into the leaves before with no ill effect. I was worried about that though, so I went on the internet, and read that so many kinds of hybridization have taken place in poinsettia breeding that the stuff they sell you is only considered “poisonous” because the sap can be an irritant.
I’m not entirely worried about this (at least, I’m not freaking out) because I figure it’s either the natural irritation of laundry soap or shower gel or soaping up too hard in the shower. I may have even taken care of the first source of my itching, but caused additional itching by either re-cleaning myself too hard, or the fact that I partly dried myself with toilet paper, and there may be little bits of it down there acting as an irritant.
Either that, or it’s the weather.
Filed under: Uncategorized
After sitting on this site for a year and a half, I’ve decided to begin a new, right where I left off. But I’m changing the direction of what’s going to be posted.
I’ll still post about librarianship and book-related things, as that is my career. However, I think this blog would work best as a tool for me to express the dominating anxieties in my life. Basically, a tool for me to get out of my system and onto the “page” what is troubling me, perhaps as a way not to bother so many others (wife, family, friends, etc.) with the problems that I have been catastrophising.
I’ll post about the first few of these worries soon
Filed under: books, events, misc. | Tags: Auld Lang Syne, Grollier Glub, New York Public Library, NYPL, Robert Burns
From The Herald (UK):
A rare manuscript of Auld Lang Syne, written in Burns’s own hand, will be shown in New York as part of the Scotland Week celebrations.
The paper, which dates from around 1788, is normally on display in Glasgow, but will cross the Atlantic for the event.
From March 31 until April 4, it will be shown at the prestigious Grolier Club on Manhattan’s East 60th Street. Then, on April 6, it will move to New York public library.
For a more detailed overview on this particular manuscript’s history, and the precautions being taken on its trip back to the U.S., see this article in The Scotsman.
From The Queens Courier:
Four Queens library branches have been awarded over $1.2 million in construction funds to renovate their interiors Assemblymember Audrey Pheffer announced recently.
The grants are from a special allocation of $14 million in capital funds for public library construction provided by the New York State Legislature in the 2007-2008 State Budget.
The branches and their specific allocations are:
Bay Terrace in Bayside ($430,321), McGoldrick in Flushing ($200,000), Seaside in Rockaway Park ($200,000), and Sunnyside in Long Island City ($400,000) for a total of $1,230,321.
Even though these numbers are far short of the announced monetary plans for the New York Public Library, it’s good to hear that at least one of the outer boroughs (in fact, the borough with highest circulation numbers) is getting some upkeep funding, even in this slowed economy.
Filed under: misc., online services | Tags: III, Innovative, New York Public Library, NYPL
from the East Bay Business Times:
Innovative Interfaces Inc. is broadening the scope the library automation software used at the New York Public Library, the company said Wednesday…..
The library system will use the private Emeryville company’s software to unite its previously separate branch and research divisions and its online catalogs.
Good to see that this streamlining and interoperability of the catalogs is finally going to take place. I wonder if the timing of the deal has any connection to the $100 million NYPL advancement plan announced just a few days ago? Doesn’t seem like a coincidence.
Filed under: Acquisitions, Lecture Notes, Reference, Technology, books, online services | Tags: digital, Gale Research, print, reference books, Wikipedia
Friday, November 9, 2007, 2:00-2:45pm
Frederick G. Ruthner (Gale Research) – Founder
Diminished presence of reference books-irreplaceability
Why have so few reference librarians published reference books?
Utility of the quick fix and the easy answer
Books-connections and style (literary enjoyment); organic sense of connectedness and completeness.
FORM begets function and influences behavior-responsibility of author.
Convenience of online claims-trust? Organized for utility
working with a computer might be faster, but is it better?
What one person has done, shows what a person can do.
Suppressing online credit = re-sale of information.
“Democratization” of information (eg. Wikipedia & Answers.com) “definitions depend on the definer”.
Shelf placement aids intellectual discovery: libraries and books will survive as long as they are used for this purpose.
Delivery systems more “respected” now than what is in the container. Shifting source of value: editorial strength –> digitization.
Selling convenience-what they already have in a smaller box.
How does publisher convert digital editorialism to licensing cost?
Including authors names (fragmentation); bulk-pack marketing (single purchase: sales devoted to converting buying to rental-reducing value packages and worth of creator–money is the incentive).
Cost–>time/effort-creation of new reference works-amateurs compete with professional without intermediation. Users have now supplanted the authority of the teachers. Scholarship is now a game of editing (with pseudonyms).
Books: authority and organization; no superfluous data; no software update with additional costs–ephemeral quality of electronic/digital formatting.
Content creation dates of electronic material. Reprint og earlier materials. Energy consumption: constant large electrical supply versus reading paper. What does the publisher stand for–publisher editor/ versus technologists who don’t know beyond technology.
Distortion of work: unity, author citations, fragmentation.
Updating computer systems are taking away cost effectiveness.
Electronic search capabilities = accessibility; print needed for quality of record. Both = cost (should be made available in academic locations).
Filed under: Future of Librarianship, Lecture Notes, Reference, online services
Thursday, November 8, 2007, 2:00-2:45 pm
Stephen Rhind-Tutt – President, Alexander Street Press
Reference: Demise of reference and collections? What lies behind this? Evaluating reference collections – suggestions? It’s all going to be on Google?
Reference has never been more alive:
61 billion searches conducted on web.
Google-112 million unique visitors in 2007.
Wikipedia-collections being created in digital form.
Benefits with electronic reference: ubiquity, free, automated, built into workflow, analyze, explore, 24 hour updates, external content links, auto-generated content, user-generated content.
electronic interconnectivity: everything refers to everything else.
nature of publications: atomic-infinity of interconnection; pliable; constantly evolving.
automation of references: SDI/RSS feeds; link resolvers; XML gateways eScience; Nano Web; data mining tools; expert systems.
All electronic products are reference; distinctive vocab is borrowed from print; boundaries are blurred.
Interlinkages have not been treated in library terms/scenarios. blurring of “collection”: selection of material for a particular purpose. What does it mean when many items are universally accessable? Many items can be accessed on a particular site? When there are many surrogate versions?
Wiki & web vs. traditional reference lacks in terms of authority, selections, specificity, conciseness, persuasiveness.
Unknown neutrality; patchy organization.
Example: Wikipedia clear about collaborativeness/”wisdom of the crowd” (personal essays, dictionary entries, critical reviews, ‘propaganda or advocacy’, and original research are excluded: doesn’t break new ground; denigrates expertise–no points for being an expert on a subject; avoids bias-aims for a “neutral view”: there is no objective history; historical scholarship is characterized by possessive individualism. Wikipedia doesn’t point to “for fee” items
Selectivity of printed reference works: collection or task focus is critical.
The right information always trumps more information.
Utility of information-function goes beyond reference into daily work flow.
Semantic indexing
Knovel-pulls out engineering data from numerous reference works
Richer reference questions with more added value
Sources:
Facts Unfiled, Dave Tyckoson
“Can History be Open Source?”, Roy Rosenzweig, Journal of American History, June 2006.
Friday, November 9, 2007, 3:00-3:45 pm
Ordering from one online vendor: easier selection decisions versus doing only a subset of products for a particular year for each vendor–streamlining the order process ability to share recommendations throughout subject liaisons and converse among selectors and with tech services-catches interdisciplinary subjects. Ability to see stock level decisions; title status; order info. duplication control. Ability to more easily commit to rush orders, as well as cancel titles with one-click. Import vendor records into your ILS (Integrated Library System) instead of getting a traditional purchase order set up and processed, and downloading OCLC records (i.e. greater links between vendor tools and ILS systems). Eliminate pre-order searching: get invoices from ILS system. Reports: variety available from system, including expenditures and approvals; customized (real time application plan reports/return rate; open order reports; consortia reports).
Downsides can occur as it regards the continued evolution within the product: training and re-training necessary of staff is necessary on systems, and there can be inopportune times for system maintenance relative to your library’s schedule. There is also the increasing costs of technology to deliver future online systems; one may have to prioritize changes in system development relative to your needs and budgets. Also, expectation are not always met across libraries who share the same system, but have different work flows.
Customer driven systems are (or at least should be) simple, fast and comprehensive. You may wish to involve your library in an advisory group with an external consultant like Coutts (Oasis systems).
Other benefits of the single stop, electronic vendor system (should) include: ability to add local data; downloadable MARC records; electronic title notification (approval slips); collaborative tools; management reports; monitoring tools; list features; RSS feeds and or folksonomic-style tagging capabilities (like Amazon.com now incorporated in its records); the ability to see inside the book; stock status; and, the ability to purchase in batch.
OCLC is taking records from individual vendor systems, aggregating them together (with a focus on notification records and MARC) and linking back out to the vendors, where your partnership still exists. OCLC Selection gives you specific data only for your library. MARC data is exported to your ILS, then your purchase is finalized via the vendor’s system interacting directly with your library’s ILS system.
Friday, November 9, 2007, 4:15-5:00 pm
Agents (Georges Sarazin, Vp of Sales, Swets) : Unique position in changing market; expanded role in driving initiatives; rapid expansion of e-content = greater complexity (greater interoperability; reduce data duplication; address administrative burden in content-value chain: publishers->agents->consumers); agents are a neutral party serving both ends’ needs, supporting e-resources for greater efficiency and improved access–aggregating data withing a single portal that is COUNTER compliant.
SUSHI: Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative. XML based protocol. Standard protocol for e-resource management (ERM), enabling automatic request and delivery of usage stats from vendors.
ERM (Theodore Fons, Product Mgr., Innovative Interfaces) :Harvester (SUSHI) & Cost Analysis/Database Analysis (Database for Library) = overlap analysis; usage states for expensive resources, title level use and item level use -> building a “usage support system”.
Publishers (Oxford Univ Press) : More sophistication may come at the cost of compatibility. Sales tools: turn-aways, pay per view usage, $ per download; value of use (“eliminate from inquiries”, save or print, time spent reading, number of internal links clicked, number of “formats used”); archival use. Reality checks: free items in a paid for journal; LOCKSS chache downloads; training downloads. Other useful info: referral pages and type of user (where did it come from and who was using it (IPs). Limitation of searching metrics: # of searches doesn’t factor in success of searches (value of use); database selected unto itself was part of a service; metasearching; should we add: results/search click-throughs, etc.
Libraries (Tansy Matthews, Associate Director, Virginia Virtual Library) : Only 1/2 of our vendors are actually giving COUNTER-compliant stats, and only 1/5 of vendors can send info in XML. Until they become XML compliant, SUSHI will be rather useless. All we, as librarians, want is for vendors to not just agree to these standards, but actually implement them as part of normal practice.
Response to Ms. Matthews: The current head of COUNTER (who is also a publisher) stated that COUNTER is a “code of practice”, and “NOT a standard”. Therefore, publishers who have agreed to use it do NOT have to make it a mandatory, value-added part of all content packages. This also is intertwined with concerns re: the cost/ease of becoming a compliant vendor. Also, while COUNTER v.2 is now in existence, and COUNTER publicly states that they would prefer vendors to be COUNTER 2 compliant, they have no way as an organization of enforcing this. It is, rather, up to the customer/user to put pressure on vendors to make these changes.
