From jilloneill at nfais.org Mon Jun 4 16:18:35 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] NISO Publishes Updated Recommended Practice on SERU Message-ID: <1338841115.672626370@webmail.nfais.org> NISO Publishes Updated Recommended Practice on SERU: A Shared Electronic Resource Understanding The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announces the publication of a new edition of the recommended practice SERU: A Shared Electronic Resource Understanding (NISO RP-7-2012). The SERU Recommended Practice offers a mechanism that can be used as an alternative to a license agreement by expressing commonly shared understandings between content providers and libraries. These understandings include such things as the definition of authorized users, expectations for privacy and confidentiality, and online performance and service provisions. The 2012 updated version of SERU recognizes both the importance of making SERU more flexible for those who want to expand its use beyond e-journals, while acknowledging the fact that consensus for other types of e-resource transactions are not as well-established as they are for e-journals. ?The 2008 version of SERU was eagerly adopted by a number of libraries and publishers to streamline the acquisition of e-journals,? states Selden Lamoureux, E-Resources Librarian with SDLinforms and Co-chair of the NISO SERU Standing Committee. ?Since then, with the many emerging models for acquiring e-books, both libraries and e-book providers have requested that other types of electronic resources be incorporated into the SERU framework. This new version uses language that can be applied to a wide variety of e-resources while retaining the same shared understandings that made the previous version so useful.? ?SERU offers publishers and libraries the opportunity to save both the time and the costs associated with a negotiated and signed license agreement by agreeing to operate within a framework of shared understanding and good faith,? explains Judy Luther, President of Informed Strategies and Co-chair of the NISO SERU Standing Committee. ?SERU reflects some well-established and widely accepted common expectations concerning e-resources acquisitions. In those instances where there is as yet no standard expectation, a shared understanding may still be achieved if expectations are clearly articulated in the purchase order that accompanies SERU.? ?Widespread adoption of the SERU model for electronic resource transactions offers substantial benefits to both publishers and libraries by removing the overhead of license negotiation,? asserts Todd Carpenter, NISO Executive Director. ?The SERU Registry of those interested in using the SERU approach already contains over 70 publishers and content providers and185 libraries and consortia. The expansion of the recommendations to address additional types of e-resources should interest more organizations in joining the SERU registry.? The SERU Recommended Practice, the SERU Registry, and additional helpful resources are available from the SERU workroom webpage on the NISO website: [http://www.niso.org/workrooms/seru/] www.niso.org/workrooms/seru/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From blawlor at nfais.org Tue Jun 5 16:45:13 2012 From: blawlor at nfais.org (Bonnie Lawlor) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:45:13 -0400 Subject: [nfais-l] NFAIS Workshop - Come and Network Message-ID: <028401cd435c$1b799ee0$526cdca0$@org> Onsite Seats Still available for the June 15th NFAIS Workshop on Digital Information and User Behavior: Transforming Libraries, Content, and Learning If you want to be able to network with speakers and attendees join us on site for the one-day NFAIS workshop, Digital Information and User Behavior: Transforming Libraries, Content and Learning, scheduled to take place on June 15, 2012 in Philadelphia, PA from 9:00am - 4:30pm EDST. Onsite seats are still available and virtual attendance is optional for those unable to travel to Philadelphia.. The emergence of e-content, search engines and the Web more than twenty years ago has shaped a new generation of information seekers. How they access, read, and use information is fundamentally different from the behavior created by the print medium. This new behavior is transforming library infrastructures and services, is driving the conversion of books and textbooks into innovative tools for education, and is changing how traditional reference information is accessed and delivered. How has information behavior changed in academia? What new library infrastructures are being tested? Is a totally virtual library on the horizon? Are library collections changing and if so, how should the return on library investment being measured? Is the use of e-books and e-textbooks increasing significantly? How is the use of all this digital material changing the educational experience? And how are traditional reference works being delivered to meet the needs of today's academic libraries and the users that they serve? This workshop will attempt to answer these questions and more as we take a look at the ongoing impact of digital information usage behavior on those who serve the information seeker. Highlights include: . An overview of current digital information usage behavior by Carol Tenopir, Director of Research & Director of the Center for Information and Communication Studies, University of Tennessee. . Case studies from Johns Hopkins University Medical library, Lesley University Library, and the Research Library at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will look at the impact of digital information usage behavior on the future of physical holdings, collection development, new services, and the future of brick and mortar facilities. . A look at the factors to be considered when measuring the ROI for libraries based upon recent research studies from Donald King, Honorary University Professor, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI and Adjunct Professor University of Tennessee. . Trends in global e-Book consumption from studies done by R. R. Bowker. . A look at how traditional reference works and textbooks are being delivered to meet the needs of today's users and an innovative classroom learning experience using e-textbooks and iPads recently piloted at Temple University in Philadelphia. . A look at how current trends such as use of social media may impact the future of libraries, content and learning based on research from Cathy Marshall, Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley. The program and registration forms are available at: http://nfais.brightegg.com/page/367-digital-information-and-user-behavior-ju ne-15-2012. Onsite Attendance: NFAIS members pay $435, members of Sister-societies pay $455, and non-members pay $485. Virtual Attendance: NFAIS members pay $385, members of Sister-societies pay $405, and non-members pay $435. Unlimited Virtual Attendance: Groups of 3 or more can attend at the following reduced rates: NFAIS members, $995, Sister-society members $1,195, and non-members $1,395. For more information contact: Jill O'Neill, NFAIS Director, Communication and Planning, 215-893-1561 (phone); 215-893-1564 (fax); mailto:jilloneill at nfais.org or go to http://www.nfais.org/. NFAIS: Supporting the Global Information Community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Fri Jun 8 11:02:49 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] OCLC Names New President and CEO Message-ID: <1339167769.925221785@webmail.nfais.org> From the OCLC Press Release: DUBLIN, Ohio, USA, 8 June 2012?Jack B. Blount, an executive with experience leading several technology organizations in a career spanning 35 years, has been named OCLC President and CEO. Mr. Blount was most recently President and CEO of Alpha Bay Corporation, a global technologies and services provider based in Salt Lake City, Utah. From 2002 to 2005, he was President and CEO of Dynix Corporation, a technology-based library services organization that was acquired by Sirsi in 2005 to form SirsiDynix. Mr. Blount will succeed Jay Jordan, who announced in June 2011 his intention to retire by the end of June 2012. Effective July 1, Mr. Blount becomes the fifth President and CEO of OCLC, the worldwide library cooperative founded 45 years ago. For more, see [http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201234.htm] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201234.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From blawlor at nfais.org Mon Jun 11 10:43:38 2012 From: blawlor at nfais.org (Bonnie Lawlor) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [nfais-l] Regstration closing for NFAIS workshop Message-ID: <012401cd47e0$96bc4660$c434d320$@org> Registration Closing Soon for NFAIS Workshop on Digital Information and User Behavior: Transforming Libraries, Content, and Learning Registration will close at noon (EDST) on Thursday, June 14th for the one-day NFAIS workshop, Digital Information and User Behavior: Transforming Libraries, Content and Learning. The workshop is scheduled to take place on June 15, 2012 in Philadelphia, PA from 9:00am - 4:30pm EDST. Onsite seats are still available and virtual attendance is optional for those unable to travel to Philadelphia. Highlights include: . An overview of current digital information usage behavior by Carol Tenopir, Director of Research & Director of the Center for Information and Communication Studies, University of Tennessee. . Case studies from Johns Hopkins University Medical library, Lesley University Library, and the Research Library at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will look at the impact of digital information usage behavior on the future of physical holdings, collection development, new services, and the future of brick and mortar facilities. . A look at the factors to be considered when measuring the ROI for libraries based upon recent research studies from Donald King, Honorary University Professor, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI and Adjunct Professor University of Tennessee. . Trends in global e-Book consumption from studies done by R. R. Bowker. . A look at how traditional reference works and textbooks are being delivered to meet the needs of today's users and an innovative classroom learning experience using e-textbooks and iPads recently piloted at Temple University in Philadelphia. . A look at how current trends such as use of social media may impact the future of libraries, content and learning based on research from Cathy Marshall, Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley. The program and registration forms are available at: http://nfais.brightegg.com/page/367-digital-information-and-user-behavior-ju ne-15-2012. Onsite Attendance: NFAIS members pay $435, members of Sister-societies pay $455, and non-members pay $485. Virtual Attendance: NFAIS members pay $385, members of Sister-societies pay $405, and non-members pay $435. Unlimited Virtual Attendance: Groups of 3 or more can attend at the following reduced rates: NFAIS members, $995, Sister-society members $1,195, and non-members $1,395. For more information contact: Jill O'Neill, NFAIS Director, Communication and Planning, 215-893-1561 (phone); 215-893-1564 (fax); mailto:jilloneill at nfais.org or go to http://www.nfais.org/. NFAIS: Supporting the Global Information Community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Tue Jun 12 16:13:39 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] PeerJ Launches Message-ID: <1339532019.202222271@webmail.nfais.org> By now you may have heard buzz about the PeerJ platform/service formally announced today; the service is launching with two prongs, PeerJ and PeerJ Preprints. The former is referred to as being an open-access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, focusing on Biology and Medical Science while the latter is described as being a preprints server, similar to arXiv. (See [http://blog.peerj.com/post/24952567807/peerj-launch] http://blog.peerj.com/post/24952567807/peerj-launch) The business model is a membership pyramid model, Basic, Enhanced, and Investigator. According to the press release, "All member plans confer lifetime rights, and the three tiers allow members to publish once, twice or an unlimited number of times per year in PeerJ." Those membership tiers are priced respectively at $99, $169, and $259. To publish in PeerJ, all authors of an article must be a paid member of the service. The membership carries with it as well an obligation to do peer-review. Nature's story on the launch indicates that "every PeerJ member is required each year to review at least one paper or participate in post-publication peer review. (see [http://www.nature.com/news/journal-offers-flat-fee-for-all-you-can-publish-1.10811] http://www.nature.com/news/journal-offers-flat-fee-for-all-you-can-publish-1.10811). The founders claim that this is significantly lower in cost than similar OA journals. (See interview with Jason Hoyt on the Mendeley blog: [http://blog.mendeley.com/open-access/an-interview-with-the-founders-of-peerj-an-innovative-new-academic-publishing-startup/] http://blog.mendeley.com/open-access/an-interview-with-the-founders-of-peerj-an-innovative-new-academic-publishing-startup/) The PeerJ Preprints service is described by ArsTechnica as follows: "PeerJ's involvement can, at the authors' choice, also start well before a paper is submitted for review. The journal will run a preprint server where researchers can place drafts and works-in-progress?common practice in the physics community, but not yet popular among biologists. Binfeld says PeerJ hopes to make the practice more appealing by giving users fine-grained control over sharing, letting them limit who has access to papers prior to publication. Authors also get the chance to share the title and/or abstract, which Binfeld suggested can help authors claim precedence for being the first to report some results." While media coverage claims that the PeerJ journal will be indexed by all major services, what this really means is that that non-fee based services such as Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Research will be indexing the articles at the services initial publication time (expected to be December 2012). Selective indexing services who may require certain benchmarks of performance will not be picking up PeerJ until those criteria have been met. Additional coverage may be found at: (1) Library Journal [http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/06/publishing/new-open-access-academic-publisher-promises-to-revolutionize-business-model/] http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/06/publishing/new-open-access-academic-publisher-promises-to-revolutionize-business-model/ [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/peerj-oreilly-open-access-publishing_n_1589638.html] (2) Science Magazine [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/new-open-access-journal-lets-sci.html] http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/new-open-access-journal-lets-sci.html (3) Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/peerj-oreilly-open-access-publishing_n_1589638.html] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/peerj-oreilly-open-access-publishing_n_1589638.html (4) Ars Technica [http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/new-open-access-journal-aims-to-disrupt-scholarly-publishing/] http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/new-open-access-journal-aims-to-disrupt-scholarly-publishing/ (5) The Chronicle of Higher Ed [http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-publishing-venture-gives-researchers-control-over-access/36651] http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-publishing-venture-gives-researchers-control-over-access/36651 (6) PeerJ- A Brave New World, Occam's Typewriter [http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/06/12/peerj-brave-new-world/] http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/06/12/peerj-brave-new-world/ All provide additional details about the service. Jill O'Neill Director, Planning & Communication NFAIS Email: jilloneill at nfais.org Voice: 215/893-1561 Web: [http://www.nfais.org] http://www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Thu Jun 14 11:32:49 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, #3 Message-ID: <1339687969.79778140@webmail.nfais.org> NFAIS Enotes 2012 (#3) Written and compiled by Jill O'Neill Online Activity Data: Reports, Interpretation and Safeguards. In late March 2012, Google announced a new service. They were allowing users to view monthly activity reports online that would show a user the breadth and depth of their Google-related tasks (see: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/giving-you-more-insight-into-your.html] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/giving-you-more-insight-into-your.html). I was game so immediately requested a report and in less than two hours Google invited me to access the finished report, covering my activities in the time frame beginning February 27 through March 25, 2012. Was it creepy? Was it intrusive? Was it even particularly informative? Well, it wasn't particularly revelatory to me, but over time each of the major entities tracking a similar data activity stream (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) might believe that there is value in the content. According to the initial report received, I was using three browsers (Chrome, Firefox and Android) and two operating systems (Windows, Android). That was easily explained. I had Windows XP, but generally alternated between Chrome and Firefox browsers. The Android browser and operating systems were tied to my account access via the sole Android device I own, the Kindle Fire tablet with its tweaked-Android-browser, Silk. In an attempt to be helpful, the report showed me that I had received something in excess of 1,500 emails during the month, but sent fewer responses. It noted who my top email contacts were. It revealed my top ten most frequent search queries and the number of web queries run across a 30-day period (409, as a matter of fact.) That last caught me by surprise, so I decided to probe a bit. There are two ways of examining a user?s web history as far as Google is concerned. If using the Chrome browser, pressing Ctrl+H brings up a full account of Web-based navigation and tasks as Chrome sees them. I spent twenty minutes reviewing thirty days of my activities using this method and then returned to the activity report. The Account Activity report is divided up into sections. If the user holds the mouse over the bottom of a particular section, live links to more in-depth data appear. Clicking on the link to my Web Search Settings brought me to a familiar page that documented specific iterations of search queries as well as the volume of searches performed on specific days of the month. Looking at the month of March, I could tell that on my least active day, I?d run only two searches, while on the most active I had run more than sixty-five different queries. I could also see which hits in a result set I had actually clicked through on, as well as occasionally seeing the phrase, ?Viewed results for ----- (paused for at least three seconds with no click)? ? that interval when I would be scanning a page of the result set to see if it contained any useful hits. For the record, this view of activity data has been around for several years, but it used to be part of the drop down menu accessible upon signing into a personalized Google page. Only with the introduction of the black navigation tool bar has this view been buried. The introduction of the Google Account Activity Report was ostensibly made to allow users the opportunity to identify security breaches as well as to self-assess actual usage. Given that the actual scope of the data collection is unchanged, the report offering might also have been added to bolster Google?s case in recent policy changes pertaining to privacy ? and by extension, consumer perception of what might be termed surveillance. Google took enormous levels of flack for five weeks during January and February when it announced that it would be aggregating all data collected from a single user?s activity across all Google products and services (see: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-terms.html] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-terms.html). Furthermore, Google stated that it would be unifying the majority of its products and services under a single privacy statement, rather than continue with the assorted seventy policies it previously had in place. The idea, according to Google, was to simplify the situation for users in (1) understanding what kind of personal data was gathered and used and (2) to create a better user experience based on a fuller, more detailed picture of what the user was actively doing on the Google platform. The letter sent to Congress (shared with the world through Google Docs) outlined in even more detail why Google felt there was no need for public alarm (see: [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2NTZhNDlkZDgtMmM3MC00Yjc0LTg4YTMtYTM3NDkxZTE2OWRi/edit?hl=en_US] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2NTZhNDlkZDgtMmM3MC00Yjc0LTg4YTMtYTM3NDkxZTE2OWRi/edit?hl=en_US). Google does do a lot to indicate how users can control their privacy while using the platform, as one blogger demonstrated (see: [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2012/03/googles-very-public-list-of-privacy-management-options-and-tools.html] http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2012/03/googles-very-public-list-of-privacy-management-options-and-tools.html). Security experts were still quick to supply information as to how to manage privacy settings in the Google environment (see: [http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/31/how-to-navigate-googles-privacy-options/] http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/31/how-to-navigate-googles-privacy-options/). The Atlantic Wire offered The Beginner?s Guide to Quitting Google accessible at: [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/03/beginners-guide-quitting-google/49356/] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/03/beginners-guide-quitting-google/49356/ The Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC), however, was having none of it and sued the Federal Trade Commission for failing to properly move against the corporate entity for what EPIC felt was a violation of the FTC?s own order to Google regarding privacy following the Google Buzz debacle (see: [http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-privacy-20120208,0,1152181.story] http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-privacy-20120208,0,1152181.story). Ultimately, EPIC lost its case. According to at least one law firm, there were benefits derived from the thwarted legal action: The reaction to Google's announcement suggests that the society's level of awareness of privacy issues continues to increase. The result of this awareness is the pressure on businesses to maintain fair and transparent privacy practices. This pressure can take various forms, such as "shaming" by the media and consumer advocates, hearings and negative statements by legislators, new guidance or enforcement by regulators, or, as is the case here, private efforts to compel the FTC to act. Despite these developments, in-house data protection counsel continue to face challenges convincing their internal clients that privacy matters. More and more, however, they are able to point to the enforcement actions, negative publicity avalanches, and unwelcome attention from legislators and regulators to bring home the risks associated with mismanaging privacy (see: [http://www.infolawgroup.com/2012/02/articles/enforcement/epic-alleges-epic-ftc-fail-in-google-saga-we-review-the-complaint/] http://www.infolawgroup.com/2012/02/articles/enforcement/epic-alleges-epic-ftc-fail-in-google-saga-we-review-the-complaint/). That noted, experts such as Bruce Schneier remain alarmed about the potential tracking of users across multiple devices and in pursuit of a variety of information-oriented tasks (see: [http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/02/rsa-2012-bruce-schneier-on-the.php] http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/02/rsa-2012-bruce-schneier-on-the.php). Schneier points out that there is a desire to discredit general computing devices in favor of more proprietary approaches towards the user?s access and behaviors. Researchers are looking into this and their concern has given rise to some interesting projects, such as the User-Centric Integration of Activity Data (UCIAD [http://uciad.info/ub/] http://uciad.info/ub/) and DATAMI (user interface for viewing and manipulation of individual UCIAD data - [http://www.datami.co.uk/?p=82] http://www.datami.co.uk/?p=82). Quoting from the UCIAD ?About? page, ?Specifically, the objective of UCIAD is to provide the conceptual and computational foundations to support user-centric analyses of activity data, with the aim of producing results which can be customized for and deployed in different organizations. Ontologies represent semantic models of a particular domain, and can be used to annotate and integrate data from heterogeneous sources. The project will therefore investigate ontological models for the integration of user activity data, how such models can be used as a basis for a pluggable data framework aggregating user activity data, and how such an infrastructure can be used for the benefit of the users, providing meaningful (and exportable) overviews of their interaction with the organization.? You can learn more about UCIAD from this Powerpoint presentation (PDF File) regarding the project at: [http://sdow.semanticweb.org/2011/pub/sdow2011_paper_8_slides.pdf] http://sdow.semanticweb.org/2011/pub/sdow2011_paper_8_slides.pdf), and about similar initiatives via the papers in this proceedings volume from the October 2011 workshop, Social Data on the Web at: [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-830/SDoW2011-proceedings.pdf] http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-830/SDoW2011-proceedings.pdf. UCIAD makes it clearer why Google?s user activity report appears to have been dumbed-down to such an extent. Google is extracting and repackaging user data from a number of different logs and systems. It is still a cumbersome enough process that the system cannot immediately generate the information ?on the fly,? but rather, it must still take in a request for the report to be run across a particular set of dates. It?s antithetical to Google values to approach a problem this way due to the overall inefficiency, but the engineering challenges require further investigation. From a user perspective, Google?s focus on unifying individual user data into discrete dossiers likely has both positives and negatives, so the ability to manipulate and extract user data for purposes of keeping Google?s knowledge fragmented (to at least a degree) makes just as much sense. Both parties to this social contract have legitimate views; UCIAD is simply working towards more of a joint solution than currently exists. As the Federal Trade Commission and as the White House both released materials oriented towards the creation of greater privacy protections in March, the venture capital groups took some level of notice. In particular, Fred Wilson of Union Square offered his thoughts about online privacy protections at: [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/03/some-thoughts-on-online-privacy.html] http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/03/some-thoughts-on-online-privacy.html): Our clickstreams, search history, likes, tweets, photos, and so on and so forth is our data and we should have the ability to control it, delete it, and limit how it is used. That seems like a basic right that should be available to everyone who uses the Internet. By and large, that is a statement on which the major entities can all come to an agreement. But further on, Wilson also notes the business objective in protecting profiling and tracking activities because those approaches fuel online advertising: We should be careful not to undermine the economic underpinning of the Internet in our attempts to regulate online privacy. We're in the midst of negotiating the social contract regarding the tracking of users across various platforms and the retention of associated data and records. As much as this is about privacy, it's about the historical written record of human lives, key to understanding ourselves. It's about finding some way to fuel further economic investment There's an interesting (if not particularly deep) book that appeared in 2009 entitled Your Life Uploaded: The Digital Way To Better Memory, Health and Productivity. Written by Gordon Bell and Jim Gemmell, the book is not just about the benefits of individual data trails. It also notes some of the stumbling blocks to achieving a balance between conflicting personal and business objectives in handling personal data. In one chapter, the authors note the difficulties of handling materials left on a laptop after the death of a Microsoft executive. Microsoft felt that there was a possibility that sensitive business material was held on the device and didn't want to relinquish the laptop until it had reviewed all of the data housed there. The widow of the executive, noting the blurring of work and personal activities on the device, didn't want Microsoft to view potentially sensitive personal information, conversation, photos, etc. left by her spouse on the device. The authors refer to this difficulty as data entanglement and it is actually quite an apt phrase. The dumbed-down activity report that Google has been mailing me on a monthly basis is indicative of just how entangled my life is across corporate platforms and services. I'm using browsers from Google, Apple, and Amazon on a variety of devices. Each entity believes it knows me based on patterns of tracked activity. And they do know something, however partial a picture is actually captured of who I am and what I do. Therein,lies the danger. My search queries, stored on the Google servers, are a benign mix of work-related queries (patron driven acquisition inter-library loan cost comparison) and personal (laidly worm Child Wynde), but surely could be misinterpreted if held under scrutiny. Even the volume of such queries (408 this month, 340 next month, more than 600 in another) might be employed in gauging productivity. That's the real crux of anxiety in data entanglement - the fear of another party taking advantage of us, based on partially-understood patterns captured in fragmented data. NFAIS member organizations probably have some level of familiarity with this, situated as they are in the digital information community. Libraries are vulnerable to discussions of return on investment based on data viewed through COUNTER statistics, just as content providers are vulnerable to cancellation viewed through the same lens. Platform providers worry about being vulnerable to those demanding easy data extraction. The good news is that as long as each entity understands the vulnerability of others in capturing and interpreting patterns in user data, the less likely we are as a community to abuse the trust of the scholars, students and researchers we serve. ***************************** 2012 NFAIS Supporters Access Innovations, Inc. Accessible Archives, Inc. American Psychological Association/PsycINFO CAS CrossRef Data Conversion Laboratory, Inc. Defense Technical Information Center EBSCO Publishing Getty Research Institute The H. W. Wilson Foundation Information Today, Inc. IFIS OCLC Philosopher?s Information Center ProQuest RSI Content Solutions Silverchair Information Systems TEMIS, Inc. Thomson Reuters IP & Science Thomson Reuters IP Solutions Unlimited Priorities LLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From blawlor at nfais.org Fri Jun 15 18:15:59 2012 From: blawlor at nfais.org (Bonnie Lawlor) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:15:59 -0400 Subject: [nfais-l] INVITATION TO NFAIS MEMBERS Message-ID: <000d01cd4b44$71aa54e0$54fefea0$@org> OPEN INVITATION TO ALL NFAIS MEMBERS You are invited to attend a special meeting that will be held during the forthcoming meeting of the American Library Association in Anaheim, CA. This was mentioned during our webinar, A Conversation with Librarians: Improving Information Discovery and Other Issues, and we want to be sure that if you are interested in improving discovery you have a chance to continue the conversation. TOPIC: OCLC eQuality Working Group DATE: June 23, 2012 TIME: 4:00-5:30 pm (Pacific time) LOCATION: Anaheim Convention Center, Room 201C Bonnie Lawlor Executive Director National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS) 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1004 Philadelphia, PA 19102 1-215-893-1561 Phone 1-215-893-1564 Fax blawlor at nfais.org www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From blawlor at nfais.org Mon Jun 18 11:30:03 2012 From: blawlor at nfais.org (Bonnie Lawlor) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:30:03 -0400 Subject: [nfais-l] Registration closing for NFAIS Webinar on the Researcher of the Future Message-ID: <002e01cd4d67$3b6e0a50$b24a1ef0$@org> REGISTRATION CLOSES TOMORROW FOR THE NFAIS WEBINAR: The Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future: A Look at New Survey Results Registration will close at 12:00pm EDST on Tuesday, June 19th, for the NFAIS webinar on the Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future. Scheduled to take place on Wednesday, June 20th (11:00am - 12:30pm EDST), the webinar will take a look at the soon-to-be-released results of a three-year study on the behavior of the 'Generation Y' scholar (students born between 1982 -1994) currently studying for a PhD in the UK. Sponsored by the British Library and JISC, the study will examine students' activities and habits in online and physical research environments, as well as their use of print and digital library information resources. The webinar will feature Julie Carpenter, Founder and Director of Education for Change, who served as Project Director for the study. She will discuss the results of the study on the following issues: * Emerging research behaviour trends across diverse subject discipline * How doctoral scholars from Generation Y seek information both on and offline * The relative use of digital resources and physical resources, including research spaces * How Generation Y students search for and use digital content for research * Generation Y adoption and use of emerging technologies for information access and use Julie's bio can be accessed at: http://www.efc.co.uk/people/staff/julie_carpenter.jsp. Register today if you or your staff want to prepare the shaping of your products and services for the next generation of researchers by learning about their current information seeking behavior. NFAIS members pay $95, Sister Society members pay $105, and non-members pay $115. For groups of 3 or more, NFAIS member organizations pay $245, Sister Society members pay $265, and non-member organizations pay $285. The registration form can be accessed at: http://nfais.brightegg.com/page/368-researcher-of-the-future-jun-20-2012. For more information contact: Jill O'Neill, NFAIS Director, Communication and Planning, 215-893-1561 (phone); 215-893-1564 (fax); mailto:jilloneill at nfais.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Wed Jun 27 14:56:32 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] Project COUNTER query Message-ID: <1340823392.714410042@webmail.nfais.org> NFAIS members: I have received a query today from someone interested in rapidly getting up to speed on COUNTER compliance. Specifically the request was for good introductory material (beyond the FAQ on Counter's website) that will address at least to some extent technical requirements. Can anyone on the list make recommendations for good articles and/or documentation? Many thanks, Jill O'Neill Director, Planning & Communication NFAIS Email: jilloneill at nfais.org Voice: 215/893-1561 Web: [http://www.nfais.org] http://www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: