Prepared as the keynote for the Georgia Knowledge Repository's annual meeting, this presentation discusses why repositories are important, the challenges they face, and solutions or opportunities for networking repositories and optimizing their impact for local, regional and global communities.
Security and Data Ownership in the Cloud
Andrew K. Pace, Executive Director, Networked Library Services, OCLC; Councilor-at-large, American Library Association
Keynote presentation at the Lita Forum, Albuquerque. Research and learning practices are enacted in technology rich environments. New tools support digital workflows and the volume and variety of research and learning outputs are growing. Libraries are working to support these new environments and to connect their services to them.
The research library: scalable efficiency and scalable learninglisld
As research libraries are being reconfigured in a network environment, two important trends are emerging. The first is to accelerate the sharing of infrastructure, either through collaborative services or with third party providers. The second is to engage more deeply with the research and learning processes of their campuses. As research and learning processes themselves change, the research library has to respond and this makes being responsive and open to learning very important.
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Jeff Penka, Director of Channel and Product Development, Zepheira
Security and Data Ownership in the Cloud
Andrew K. Pace, Executive Director, Networked Library Services, OCLC; Councilor-at-large, American Library Association
Keynote presentation at the Lita Forum, Albuquerque. Research and learning practices are enacted in technology rich environments. New tools support digital workflows and the volume and variety of research and learning outputs are growing. Libraries are working to support these new environments and to connect their services to them.
The research library: scalable efficiency and scalable learninglisld
As research libraries are being reconfigured in a network environment, two important trends are emerging. The first is to accelerate the sharing of infrastructure, either through collaborative services or with third party providers. The second is to engage more deeply with the research and learning processes of their campuses. As research and learning processes themselves change, the research library has to respond and this makes being responsive and open to learning very important.
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Jeff Penka, Director of Channel and Product Development, Zepheira
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Maryann Martone, Ph.D., Professor of Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Bruce Rosenblum, CEO, Inera, Inc.
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Tara Robenalt, Vice President and General Manager, Workflow Solutions, Highwire Press
Foundations to Actions: Extending Innovations to Digital Libraries in Partner...Trish Rose-Sandler
This talk was given by Trish Rose-Sandler, Leora Siegel, Katie Mika, Pamela McClanahan, Ariadne Rehbein, Marissa Kings, and Alicia Esquivel at the DPLAFest in Chicago on April 21 2017
Slides from Richard Green, Chris Arwe (Hull University, Hydra Project) David Wilcox (Fedora) Anders Conrad Sparre (Royal Library of Denmark) Gregory Markus (Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision/ EuropeanaTech) about European efforts towards building a better FLOSS Community, the benefits of contributing to Open Source projects and the successes of the Hydra Project and Fedora. Slides are from Open Repositories 2016 Conference held at Trinity College, Dublin.
Levels of Service for Digital LibrariesGreg Colati
Looking at data management from the perspective of data characteristics instead of the applications or systems that create and manage data. This is a presentation given as a discussion stater at the internal UConn Library management group meeting in April 2017
This presentation outlines some steps for those new to digital curation (i.e., preserving and providing access to digital collections). This presentation was for the Digital Conversion Interest Group, sponsored by ALCTS-PARS, and was given at the American Library Association Conference in Anaheim, California on June 23, 2012. All content in this presentation is Creative Commons licensed (CC-BY-SA).
Learning the Lingo: Building Foundations for Successful Partnerships and Collaborations upon which Successful Systems Integrations can be Built
Carl Grant, Associate Dean, Knowledge Services & Chief Technology Officer, University of Oklahoma
These slides were presented as part of a webinar to provide RLG Partnership institutions with the opportunity to learn more about the current work taking place in OCLC Research and discover new ways to become more engaged in the RLG Partnership.
Topics covered include: Green ILL Practices & Deaccessioning Decision Tree; Cloud Library; In-copyright Print Books; Evaluating Rights & Risk for Unpublished Materials;
Special Collections Survey; The Library's Role in Research Assessment; Data Curation; and Social Metadata. A preview of upcoming events, reports and webinars was also included.
NISO Virtual Conference
Scientific Data Management: Caring for Your Institution and its Intellectual Wealth
Enabling transparency and efficiency in the research landscape
Dr. Melissa Haendel, Associate Professor, Ontology Development Group, OHSU Library, Department of Medical Informatics and Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University
Project Management in Libraries for UCLA IS 410Karen S Calhoun
A 3-hour class introducing project management in libraries, prepared and presented at the invitation of Dr. Beverly Lynch for her 3-credit graduate course "Management Theory and Practice for Information Professional," IS 410 in the UCLA Department of Information Studies.
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Maryann Martone, Ph.D., Professor of Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Bruce Rosenblum, CEO, Inera, Inc.
NISO Two Day Virtual Conference:
Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform:
Challenges and Opportunities
Oct 21-22, 2014
Tara Robenalt, Vice President and General Manager, Workflow Solutions, Highwire Press
Foundations to Actions: Extending Innovations to Digital Libraries in Partner...Trish Rose-Sandler
This talk was given by Trish Rose-Sandler, Leora Siegel, Katie Mika, Pamela McClanahan, Ariadne Rehbein, Marissa Kings, and Alicia Esquivel at the DPLAFest in Chicago on April 21 2017
Slides from Richard Green, Chris Arwe (Hull University, Hydra Project) David Wilcox (Fedora) Anders Conrad Sparre (Royal Library of Denmark) Gregory Markus (Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision/ EuropeanaTech) about European efforts towards building a better FLOSS Community, the benefits of contributing to Open Source projects and the successes of the Hydra Project and Fedora. Slides are from Open Repositories 2016 Conference held at Trinity College, Dublin.
Levels of Service for Digital LibrariesGreg Colati
Looking at data management from the perspective of data characteristics instead of the applications or systems that create and manage data. This is a presentation given as a discussion stater at the internal UConn Library management group meeting in April 2017
This presentation outlines some steps for those new to digital curation (i.e., preserving and providing access to digital collections). This presentation was for the Digital Conversion Interest Group, sponsored by ALCTS-PARS, and was given at the American Library Association Conference in Anaheim, California on June 23, 2012. All content in this presentation is Creative Commons licensed (CC-BY-SA).
Learning the Lingo: Building Foundations for Successful Partnerships and Collaborations upon which Successful Systems Integrations can be Built
Carl Grant, Associate Dean, Knowledge Services & Chief Technology Officer, University of Oklahoma
These slides were presented as part of a webinar to provide RLG Partnership institutions with the opportunity to learn more about the current work taking place in OCLC Research and discover new ways to become more engaged in the RLG Partnership.
Topics covered include: Green ILL Practices & Deaccessioning Decision Tree; Cloud Library; In-copyright Print Books; Evaluating Rights & Risk for Unpublished Materials;
Special Collections Survey; The Library's Role in Research Assessment; Data Curation; and Social Metadata. A preview of upcoming events, reports and webinars was also included.
NISO Virtual Conference
Scientific Data Management: Caring for Your Institution and its Intellectual Wealth
Enabling transparency and efficiency in the research landscape
Dr. Melissa Haendel, Associate Professor, Ontology Development Group, OHSU Library, Department of Medical Informatics and Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University
Project Management in Libraries for UCLA IS 410Karen S Calhoun
A 3-hour class introducing project management in libraries, prepared and presented at the invitation of Dr. Beverly Lynch for her 3-credit graduate course "Management Theory and Practice for Information Professional," IS 410 in the UCLA Department of Information Studies.
A panel of GALILEO Knowledge Repository (GKR) project leaders will describe how this IMLS grant-funded project increased access to digital scholarship, research information, and related works from institutions across the University System of Georgia. Presented at GaCOMO12 by Marlee Givens, Andy Carter, and Debra Skinner.
If You Tag it, Will They Come? Metadata Quality and Repository ManagementSarah Currier
Presentation to Metadata Perspectives 2009, a conference held in Vienna, Austria in November 2009.
When we build collections of scholarly works, learning materials, or other educational "stuff", we want people to be able to find it. This raises a number of problems, including ensuring that resources are tagged with adequate metadata. In 2004 a pioneering paper on this issue noted:
"At its best, “accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” (Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) metadata is a powerful tool that enables the user to discover and retrieve relevant materials quickly and easily and to assess whether they may be suitable for reuse. At worst, poor quality metadata can mean that a resource is essentially invisible within the repository and remains unused." (Currier et al, 2004).
Have the five years since the above-quoted paper was published borne out its prediction: that simply expecting resource authors to create their own metadata at upload would lead to metadata of insufficient quality? Have repository managers been able to persuade funders that including professional metadata augmentation is worth the money? What has been the impact of recent Web developments allowing easier exposure, searching and sharing of resources? How is metadata being treated within the emerging domain of open educational resources? And what does all this mean for repository managers wanting to increase the discoverability of their resources, and to implement workflows for creation of good quality metadata?
Currier, S. et al (2004) Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process, ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2004
http://repository.alt.ac.uk/616/1/ALT_J_Vol12_No1_2004_Quality%20assurance%20for%20digital%20.pdf
Greenberg, J. & Robertson, W. (2003) Semantic web construction: an inquiry of authors’ views on collaborative metadata generation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata for e-Communities 2002, 45–52.
http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/ojs/pubs/article/viewArticle/693
KCS in the real world. You are already using your knowledge—why not capture and reuse it while you work? Knowledge Centered Support (KCS) is gathering momentum, but it is evident that many people are still unsure of its concepts and are also a little skeptical of the benefits of knowledge management in the arena of service management. If you are willing to shift the focus of your support organization from “Call Centric” to ”Knowledge Centric,” then you will reap the benefits that have been realized by many support organizations that have implemented KCS. Paul Jay has been implementing KCS in many large organizations since 2005 and will share many tips and traps that come with rolling out integrated knowledge management solutions leveraging the KCS (Framework).
Come Together: Interdepartmental Collaboration to Connect the IR and Library ...NASIG
Presenter: Amanda Makula, University Of San Diego
While institutional repositories (IRs) often include a built-in searching mechanism and/or are indexed by web search engines, what about our patrons who go straight to the library catalog with their information need? Rather than hope that users will stumble upon the IR from the library website or assume that they will start their research with a Google search, librarians can facilitate greater IR discoverability and usage by integrating its content into the library catalog. With strong teamwork, good communication, and a shared vision, this endeavor helps transform the IR and library catalog from separate, siloed platforms into a more cohesive collections package.
At the University of San Diego, librarians and administrators across three departments -- Technical Services, Systems, and Archives / Special Collections / Digital Initiatives --recognized this opportunity and came together to share information and work in concert to explore and enact the benefits of auto-harvesting IR content into the library catalog. Driven by a vision of providing enhanced discoverability and access, as well as promoting the IR as a whole and enriching the catalog, the team members worked cooperatively to identify specific IR collections appropriate for harvest, investigate technical logistics, consult outside vendors (including Innovative and bepress), and experiment with implementation.
The Evolving Collection and Shift to OpenLynn Connaway
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Cathy King. 2020. “The Evolving Collection and Shift to Open.” Presented at the Research Information Exchange, February 14, 2020, Melbourne, Australia.
Libraries, collections, technology: presented at Pennylvania State University...lisld
Library collections are changing in a network environment. This presentation considers how collections are being reconfigured, it looks at research support services, and it explores the shift from the purchased/licensed collection to the facilitated collection.
The library and the network: scale, engagement, innovationlisld
Presented at Georgetown University Library. Discusses ongoing reconfiguration of libraries by networks. A shift from infrastructure to engagement around developing research and learning needs. Also includes some analysis of Georgetown collections in the context of Worldcat.
Created by Joyce Valenza and Deb Kachel for an LSTA Commonwealth Libraries project to train school and public librarians to use LibGuides as a tool for collection curation.
Challenges and opportunities for academic librarieslisld
Research and learning behaviors are changing in a network environment. What challenges do Academic libraries face? What opportunities do they have? A presentation given at a symposium on the future of academic libraries at the Open University.
We used to think of the user in the life of the library. Now we think of the library in the life of the user. As behaviors change in a network environment, we have seen growing interest in ethnographic and user-centered design approaches. This presentation introduces this topic. It also explores changes in how we manage collections as an illustration of this shift towards thinking of the library in the life of the user.
Opening Keynote: From where we are to where we want to be: The future of resource discovery from a UK perspective
Neil Grindley, Head of Resource Discovery, Jisc
Utilizing multiple methodologies and techniques, institutional repositories and special collections can enhance their internal and external visibility and improve the usability and impact of their holdings. Presented at GaCOMO12 by Harold Thiele.
Digital Academic Content and the Future of Libraries: International Cooperati...UBC Library
International Library Cooperation Symposium presentation May 14, 2010 in Tokyo, Japan.
Presentation by Ingrid Parent, President elect of IFLA, and University Librarian at the University of British Columbia
The Library in the Life of the User: Two Collection Directionslisld
Our understanding of library collections is changing in a digital, network environment. This presentation focuses on two trends in this context. First, the inside-out library is a trend which sees libraries support the creation, management and discoverability of institutional materials: research data, expertise, preprints, and so on. Second, the facilitated collection is a trend which sees libraries increasingly organize resources around user interests, whether these resources are external, collaborative or locally acquired.
This presentation was given at 'The transformation of academic library collecting: a symposium inspired by Dan C. Hazen'. Harvard Library, 20/21 Oct. 2016
Similar to Networking Repositories, Optimizing Impact: Georgia Knowledge Repository Meeting (20)
The evolution of digital libraries as socio-technical systemsKaren S Calhoun
Introduces and orients participants to digital libraries as socio-technical systems--that is, systems based on the interplay of technology, information, and people. The objective is to expose thematic connections between digital library infrastructure, cultural heritage and scholarly collections, social forces, and online community building. Key challenges of the current environment include interoperability, community engagement, intellectual property rights, and sustainability. Invited presentation for the Nimitiz Library staff, US Naval Academy.
Explores how library collections have been, are and will be built in the context of changing information-seeking behavior, changes in the nature of collections, the social web, and new enabling technology.
A detailed briefing on the current position of the library catalog and its prospects in the age of internet discovery and changing preferences for information seeking. Based on the speaker's extensive research and writings abou the catalog and metadata at Cornell University Library and for the Library of Congress. Prepared for the "New Age of Discovery" Institute sponsored by ASERL and hosted by Auburn University Libraries. Presented July 19, 2007. Includes speaker notes.
Leading from the Middle: Rationale and Impact of Pitt's ProgramKaren S Calhoun
One of three panel presentations at "Leadership Development in Action: Changing Lives, Changing Libraries," delivered March 27, 2015 at the ACRL National Conference in Portland OR, this session describes the motivation, learning objectives, curriculum, and evaluation of a leadership development program for the University Library System at the University of Pittsburgh
Engaging Your Community Through Cultural Heritage Digital Libraries Karen S Calhoun
Based on the book Exploring Digital Libraries, this ALA Techsource webinar examines cultural heritage collections in the context of the social web and online communities. Calhoun and Brenner explore the possibilities and provide examples of digital libraries' shift toward social platforms, along the way discussing how to increase discoverability and community engagement, for instance through crowdsourcing.
Supporting Digital Scholarship: From Collections to CommunitiesKaren S Calhoun
A webinar presented by Aaron Brenner and Karen Calhoun for ALA TechSource based on Calhoun's book Exploring Digital Libraries (ALA Neal-Schuman, 2014).
Rethinking Library Cooperatives: Prepared for the Program for Cooperative Cat...Karen S Calhoun
In the context of current initiatives around linked data and cloud-based service frameworks, the presentation invites exploration of future directions that library cooperatives might take to significantly improve the visibility and recognition of library collections on the web.
Exploring Digital Libraries: Chapter by Chapter Summary by Facet PublishingKaren S Calhoun
From Facet Publishing, on the new book by Karen Calhoun. From book cover: "thought-provoking and practical, [the text] not only weaves an enormous amount of content into a manageable resource for teaching and learning, but also covers new topics in the field, including digital library roles on the social web and in libraries' digital future."
Teambuilding Workshop - ULS Leadership ProgramKaren S Calhoun
This presentation is designed to help leaders understand why to use teams and how to lead and work with them. Includes sections on kickoff meetings, team size, dealing with issues of trust, establishing norms and getting people to participate. This is one of the workshops in Pitt’s University Library System (ULS) Leadership Program.
Delegation and Conflict Management: A Mini-WorkshopKaren S Calhoun
This presentation is designed to teach principles and processes associated with delegating tasks and managing organizational conflict. It underpins a two-hour workshop that is part of Pitt’s University Library System (ULS) Leadership Program. The workshop exercises reinforce the skills of delegating tasks and managing conflicts contextually, using a variety of approaches.
ULS Leadership Program: Presentations WorkshopKaren S Calhoun
Considers a whole brain model for enhancing creativity and how the model applies to designing and giving presentations. Explores and provides opportunities to practice ideas and techniques for presenting effectively and more creatively. Includes list of sources.
Effective Meetings Workshop: ULS Leadership programKaren S Calhoun
One of a series of workshops prepared for the University Library System (ULS) Leadership Program at the University of Pittsburgh. Covers how to make meetings more productive and deal with common problems, for example, getting people to participate and managing dysfunctional behaviors.
An interactive workshop on the changing academic library, from endings to new beginnings. Prepared at the invitation of the Associated College Libraries of Central Pennsylvania, the workshop covers how budgets, staffing, and shifts in information-seeking behaviors and preferences are driving change in collections and services. The workshop concludes with a consideration of opportunities for innovation to add value and advance the missions of the colleges and universities that libraries serve.
Developing new services in library organizationsKaren S Calhoun
A workshop for a library and information science class on management. Includes sections on innovation and new service development in libraries; project initiation and management; teamwork and leadership; and project politics.
Workshop on Project Management and Teamwork for ULSKaren S Calhoun
A workshop for task force members of the Pitt University Library System (ULS). Includes sections on project initiation, design teams, environmental scanning and stakeholder evaluation, the Future Search methodology, the use of SharePoint for collaboration, and strategic option analysis.
From Ideas to Innovation: Powering Up for ChangeKaren S Calhoun
Presented at the December 2011 PALCI Member Meeting in Harrisburg PA. Calhoun describes her new role at the University of Pittsburgh Library as AUL for Organizational Development; the nature of and necessary conditions for transformational change; and the challenges of the the change cycle.
Rethinking Our Jobs: Toward a New Kind of Academic Library Karen S Calhoun
Invited presentation for Library Staff Day at Duquesne University, 3 January 2012. Makes a case for change in academic libraries; recommends changes and a process for enabling change. Cites a 2011 Education Advisory Board report and other evidence to support new strategies and new types of jobs for librarians and staff.
Library Process Redesign: Renewing Services, Changing Workflows Karen S Calhoun
Invited presentation for Cambridge University Library, 10 February 2011. Reviews trends in research library collections including e-resources and special collections; discusses principles and practice of library process redesign to free up time for new initiatives.
Time Management Workshop - ULS Leadership ProgramKaren S Calhoun
Prepared as a component of the Pitt University Library System's Leadership Development Program, a year-long set of learning activities to strengthen ULS leadership capacity for achieving strategic initiatives, managing projects, and working in teams across organizational boundaries.
Revitalizing the Library in the University Knowledge CommunityKaren S Calhoun
Covers some important studies on the future of the academic research library at Pitt and elsewhere. Discusses collaborative processes to build a new vision of library services and immerse the library more fully in research, teaching and learning at the university.
The Art Pastor's Guide to Sabbath | Steve ThomasonSteve Thomason
What is the purpose of the Sabbath Law in the Torah. It is interesting to compare how the context of the law shifts from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Who gets to rest, and why?
This is a presentation by Dada Robert in a Your Skill Boost masterclass organised by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan (EFSS) on Saturday, the 25th and Sunday, the 26th of May 2024.
He discussed the concept of quality improvement, emphasizing its applicability to various aspects of life, including personal, project, and program improvements. He defined quality as doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to achieve the best possible results and discussed the concept of the "gap" between what we know and what we do, and how this gap represents the areas we need to improve. He explained the scientific approach to quality improvement, which involves systematic performance analysis, testing and learning, and implementing change ideas. He also highlighted the importance of client focus and a team approach to quality improvement.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
How to Split Bills in the Odoo 17 POS ModuleCeline George
Bills have a main role in point of sale procedure. It will help to track sales, handling payments and giving receipts to customers. Bill splitting also has an important role in POS. For example, If some friends come together for dinner and if they want to divide the bill then it is possible by POS bill splitting. This slide will show how to split bills in odoo 17 POS.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
1. GEORGIA KNOWLEDGE
REPOSITORY MEETING
COMO2014, Augusta
Karen Calhoun
October 2, 2014
1
Networking repositories
Optimizing impact
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/
Link to Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/amarintha/networking-repositories-optimizing-impact-georgia-knowledge-repository-meeting
2. Topics today
Why repositories are important
o Value/positive impact up to now
oWhat is or could be in them
o Reasons to get excited about repositories going forward
Challenges of repositories
o Content
o Visibility and reach
o Little to no “social life”
Solutions / opportunities for repositories (optimizing
impact)
o “Networking” – recruiting content, enhancing visibility, interaction
2
3. WHY REPOSITORIES ARE IMPORTANT
3
arXiv.org
Source of traffic analysis: http://compete.com (US data only)
4. A lightning introduction to
repositories
Dictionary definition:
◦ A place or container where things can be deposited for storage or
safekeeping
A key outcome of the first decade of digital library research
and practice (1991-2001)
Most are open access (online, free of charge, free of most
copyright and licensing restrictions)
Three kinds of repos:
Subject-based (centered on a subject, discipline or a group of these)
Institutionally-based (centered on the intellectual output of an
institution)
Meta-repositories (repository of repositories, like GKR)
4
5. How Many Repositories
Worldwide?
We don’t know,
but …
Repository66.org
(shown) tracks
3,045 repos …
containing
12.3 million items
ROAR.org tracks
3,787
OpenDOAR.org
tracks 2,760
5
40% or more of registered repos use the DSpace repository platform
6. The Value of Repositories Up
to Now
Improved discoverability and public accessibility of scholarly
information (broad access for more people)
◦ Repos are routinely crawled and indexed by search engines (Google and Google
Scholar) – Items reach a broad audience; downloaded often
◦ Growing number of open access versions of articles
◦ In a sample of 2500+ articles from subscription-based journals, 38% had open access versions – and
Google/Google Scholar located over ¾ of them (Norris, Oppenheim, Rowland 2008)
Open exchange between systems – interoperability, remixing, re-use,
disclosure, dissemination (“networking”)
Centralized, easier access to hard-to-find content
◦ Repos contain not only pre-prints and post-prints of articles, but reports and working papers, teaching
and learning materials, presentations, conference proceedings, media, student work …
Long-term access to materials (preservation)
6
8. Getting Attention on the Web
8
“You Are What You Link”
Source: Adamic and Adar 2001
9. Discoverability: Integrated and
Decentralized
Integrated discoverability
“The Libraries will need a [pre-indexed] system or service layer that
integrates metadata from internal, external, owned, licensed, and
freely-available data sources selected by library staff” (Hanson et al.
2011)
Decentralized discoverability
“The Libraries should generate … metadata for local collections and
data sources that can be exported, harvested, or made available for
crawling by external systems.” (Hanson et al. 2011)
9
10. An Example of Best Practice (you
are what you link)!
10
12. Integrated
Discovery
12
Content
from
Creators
and Their
Agents
Local Catalog
Local
Repositories
Locally
managed
resources
Feeds from
other sources
(fee or free)
Local
discovery
layer
Decentralized Discoverability
Uploaded/harvested/crawled
/indexed metadata & links
Library
cooperative
commons
services and
registries
GALILEO
Search engines
(Google, Google
Scholar)
National,
National,
international, and
domain-specific
collections and
international, and
domain-specific
collections and
National,
international,
and domain-specific
services
services
collections and
services
GKR
Georgia DL
DPLA
13. What’s in repositories today?
Source: Calhoun, K. (2014). Exploring Digital Libraries. p. 95. 13
14. Some additional reasons to get excited
about repositories (and what they might
contain)
Support particular teaching and learning environments
◦ Example: Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College (http://serc.carleton.edu)
◦ Example: Seaside Research Portal at Notre Dame University (https://seaside.library.nd.edu/)
Collect and showcase faculty, student or other local work or events
◦ Example: Bucknell University institutional repository, e.g., Faculty Colloquia speaker series
(http://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/fac_coll/)
◦ Example: Franklin & Marshall College student honors theses (https://dspace.fandm.edu/ Select
“college library”)
◦ Example: Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (http://hurricanearchive.org)
Expose special collections of institutional significance to a larger
audience
◦ Example: Franklin & Marshall College yearbooks (https://dspace.fandm.edu/ Select “college
library”)
Expose and preserve Georgia local and family history
◦ Georgia HomePLACE and the Digital Library of Georgia (http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/; see also
http://dp.la/info/hubs/)
14
15. THE CHALLENGES OF REPOSITORIES
15
“If a network-based service’s
intended communities do
not actively engage and
participate, the service will
die.”*
*Calhoun, K. (2014). Exploring Digital Libraries. p. 180.
16. A repository should not be a
solution looking for a problem
to solve
16
Source: Cf. Rieger 2008, under section 2
17. Problems of institutional
repositories
Visibility and reach (low awareness and
recognition)
Weak understanding of community needs and
attitudes, work practices, motivators
Difficulty articulating the value
Difficulty recruiting content
Read-only (“web 1.0”)
Often conceived of as “destination sites” only
(rather than as assets to be networked)
17
18. Low awareness of institutional
repository
92.7%
75.8%
57.2%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
D-Scholarship@Pitt
Unaware undergrads Unaware grad/PhD Unaware faculty
18
Source: Calhoun and Fudrow 2014, detail of slide 16; see also Moore 2011
19. Subject-Based Repositories
In general, subject-based repositories have been more
successful at attracting submissions and use
World ranking of
1,746 web
repositories, January
2014
Source:
repositories.webometrics.info
19
20. Successful Subject
Repositories:
Are woven into the way their disciplines
communicate:
Readers/researchers: where they look for information,
see what’s been or will be published, look for
collaborators
Writers/contributors: where they “register” their work
(and establish claims to discoveries), where they first
share their work with colleagues for comment/review
Had a strong community orientation at inception and
have a high degree of trust and participation at
maturity
20
Cf. Erway 2012
21. Needs Assessment: the exception
rather than the rule
WHY DO IT
Understand the context of potential
use
Understand workflows and work
practices, preferences, beliefs of
potential depositors
Identify use cases
Generate awareness
Understand how to talk about
repositories to those who will
contribute content
◦ (how does the repository solve their
problems?)
WHO HAS DONE IT
Almost no one
Exceptions:
◦ St Jean et al. 2011 (the IR as a local
resource)
◦ Maness, Miaskiewicz and Sumner
2008 (IR “personas”)
◦ Moore 2011 (faculty attitudes and
practices)
◦ Palmer, Teffeau and Newton 2008
(problems an IR might solve for
faculty)
21
22. Content recruitment: A critical measure of
engagement and participation
22
Ratio of
amount of content in
the repository
content that could
reasonably be expected
to be there
23. How big are they vs. how big
should they be?
“If all of the tenured academic research active staff at
a UK university deposited all of their annual output
(papers, presentations, learning materials, etc.) in the
institutional repository, deposits would be in the
range of 10,000 items per year” (Carr and Brody
2007)
23
24. Some Size Comparisons
Name of Repository No. of items (year reported) World
Ranking*
arXiv.org 971,292 (2014) 1
Research Papers in
400,000 (2014) 4
Economics (RePEc)
University of California
eScholarship
74,678 (2014) 6
AgEcon Search 78,467 (2014) 9
DSpace@MIT 74,986 (2014) 18
SMARTech (Georgia
46,520 (2014) 67
Tech)
Athenaeum (U. of Ga.) 14,204 (2014) 587
24
Sources: Cybermetrics Lab, OpenDOAR
http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/World; data as of July 2014; 1,983
repositories tracked
25. “Social” repositories?
People used to social sites bring their expectations with
them when they approach repositories, but …
Most repositories continue to operate from a traditional,
collections-centered, “siloed” service model
The social nature and roles of a library are typically lost –
repositories and other digital libraries are mostly read-only
(“web 1.0”)
“Social” platforms are active, open, gregarious and “chatty”
with people, organizations, other software, servers, apps …
A repository that incorporates social web approaches
continues to be the exception rather than the rule
25
26. An Experiment at Teachers
College, Columbia University
26
“Institutional repositories may garner greater community
participation by shifting the focus from library goals …
to one that focuses on building localized teaching and
learning communities …” (Cocciolo 2010)
27. Networking
Repositories - Some Bad News
Low Indexing Ratios (Google Scholar)
A large proportion of repository traffic comes from
Google Scholar
AND
“Search engine optimization (SEO) research
conducted at the University of Utah has revealed that
many institutional repositories have a low indexing
ratio [average 30%] in Google Scholar.” (Arlitsch and
O’Brien 2012)
EEK!
27
28. Networking
Repositories - Some Good News
GALILEO attracts a good deal of attention on the Web
AND
The inclusion of the Georgia Knowledge Repository in the
GALILEO discovery environment should be A GOOD THING!
28
galileo.usg.edu
Source: compete.com,
9/24/2014
Unique visitors per month
Range from ~75K to ~200K
30. The starting point: Working with a
“mess” … holistically
30
“Repositories and services often exist in this sort of mess. Not as a
result of any failing or sloppiness on the part of the managers or
developers, but because … repositories exist in the midst of an
extremely complex set of interactions and influences (only a small
percentage of which are technical).” (Robertson, Mahey, and Barker
2008)
31. Positive interdependence
An element of cooperative and
collaborative learning
where members of a group who share
common goals perceive
that working together is individually and
collectively beneficial
and success depends on the participation of
all members
31
32. Solutions and Opportunities to
Consider
1. A strategy based on community engagement to…
2. Recruit or aggregate content
3. Visibility and reach (discoverability)
All need to be understood
at 3 levels simultaneously:
32
(Remember slide 14?
Integrated AND
decentralized discoverability)
34. What to do?
INVENTORY REPOSITORIES
ASSESS NEEDS - UNDERSTAND
AUDIENCES
34
Name
Size
Usage (stats, web analytics)
Rankings
Similar/related/competitor sites
Last needs assessment?
Benefits to target audiences
Communications/outreach
activities
Potential for social features?
What else?
Audience segmentation
Size
Needs assessments
Work practice studies
Discipline-specific norms
Funders, funding policies
Value propositions (by audience
segment)
What else?
35. Improving value propositions to stakeholders
and target audiences
Hosting Library • Fostering open access to scholarship
• Raising profile of library’s curatorial role in
scholarly communication
Parent Institution • Showcasing institution’s intellectual
output/prestige
• Source of institution-level metrics
Institution’s End-Users • Discovering research conducted locally
• Engaging with learners and teachers
• Networking, finding collaborators
Institution’s Faculty &
Researchers
• Increasing exposure to work
• Solving visibility, management, or access
problems
Selected communities
statewide, regionally,
nationally, globally?
• Demonstrating societal benefits of research
and education
• Supporting knowledge transfer and economic
growth
Adapted from: Calhoun, K. (2014). Exploring Digital Libraries. Table 8.1, p. 183 35
37. Things to think about:
recruiting content
More “social,” interactive interface
Understanding and articulating the
value from THEIR perspectives
Making it easy to get started
Crowdsourcing
Talking about open access …
carefully and strategically
Additional services (mediated
deposit, automated deposit,
copyright, author fees, altmetrics
e.g. tracking downloads)
Many more ideas: Exploring Digital
Libraries, p. 197 (Table 8.2, “Barriers
and Service Responses for IRs:”)
Involving intended audiences in
setting strategy/objectives
Finding and working with
“champions”
New kinds of content
Validating assumptions about
intended audiences, needs, content,
expectations
Branding (or re-branding) and
communications programs
(including ones using liaison
librarians to build relationships/get
the word out)
Raising awareness and recognition
of value
37
39. Positive Interdependence:
Integrated and Decentralized
Discoverability
Shared Values:
Data
Sharing,
Syndication,
Synchronization,
Linking
Local
Authentication,
Discovery/ Delivery
Services
Group
Discovery/
Delivery
Services
(like
GALILEO)
Outward
Integration, Exposure,
and Linking
(e.g., Search engines,
other global aggregators)
39
40. Things to think about:
discoverability
Web traffic analysis (at local and GKR/GALILEO level)
Define and implement best practices for SEO/ASEO
Provide stable identifiers and URLs
Establish links from high traffic sites (e.g., learning management systems?)
For certain types of collections, working with Wikipedia
Participate in registries and interoperability frameworks (other repositories
of repositories)
New institutional repositories for local collections whose metadata can be
exported, harvested, made available for crawling
Discovery system indexing for GKR and/or for GALILEO as a whole (selected
external repositories and outside sources like HathiTrust, Internet Archive,
top-ranked subject repositories, other sources that are or could be indexed
by EBSCO Discovery Service)
40
41. Thank You!
No man is an Island,
entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the Continent,
a part of the main.
Meditation XVII, John Donne
karencal129@gmail.com
41
42. References -1/3-
Adamic, Lada A., and Eytan Adar. “You Are What You Link.” In 10th Annual
International World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong. 2001.
http://www10.org/program/society/yawyl/YouAreWhatYouLink.htm
Arlitsch, Kenning, and Patrick S. O’Brien. “Invisible Institutional Repositories:
Addressing the Low Indexing Ratios of IRs in Google Scholar.” Library Hi Tech 30, no.
1 (February 3, 2012): 60–81. doi:10.1108/07378831211213210
Arlitsch, Kenning, and Patrick S. OBrien. 2013. Improving the Visibility and Use of
Digital Repositories through SEO. LITA Guides. Chicago IL: ALA Editions.
Calhoun, Karen. Exploring Digital Libraries: Foundations, Practice, Prospects. Chicago:
ALA Neal-Schuman, An imprint of the American Library Association, 2014.
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Digital-Libraries-Karen-Calhoun/dp/1555709850
Calhoun, Karen, and John Fudrow. Highlights of ULS FY14 General Survey. University
of Pittsburgh. University Library System, January 31, 2014.
http://www.library.pitt.edu/other/files/pdf/assessment/ULS%20FY14%20General%2
0Survey.pdf
42
43. References -2/3-
Carr, Leslie, and Tim Brody. “Size Isn’t Everything.” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 7/8 (July 2007).
doi:10.1045/july2007-carr. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july07/carr/07carr.html
Cocciolo, Anthony. “Can Web 2.0 Enhance Community Participation in an Institutional
Repository? The Case of PocketKnowledge at Teachers College, Columbia University.” The
Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 4 (July 2010): 304–12.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.004
Erway, Ricky. Lasting Impact Sustainability of Disciplinary Repositories. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC
Research, 2012. http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2012/2012-03.pdf
Hanson, Cody, Heather Hessel, Deborah Boudewyns, et al. Discoverability Phase 2 Final
Report. Report, February 4, 2011. http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/99734
Maness, J. M., T. Miaskiewicz, and T. Sumner. “Using Personas to Understand the Needs
and Goals of Institutional Repository Users.” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 9/10 (2008).
http://dlib.org/dlib/september08/maness/09maness.html
Moore, Gale. “Survey of University of Toronto Faculty Awareness, Attitudes, and Practices
Regarding Scholarly Communication: A Preliminary Report,” March 3, 2011.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/26446
43
44. References -3/3-
Norris, M., C. Oppenheim, and F. Rowland. “Finding Open Access Articles Using Google,
Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR.” Online Information Review 32, no. 6 (2008):
709–15.
Palmer, C. L., L. C. Teffeau, and M. P. Newton. Identifying Factors of Success in CIC
Institutional Repository Development-Final Report. Urbana, IL: Center for Informatics
Research in Science and Scholarship, August 2008.
http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/8981
Rieger, O. Y. “Opening up Institutional Repositories: Social Construction of Innovation in
Scholarly Communication.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 11, no. 3 (2008).
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0011.301?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Robertson, R. John, Maendra Mahey, and Phil Barker. “A Bug’s Life?: How Metaphors from
Ecology Can Articulate the Messy Details of Repository Interactions.” Ariadne, no. 57
(2008): 5. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue57/robertson-et-al#19
St. Jean, Beth, S. Y. Rieh, E. Yakel, and K. Markey. “Unheard Voices: Institutional Repository
End-Users.” College & Research Libraries 72, no. 1 (2011): 21–42.
44
Editor's Notes
And speaking a bit more about collection-building – even as libraries are now decades into digital library activity, in many cases we are still tremendously influenced, sometimes without realizing it, by a collections-based library worldview. To put it simply, we like to build things, and we often think that, having built something, its value is self-evident!
However, despite our inclinations to build new digital library sites, collections, and repositories, doing so may not always be the right decision. Following from what we’ve already discussed about success factors and challenges, it is a risky and perhaps foolish approach to build a digital library first, and then hope that its value propositions to potential communities simply reveal themselves, much less be understood by those communities! We can summarize this by saying that a repository should not be a solution looking for a problem to solve!
Next I will talk in a little more detail about how viewing digital libraries using a community-based lifecycle model can help in this sort of decision making and evaluation of digital library services,
But before I do,
Although this workshop focuses on community engagement, it is also focused on a particular segment of digital libraries: those that directly support the practice of scholarship and scholarly communication. So while digital libraries of cultural heritage are extremely significant when talking about community engagement broadly, we won’t be focusing on those repositories today. As already mentioned, Karen and I will be presenting a separate TechSource workshop in the fall that will examine community engagement specifically from the perspective of cultural heritage digital libraries.
So, looking at digital libraries or repositories that contain primarily scholarly, often peer-reviewed content, let’s begin by considering the prospects of repositories, and different repository types.
For several years, a division of the Spanish National Research Council, the largest public research body in Spain, has produced a ranking of worldwide repositories. The methodology used considers four factors: the raw size of the indexed pages in repository, its visibility, the amount of “rich” (e.g. full text) content, and the number of repository objects included in Google scholar.
The ranking confirms what we also see in the literature about repositories and which is widely felt anecdotally: that is, subject-based repositories tend to have more visibility and impact when compared to institutional repositories. Looking at the top ten, we see it is led by Arxiv.org, followed by SSRN, the Social Science Research Network, and then the SmithsonianNASA Astrophysics data system in the third position. There are a few insitutional repositories included, the first of which is the University of California eScholarship repository at number 8, but if you go on to view the entire list, which is made up of over 1700 repositories, you will see a similar pattern of subject-based repositories clustered near the top. This begs the question of why this is so – why is that subject-based repositories tend to be bigger, hold more rich content, and have more visibility and impact?
To begin to answer that question we can look to research that has been done investigating the characteristics of successful disciplinary repositories. This research has found some common success factors – however, and this is a point worth emphasizing, these factors are not the sort of things that many of us who build digital libraries have historically invested our time in. They have little to do with what technology stack is employed, the technical functionality of the site, or the elegance of the interfaces. Instead, these factors have to do with the central role the repository plays within the communication practices of one or more communities.
To be more specific, these success factors show successful repositories function as a sort of community hub, where those seeking information – the readers and researchers – go to discover information, to see newly published content, and to identify collaborators or like-minded sub-communities of practice. Likewise, those who have information to publish or share also view the repository as an essential place to “register”, or establish their findings, in part specifically with the expectation or hope that colleagues will review, react, comment, and discuss the work.
This topic is covered in Chapter 4 of Karen’s book, but for more detail about these findings, and for examples of how these practices play out in specific repositories, a good reference is Ricky Erway’s 2012 report called “Lasting Impact: Sustainability of Disciplinary Repositories”. In that report she covers several of the top repositories shown on the previous slide, including arxiv.org and SSRN. Her report, along with other works cited in this presentation is included in a list of references at the end of the presentation.
Looking at how successful repositories develop over time, it’s also important to observe that there are some time-based, or lifecycle aspects to some of these success factors. I’ll pick back up on that soon, but for now let’s note that two of the success factors are a strong community orientation at the inception of the repository, and a high degree of trust and participation in its mature phase.
If we’re looking for meaningful measures of participation in a community-deposit repository, we can’t just measure size alone; absolute numbers don’t reflect the differences in the communities that participate in repositories.
We need a bit of a more nuanced measurement, and here is one: consider the ratio of the amount of content that is in a repository against the amount of content that could reasonably be expected to be there. The answer will be some kind of fraction.
You may immediately say to yourself, “what’s a good number”? Of course a one-to-one ratio is the perfect ideal, but for most communities it isn’t very realistic. In practice, this ratio needs to be taken in context with the specifics of the community and the objectives of the repository. For example, a repository supporting students might have different objectives from one supporting faculty, and a repository supporting edge-case content in a discipline may have different objectives from one attempting to be a mainstream disciplinary hub.
That said, it may be that the process of discovering this number, the number for “the content that could reasonably be expected to be there” is itself a very illuminating process that will teach you things about your community that you did not already know.
For an example of the investigating the “how big should they be” question, Leslie Carr and Tim Brody looked to quantify the total annual research output at an average UK university, and found that it would number around 10,000 items per year. When you have a sense of the scale of the potential deposits that you can compare to the actual practice, it can be very powerful in helping to design strategies in response.
To continue with this example, as institutional repository managers contrast the rather large number of 10,000 outputs a year against what may be a small fraction of these actually deposited, they can conclude that more sophisticated toolset supporting multiple deposit scenarios is needed. And indeed, many repository managers are now looking into automated deposit scenarios that make use of a developing scholarly infrastructure that includes researcher IDs like ORCID or ISNI, researcher profiling systems, and services offering researcher activity data feeds.
Karen will continue the discussion of this emerging infrastructure around digital scholarship in a few minutes, but we’d like to pause now, thank you for your attention so far, and give you an opportunity to ask questions or make comments.
All other repos with “Georgia” in the name are in the bottom two-thirds of the list.
So, repositories have many challenges in the present environment. Time permits discussion of only a couple them today – those centered around a lack of engagement by the community or communities for whom they’re intended.
What can be done to overcome these challenges? A large portion of chapter 8 is devoted to listing and discussing possible service responses to the challenges of repositories, and this slide provides a thumbnail guide to uncovering solutions.
The slide illustrates a two-fold approach. On the one hand, it is possible to start by looking at the repositories themselves – doing an audit of what you have, how much it is being used, how discoverable it is on the network, how it stacks up against other resources of value to scholars in various disciplines, what repository managers have done over time in terms of communications and outreach, how, when and where they have articulated the value of the repository, and so on. This kind of audit can be extended by examining the potential for a larger social life (on the web, that is) for the repository’s content.
An inventory or audit that starts with the repository will yield only partial solutions. More important, perhaps, is an simultaneous exploration of the needs, work practices, and if relevant, discipline-specific norms of the audience or audiences for whom the repository or repositories are intended.
One of the people I interviewed when writing the book remarked “libraries have not put forward adequate value propositions for the repositories they host.” Numerous studies have confirmed this sentiment, and they go on to provide ideas for what do about it.
This is a partial view of a table from the book that collects and synthesizes evidence-based results suggesting the value of institutional repositories to different stakeholders and target audiences.
Many institutional repository managers can articulate the value of repositories to their own libraries. Many can also articulate the value to the parent institution.
But value propositions need to be multi-threaded; one size does not fit all audiences. In this table you can see significantly abbreviated versions of possible value propositions that can be developed and articulated to an institution’s end users, its faculty and researchers, and for government agencies at state and federal levels.
Before moving on, just a word or two about the value proposition centered on open access and the value of self-archiving. In preparing the book I examined many studies of faculty attitudes and behaviors and became more convinced than ever of the complexity of these issues. Repository managers need to be keenly aware that a single, simple message about open access is not going to be effective across all disciplines. I can only say, tread carefully there.
What is happening here becomes possible through collective, light weight but deliberate cooperative metadata management involving thousands of loosely coupled systems.
The key pieces are data sharing, sychronization, syndication, and linking protocols.
At the global level, the collective collections of OCLC members become more visible on the WorldCat partner sites, for example Google Book Search, and WorldCat operates as a kind of giant metadata switch or bridge from where information seekers find things leading back to group and local collections.
Strong independent national library collaboratives at the group level, like Libraries Australia and Te Puna, as well as other regional hubs, also play a role.
I challenge you again, what would such large scale metadata management look like in the United States? What would we have to commit to in order to realize it?
Many kinds of library partners, library service organizations, vendors, can also play important roles, if they are willing to collaborate and help libraries get more attention on the web in this way.
Finally, the searcher making his way along these paths traverses the last mile and is connected to a local library.
Now if this graphic doesn’t make you love and deeply appreciate library metadata, you are a hopeless case.