Here are the specifics:

Teams
There were four teams (three teams of three and one team of two):
Team 1 Rachel, Juan and Peggy
Team 2 Andrew, Adam and Arlene
Team 3 Viasha Frances and Cheryl
Team 4 Kathleen and Dot (somewhat of a disadvantage as reflected in the results)

Results
Congratulations to Team 2 (Andrew, Adam and Arlene) who won the competition and were eager recipients of pink (or was it fuschia)  and blue colored ribbons. Second placed winners (also receiving ribbons)  were Team 3 Viasha, Frances, and Cheryl (yea). Third place winners were Rachel , Juan and Peggy and fourth (perhaps reflective of the fact that there were only two pairs of hands devoted to the task at hand) Kathleen and Dot.

Thanks to the organizing team Kathleen, Arlene, Peggy  and Dot who graciously allowed me to take some of their time to plan the congratulatory celebration. Thanks to Andrew for taking the pics, and a big THANK YOU to Dot who not only supplied the four boxes of puzzles, but patiently bagged all the corner pieces. I wonder what would have been the results if we all had to start from scratch without the corners…

Arlene “The Enforcer” kept score and on the move as the pack of cards, the timer, and the whiteboard changed hands and slid along the tables. For a sit down game we all got pretty red-faced and out-of-breath. The anguish of not guessing the word that your partner was agonizing over, or, saying the taboo clue word brought even the most confident wordsmiths among us to our knees. We gained and lost points as others shouted: Wrong pronunciation! You forgot the timer! I saw the whiteboard with the answer! “You could have said….you should have…”

Many of the words had at least 2 opposite meanings and giving one aspect first and then another will put your partner in a tizzy.

What American TV show has anything to do with pagan totems? An idol.

What is an animal you can drive? A jaguar.

What famous dog is also an article of clothing for the religious? A yarmulke.

Name an illegally used drug in sports that is also a pedophile. Steroids.

Final scores:

Rachel and Andrew, 15

Susi and Kathleen, 9

Adam and Peggy, 8

Frances and Juan, 5

Cheryl and Viasha, 3

Congrats to Team C (Cheryl, Kathleen, & Rachel), winners of the Pictionary Challenge! 

Members of all teams performed admirably in what proved to be quite an exciting and challenging artistic exhibition. However, members of Team C demonstrated artistic superiority and proved themselves deserving of the title “big fish in a small pond”. 

Team B (Adam, Susi) came in 2nd, followed by Team A (Frances, Juan, Viasha) in 3^rd place, and Team D (Andrew, Peggy) in 4^th place.

With artwork ranging from regurgitating fish to a lump in a log and an efficient, multitasking MC, a fine time was had by all. One cannot soon forget the pumpkin-wielding ghost sketched by a lefty whose brush never left the canvas or the rainforest with trees but alas no rain. Or the boot-shaped state of Mississippi and the very impressive rendering of a car’s underbelly to portray an axle. There were headbands, and snakes, and halos and trunks. A giraffe, an igloo, a door, and a hatchet. Even chopsticks and clover and honeycombs and more. I have named but a few of the Picasso-like creations rendered by these talented teams of budding artists. (Honorable mention: The Octopus!).

Cookies, chips, and soda added a classic and tasty touch to this gala showcase of contemporary art!

Team Scores

Round 1A - Team A = 2 ; Team B = 3

Round 1B - Team C = 3 ; Team D = 3

Round 2A - Team A = 3 ; Team D = 1

Round 2B - Team B = 3 ; Team C = 4

Round 3A - Team A = 2 ; Team C = 4

Round 3B - Team B = 1 ; Team D = 1

Thanks to Peggy, Susi, and Juan for the pictures!

-Arlene

Staff Engagement 2010 is well underway with our first challenge behind us. I am proud to announce that team Cheryl, Rachel, Susi (and, peripherally, Adam) TROUNCED  won the first ever Best Friend Olympics Wii Bowling Face Off held September 15^th, 2010. And what a game it was!

With both Frances “curve ball” Negron and Viasha “slow sinker” Miadzel throwing their bowling balls at the crowd, the air was filled with fear excitement. But the real entertainment began when Andrew took center stage to show us all how to lose play. Luckily, Adam, the ringer of the group, was on hand for tutelage, though not everyone was impressed: “You can walk the walk but you can’t talk the talk, Adam.” – Andrew.  Wha?

 Here’s the scorecard (special thanks to Arlene, the official scorekeeper for the TS Olympic Games):

 Icebreaker Round

Semi-Finals

For the WIN!

Cleanup Duty Goes to…

Thanks to DOT for the delicious brownies and to  FRANCES and  ANDREW for the scrumptious Tostitos. Can’t wait for Pictionary!

 Click to view slideshow.

Introduction

Innopac Millennium Web Management Reports

What is the Millennium report function called Analyze Patron Searches?  

Although this report applies more to the catalogers than to acquisitions staff,  Patron Searches is fascinating for anyone interested in what people look for when they sit down to the OPAC. The Searches report include our 3 campus libraries.

The online resources for Analyze Patron Searches are the same. Innovative Interfaces [http://www.iii.com] and a separate web site called CSDirect.  http://csdirect.iii.com/index.php.   Use of CSDirect requires a login and password which can be given to staff and must not be shared outside the department.  To keep up to date with changes CSDirect’s home page provides links for Twitter, a Blog, and a Wiki.

The main screen for Analyze Patron Searches lists these options for viewing patron searches:

Report Options on the left-hand column

Search Statistics

Indexes Used and Search Results

Terminals Used for Search

Clear Search History

View Current Searches

Limit Terminals Reported On

Reload Search History

Of the 7 report options, the following list of 4 would not be used by anyone in technical services; my opinion at the present time. My reason for this may best be explained by what each option does:

Terminals Used for Search  –  there are 6 terminals from which to select but I don’t know how this correlates with actual machines which could be serving off-campus users, in the library, etc.; this display has little value for the cataloger;

Clear Search History — Jim Hutchens has emphasized to me that I should never do this.

Limit Terminals Reported On — like “Terminals Used for Search” this display has little value for the cataloger;

Reload Search History — I don’t dare click on this!

Of some interest is the report, View Current Searches which is a real time picture of searches which updates itself continually. This option has some value for the cataloger who wants a snAnalyze Patron Searcheshot of current activity.

Let’s get on to 2 reports that have value for us, Search Statistics and Indexes Used and Search Results.  This dated display tracks searches for one month.  Search Statistics gives cumulative numbers on search activity.  The box below illustrates my point.

Each blue “Number of…”  is clickable to view a numerical range breakdown of the results retrieved.

The juice of Analyze Patron Searches is in selecting “Indexes Used.” The box below illustrates. 

Again, each blue “Index name…” is clickable to view a numerical  range breakdown of the results retrieved.

I chose the Subject Index for these results: In the lower box, Display Actual Searches Input by User, we can extract a month long picture, often running more than 250 screens, of entry by entry ……….

The box within the box gives the cataloger information of great value; we will find out the successes as well as the failures of real searches. Knowing this, we have the option to create additional cross-references. We can best prepare such cross-references by consultation with public services personnel as well as other catalogers.  A guide of hints for successful searching, especially the difference between using a keyword or a Library of Congress subject search, would also be a useful by product of Analyze Patron Searches.

        Please ask me any question you might have about this topic, as I am still learning, I would welcome the opportunity to answer you.

The End.

The first half of the program gave each of the speakers a chance to comment on all things auto. Mike Jackson went first, choosing to focus on the recent economic meltdown and how it brought about the auto industry bailout. He blames the housing crisis for much of the carmakers’ woes. First, he says, people who were getting too-easy credit on new homes expected the same on new cars. And while most car dealers resisted these demands, that pressure drove the industry to offer incentives on new cars that left them with very little profit. Then, when all the foreclosures began, people stopped buying cars. (The last thing someone losing her home thinks of is buying a new car, eh?) Flat sales and no profit proved a bad combination, and it all came to a head in the early fall of 2008. And though he said it was difficult for an admitted free-market Republican like himself to say so, Jackson thinks the government was right in stepping in. He thinks we’ve hit bottom, though, and believes car sales will continue to grow for at least the next 7 years—slow at first, then speeding up. He sees GM, under new CEO Henderson, as being a big part of that recovery.

Henderson, installed as CEO just 6 months ago, spent his time mostly pitching the new GM: its new cars, its new culture, and its new global perspective. He said he’s committed to increased fuel efficiency but cautioned that it makes more sense to improve the mileage of all GM’s gas-burning cars  rather than try to come up with one model to compete with ultra-efficient cars like Toyota’s hybrid Prius. (That sounded like a cop-out to me.) He also said that the company is leaner and meaner than before, the result of dumping many product lines and extraneous infrastructure. And he’s excited about the strategy of designing cars with the entire world in mind—rather than trying to retrofit American models to suit other countries’ roads, tastes, and environmental regulations. He finished by showing us four 15-second car commercials, the point of which I didn’t get. Just seemed to me like a chance to pitch his products to a captive audience.

A question-and-answer session followed. The first question had to do with Chevrolet’s upcoming electric car, the Volt. Henderson played down the issues of its high price ($40K!!) and low performance (less than 50 miles on a charge), framing the issue more as this being just the first step in a bright future of GM electric cars. He used the opportunity to repeat his commitment to higher mileage for conventional cars, saying that he saw that strategy as having more of an effect on overall gas savings. A related question asked whether people’s concern about fuel efficiency is tied to gas prices, which Jackson vigorously defended. It’s a sad commentary, but he said that if gas is cheap, car buyers would rather have useless, flashy features than a car with better mileage. As he pointed out, buying a car is an emotional decision.

I didn’t stay for much more, because the questions became increasingly business-oriented and I just couldn’t cut through all the buzzwords. But I sat next to a teacher from the biz school, and she seemed pleased by what she heard.

These town meetings have their drawbacks—e.g., your ability to ask “hard” questions is ameliorated by the fact that (a) you have to write them down for someone to pass on and possibly edit or “lose,” and (b) there is no chance to follow-up—but I’m glad Nova has them. It’s good PR for the school and fun to see these guys in action. And it has been guys exclusively through these first two town hall meetings. It’d be nice to see some women up there for a change. Can you do something about that, Ish?

If you were there and saw things differently, let us know. That’s what blogs are about!

–Mark

• OLC announced its intention to develop a web-scale cooperative library management system which will rival competing ILS vendors such as “Innovative, Sirsi Dynix, Aleph, and VTLS. This library management system will provide tools for managing library collections through modules such as circulation and delivery, print and licensed acquisitions, and license management. These new services will complement existing OCLC services.
• OCLC has centralized its product and services support functions. Support and service calls will no longer be handled by OCLC service partners such as SOLINET. The telephone number for OCLC support is 1-800 848 5800.
• WorldCat.org will soon be launched as the new interface or platform providing access to OCLC content such as FirstSearch, the WorldCat database, ArchiveGrid – database of over 1 million archival collections, CAMIO – a catalog of art museum and images online, and OAISTER – a union catalog of more than 19 million cords of digital resources from more than 1,000 contributors.  This new interface will take the form of a single-search box, which can be branded with the library’s logo and placed anywhere on the library’s home page. This search box can be downloaded by users and added to their favorite websites. This product is available free of charge with current OCLC FirstSearch subscription. Access to the current FirstSearch interface will not be discontinued and will be available to OCLC users until 2011.
•  WorldCat Local “quick start” will soon be included in subscriptions to the FirstSearch service at no additional charge. Content in WorldCat Local and the new Worldcat.org platform can be synchronized and delivered in the same customizable search box.   WorldCat Local provides content from three sources: local library resources, content available through a consortia and global content such as what is available via the WorldCat database.  
• With the expansion of the FirstSearch package users will have access to CONTENTdm Quickstart –an entry level hosted version of OCLC CONTENTdm Digital Collection Management Software which allows libraries to host 3,000 digital objects free of charge on OCLC server.
• In Feb 2009 OCLC began a pilot project where cataloging members with full level authorizations can enhance WorldCat records (previously there was a limit to the number of fields libraries could edit or enhance). This experiment will end in August 2009. More information is available at www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/quality/expert

Sunday July 12 Dr. John C. Tyson Award Committee of the Black Caucus of the American Library Program

As a member of the Dr. John C. Tyson Award Committee of the Black Caucus of the American Library Association I helped organized a panel presentation  titled “What do I Need to Know?  Strategies for Career Growth and Promotion.”  This panel discussion focused on highlighting career strategies for new and mid-level librarians preparing for promotion and leadership.

Three experienced librarians discussed their career path to higher management positions and outlined strategies for advancement for Millennial Librarians.   Presenters :

Steven J. Bell  bells@temple.edu “Hills and Valleys: Moving Strategically On the Long Road of Your Library Career” Associate University Librarian for Research and Instructional Services Temple University

 Jon E. Cawthorne  jcawthor@rohan.sdsu.edu “Know thyself help will follow” Interim Library Dean San Diego State University

 Virginia L. Cairns  Virginia-Cairns@utc.edu “Make the best of what you’ve got: creating the opportunities you need to advance your career”Head, Reference and Instruction Services University of Tennessee, Chattanooga

 Sunday July 12 Catalog Use and Usability Studies: What Do They Show and How Should This Evidence Affect Our Decision-Making?
A new report released by OCLC on Online Catalogs what Users and Librarians want suggests that end users want the following from the library online catalog:

•   direct links to online content – text and media formats
• evaluative content such as summaries/abstracts, tables of contents and excerpts
• relevant search results
• item and availability information – if the item is available and how to get it
• simple keyword search with an advanced, guided search option.

Karen Calhoun (one of the authors of the report, gave a detailed overview of the findings) in her presentation which is available is available at:

http://presentations.ala.org/images/5/59/Calhoun_Online_Catalogs_ALA_July_2009.pdf

The full text of the report is available at: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm

I attended the annual ALA 2009 conference in Chicago July 10-July 12. The conference wiki is available at: http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Here is a summary of the sessions I attended:
Friday July 10 Pre-conference RDA , FRBR and FRAD : Making the Connection
http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Friday%2C_July_10

For catalogers and others with an interest in information organization and access RDA (Resource Description and Access) is the new set of cataloging rules/standards which will replace Anglo American Cataloging Rules AACR2. RDA is based on the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data) conceptual models. RDA was developed to simplify the patron’s task in finding, identifying, selecting and obtaining the resources they need in the library’s catalog.

Some perceived advantages of RDA for Cataloging:

• Although RDA is built on some of the key principles of AACR2, it has been described as a more comprehensive set of instructions and guidelines for describing all types of resources – traditional as well as digital and web based resources. Rules for cataloging digital and web based resources were not adequately covered by AACR2. For example, if cataloging Internet resources using the current AACR2 rules a cataloger would need to consult at least 3 chapters in describing this resource.  RDA was developed specifically for libraries operating in a digital environment. (A comparison of AACR2 and RDA is adequately covered by Tom Delsey, editor of RDA at the ALCTS sponsored session Look before you Leap: Taking RDA for a Test Drive http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Saturday%2C_July_11)
•  RDA is based on the FRBR conceptual model which emphasizes the relationship between a person’s work, the expression and manifestation of this work and the work’s physical copy (item). This enhances the clustering of bibliographic records to allow for better displays in library catalogs. For example, users will be able to view all the different editions, translations and physical formats of books and other resources in one macro/summary level cataloging record. OCLC WorldCat.org provides one example of a catalog which has been FRBR-ized. http://www.worldcat.org/
• RDA is compatible with the MARC21 format. This compatibility is beneficial for catalogers as there will be no need to re-catalog older bibliographic or authority records. New fields have been added to the MARC format to accommodate RDA rules for description of digital and web resources: Field 336 (use to described content such as cartographic dataset, cartographic image); Field 337 (used to describe media such as microform, audio); Field  338 (used to describe Carrier type such as  audio disc, microform cartridge).
• RDA was developed with input and suggestions from groups within and outside the library community. This allows for the standard to be readily adapted for use by information communities other than libraries. For example, organizations which use and support Dublin Core elements and the ONIX standard (publishing community) in creating metadata can easily adapt RDA to meet their needs.
• RDA emphasizes the rule “take what information you see on the resource you are cataloging”. This is advantageous for automating cataloging workflows. Technical Services departments in libraries can create workflows which utilize automatic machine–capture or harvesting of metadata already embedded in the resource. This is a time saver and can be viewed as more efficient as less time will be spent by catalogers on editing these machine-generated records.
• RDA is being developed as an online, web-based tool with no immediate plans for a print version. As an online product it offers the following advantages:
  • The interface can be easily customized to fit specific workflows and to catalog specific types of materials. Additionally, documents with local cataloging rules, policies and procedures can be easily integrated into RDA online.
  • RDA will display the current rules and guidelines and the old AACR2 rules simultaneously in a single viewing pane.Catalogers can add personal notes and highlight rules useful to their workflow using a personal login.

RDA has not been officially released as a paid for product. October 2009 is the schedule date for testing by different library types in the US. The distribution date  for the online product is 2010.
 Here is the testing timeline as described by the Library of Congress:

• Test Days 1 through 90: Test partners use this three-month period to become familiar with the content of RDA and with navigating RDA Online.
• Test Days 91 through 180: Test partners produce records in the test and share them with the US National Libraries RDA Test Steering Committee.
• Post-Test Days 1-90: The US National Libraries RDA Test Steering Committee analyzes the results of the test and prepares its report to the management of the three national libraries.
• After Post-Test Day 91: The report is shared with the US library community.

To view more information about the proposed methodology for testing RDA visit http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/

For more information on RDA visit http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html

For an overview of RDA with screen shots of the current version, and to view RDA in VTLS ILS system visit the following URL link to the ALCTS RDA Implementation Task Force session “Look Before You Leap: Taking RDA For a Test-Drive” http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Saturday%2C_July_11

Saturday , July 11, Workflow Tools for Automating Metadata Creation and Maintenance

http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Workflow_Tools_for_Automating_Metadata_Creation_and_Maintenance

Many academic libraries are recognizing that digitization is a value-added way of increasing visibility of unique and special collections to local and global communities.  As libraries embark on these digital projects, staffs at all levels are mindful of the costs involved and are searching for ways to maintain cost effective projects. This session provided examples of work flows in current digital projects where tools such as macros have been used to automate the creation and maintenance of data.

Saturday July 11 – Library of Congress and Web 2.0 Technologies

There was a presentation at the LC exhibit booth on how LC has successfully embraced Web 2.0 technologies by integrating collections and services in high volume social networking sites like Flickr, Twitter, FaceBook, You Tube, and Itunes The Library of Congress on iTunes U.

“I painted plain brown paper with white gesso, used a fork and my fingers to create texture, than I drew “Hana” with charcoal and colored it with oil pastel. A LOT of smudging involved.

“Why I created it: This was for my Mixed Media Class this past winter at the Museum of Art. I wanted to de-stress from all my finance MBA stuff. It was comforting to know that if I had to learn how to use a financial calculator that semester at least I had downtime each week to be just creative.

” ‘Hana’ means flower in Japanese and the vase/pot looks Japanesey (is this a word?) to me.”

Congratulations, Ish!

–Mark