more notes to self–NACO

June 10, 2008 at 8:12 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Quick note on article in recent Tech Services Quarterly (25/3, 2008) on NACO training among Caribbean libraries.  “As part of the [planning] process, a project leader was assigned, a budget created, and tasks allocated to the six-member coordinating team under the following areas: budget management, communications and marketing, hospitality and entertainment, facility preparation, and document production.”  Eek!  Of course, this was for coordinating training among libraries from several different institutions & islands…won’t be quite so complicated for us.


Note to self

June 10, 2008 at 6:56 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Tags: , ,

TN SL is using ArchiveIt to get DC recs that they then turn into MARC (using MarcEdit?).  This is done by their fed docs librarian?

BPE & Oklahoma’s CONTENTdm

June 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Tags: , , ,

Whoa momma I wish I had more time to post on this thing.

From here on out, I think I will quit pretending that it’s in any way for public consumption and just use it for note-taking.

So.  From BPE 2008, (presentations mostly available on the site), the Oklahoma Dept. of Libraries gave a nice update on their CONTENTdm project.  Oklahoma Crossroads (snappy name, I like it!) is their online repository for digital state documents.

[compare our browse display to theirs when our dig rep will FREAKING OPEN]

Note their interesting use of a “custom thumbnail” for digital docs (visible when browsing).  The thumbnail is not for the individual publication, but for the publishing agency.  In some ways I LOVE this–it’s usually a better image than the front page of a legislative committee report (yawn).  Also, I like the “branding” it gives for each agency, and the way it can let you visually pull together different works by an agency.

However, I can’t imagine us making a lot of tiny custom images of agency logos (plus, some of them are hard to read) and maintaining this over time.  And for publications that are issued by more than one agency in cooperation, you have to dick around figuring out which one is the most prominent (though we already do that for our “Agency” field, I guess?).  Also, users probably expect to see a “cover image” more than the author/publisher logo…though I think you could debate that for state publications.  But I think it’s too much trouble for us.

Random notes:

  • They do include their call number (is that in a DC Subject field?)
  • “Other formats” field is interesting (“Printout; preservation microfiche”)
  • I appreciate that they include a detailed list of the contents, but I wonder if users are confused by the fact that the linked words don’t link to that portion of the document (like the “Glossary”) but instead execute searches.  A clickable contents list usually implies that you can access the actual contents by clicking (not that I have any data to back that up…).
  • 029 in the MARC record is something OCLC added to fix some URL problem (be sure to look into this if we decide to try WorldCat Harvesting)
  • They have added a field to their DC records to distinguish monos from serials: Description Bib Type (filled in only for serials).  We can identify our serials by the “ser_” at the beginning of the file name, but maybe this field would be a good idea, too.  Doesn’t seem to display in public view.
  • wtf even putting “goat newsletter” in quotes results in a “goat OR newsletter” search–is this typical of CONTENTdm??  I want to see the Goat Newsletter without having to use Advanced Search, not all these other things!  “Goat and newsletter” searches for “goat OR and OR newsletter”–not an improvement!  OCLC needs to work on some ranking algorithms.  (Goat newsletter is disappointingly short on photos of cute goats.)
  • Nice images in the presentation of what the error reports from OCLC after a crosswalk look like.  Reports seem a tad cryptic.
  • They note that CONTENTdm sometimes chokes a bit on loading compound objects of mixed file types (“especially HTM or other web capture”)

I wonder how much of the resulting MARC record (after the WorldCat Harvest) is auto-generated (like the 533).

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.