Opening up licensing agreements – Annette Keogh #open17

Opening up licensing agreements: How to interpret and how to convey terms to our users
So much of our lives and access seems seamless, but so much of this relies on small print. While we may be a bit easygoing in our personal lives we need to be a bit more rigorous when it comes to our patrons’ lives.
What to look out for:
  • are authorised users specified?
    • eg current employees/contractors/students? retired faculty? alumni? visitors? walk-ins?
    • Are definitions clear?
  • are permitted uses specified?
    • coursepacks and reserves (print and electronic); linking (just like to see it clearly specified); interlibrary loan; scholarly sharing (lets an individual with authorised access to email an article to a colleague)
    • To a certain extent don’t mind if something’s permitted or prohibited as long as it’s clear!
  • liability – you don’t want to be legally liable for anything your users do!
    • Companies used to working with business may have a liability clause.
    • But prefer “Licensor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Licensee and an Authorized Users for any losses […] which arise from any third party claim […]”
    • AMA account shut down for 48 hours because user’s account was hacked. License says saying we’ll ‘take reasonable steps’ – but AMA reserve right to suspend access to the database. Prefer the database to notify the organisation so we’ve got time to suspend the individual’s account. Need to take account of timezones.
  • accessible formats for users with disabilities?
    • Most have a stipulation that you can’t change the content/form but like to see an exception to change into audio or Braille
  • access if you suspend/terminate?
    • Renewal – be careful of automatic renewal clauses with a notice period that’s earlier than when they typically send renewal notices….
    • Post-termination perpetual access – archival copy or access on server – ‘reasonable cost-based fee’ may want more details

If something’s not working for you, negotiate. Use the CEIRC Licences – Model Clauses page on CAUL’s site. LIBLICENSE has a good set of model licenses too.

Have 1000s of licenses; 34,000 students. How to communicate these? One vendor suggested a handout…. Previously  faculty member wanting to use in a course pack would contact their subject librarian, who’d consult the confusing spreadsheet, consult the e-resource librarian, then go back to the faculty member and say ‘no’.

Now putting these into Alma at the collection level so they can display in the catalogue at the title level. (35 of the most common ones done, 1000 to go 🙂 )

Games for learning – Dan Millward #open17

Gamefroot is a platform for kids to make video games; he’s also cofounder of Games for Learning conference.

Museums have a desire for innovation but a low appetite for risk. Air and Space Smithsonian though makes more on its digital content than all the other Smithsonian

Gamefroot gets a media palette eg terrain, background, effects, events – can put it together, preview, make game. Creating an app. Eg

  • Game about museum – writing labels
  • Mihi maker game
  • After-school game design club

Playing games can be educational but hard to compete with games out on the market. Gamefroot by contrast is about construction. Giving kids a reason to want to learn.

What’s in making a game?

  • digital tech / code
  • media
  • narrative
  • production
  • ideation / testing / feedback
  • teamwork

Code Red project – pilot of coding workshops – but have evolved beyond code clubs to game design clubs

What’s going on with e-book usage? – Catherine Leonard #open17

ALIA in 2013 predicted “50:50 by 2020”; in 2015 said actually maybe not – “predicted to plateau at 20-30%”

Auckland City Libraries experiencing slow but steady usage.

  • 2015-15 – 9% of checkouts
  • 2016/17 – 11%
  • Aug 2017 – 12%

E-usage isn’t rising at the same amount as print usage is decreasing.

What’s an e-collection strategy when you don’t own the content? How does this fit in with collection policy?

5 platforms for e-book/audio and 1 for e-magazines.Lots of feedback that this is too confusing for staff, let alone users. Staff end up only showing one platform (usually Overdrive). So trying to find out more about usage in order to make decisions.

Could get basic stats but very one-dimensional. So developed a methodology and tool to extract data and combine with patron data (from Sierra). Lots of normalisation and validation of data. Then could look more deeply into information.

  1. Most users used only 1 ebook platform; 10% use 2; <2% (mostly staff!) use 3+
  2. Demographic similar to traditional library users: 70% female; 68% European; 35-64 years old (especially the older end whereas traditional is at the younger end); Asian, Māori, Pasifika underrepresented – there’s a correlation between content and usage and not much content for Māori and Pasifika but what’s there is used a lot.
  3. Youngest patrons have lowest use
  4. Men checkout more e-audiobooks than women – this is growing at a higher rate than ebooks
  5. Heatmap of users by home library

Annual customer survey then came about so inserted four questions on e-books about awareness and satisfaction. 62% aware of e-lending; 41% aware but never used (including many using other platforms but not library’s); 12% have used in last 4 months. Asked how can we improve your experience of borrowing ebooks “so that you would give a rating of ‘very satisfied’ next time”?

  • First-time users find it intimidating – even techy people, who felt embarrassed to ask for help
  • Availability “I don’t see the point of people wait for 1 of 3 copies when those copies don’t actually exit … you should be using an updated model … aka Netflix, Facebook” – users don’t want us blaming publishers
  • Choice
  • Number of platforms – 2nd from bottom of issues

Huakina te whare ki te ao – Ariana Tikao, Catherine Amey, Anahera Morehu #open17

Ngā Upoko Tukutuku thesaurus created by looking at cataloguing worldview within Te Ao Māori framework. Classifying mātauranga Māori in a Library of Congress framework is pretty hard; but it was also about revitalising te reo. So Ngā Upoko Tukutuku aims to help cataloguers and archivists assign appropriate subject terms; and enable library users to find resources within a mātauranga Māori framework.

Kaupapa are preferred terms – with a whakamarama; related to Reo-ā-iwi (dialectal); within Tāhuhu (broader terms), Heke (narrower terms) etc.

Tukutuku panels made with a person on each side weaving threads back and forth; Ngā Upoko Tukutuku are made in the same way.

Example of frogs – in Māori worldview frogs aren’t part of an ‘amphibian’ category but rather part of aitanga pepeke (animals that jump) so added poraka there.

Once had a request for a term for ‘environmental ethics’, but no term for this so added two terms, one for ethics, one for environment. Added scope notes.

Rakiraki – the specific readers inspiring the request were actually about family so suggested using whānau there. But also added rakiraki as it was suitable for other resources about ducks.

Manawaroa for resilience.

Trying to create scope notes that are easy for cataloguers/archivists with little knowledge of mātauranga Māori to understand.

Reo-ā-iwi – Hura kōhatu / Hura kōwhatu; kōkā / māmā / whaea

Opening up the data to the world eg; converting a subset into Linked Data

Feedback, questions, interest in collaboration to

Te haerenga o Koha – Kathryn Tyree & Chris Cormack #open17

(Mehemea he hē i ēnei tuhituhi, nāku te hē!)

I te tau 1999 ka timata a Koha. He raru kei te haere – ko te tau 2000 (Y2K). Ka pakaru ngā pūmanawa whakapukapuka katoa, nā, ka puta a Koha. Inaianei 15,000 ngā wharepukapuka, 300 ngā kaituhi.

Ia tau ia tau kei te hui ngā kaituhi (Kohacon) – ko Wīwī te wahi tuatahi. Ko USA te wahi tuarua, ko Aotearoa te wahi tuatoru. I tēnei tau, ko Piripini te wahi o te hui.

“He rau ringa e oti ai”. Ko te hapori Koha, he whānau whānui.

“Nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi.”

He taniwha kei roto i tēnei kōrero: kei hea tō tātou mātauranga, a, te mātauranga o tō tātou hāpori? Ki te USA, ki a Aotearoa rānei?

Ngā kōrero harikoa hoki: nā maha ngā wharepukapuka iti, ka install i a Koha. Ka awhi ngā tangata whenua o Aotearoa ki ngā tangata whenua o Nunavut.

Nāku tētahi patai mō FOLIO – kei te mahi a Catalyst ki tēnei kaupapa. Ki tēnei wā kei te kōrero a Koha ki a Mahara, ki a Moodle, ki a ngā pūmanawa atu hoki. Ko te tumanako o FOLIO, ka kōrero a Koha kia a FOLIO, a ka kōrero a FOLIO ki a ngā pūmanawa atu katoa.

Open your arms (and mind) – Mojgan Sadhigi #open17

Open your arms (and mind): A practical approach to connecting libraries with their CALD communities – Best practice for creating programmes with not for communities.
CALD = culturally and linguistically diverse communities
  1. Gather information
    Collect demographics, develop profiles, select who you’d like to work with, identify leaders and the best communication method (eg group meetings – a good idea to go to their meetings, but also invite to ours; community reps, focus groups, advisory team, volunteer programmes).
  2. Connect with partners (and back to #1)
    Approach partners, exchange stories, explore interests – respect the autonomy of their organisation, take time developing trust.
  3. Decide shared goals
    Work out what you each want; define success.
  4. Plan project together
    Choose plan, consult, outline roles, assess risks, be flexible – teamwork is key.
  5. Promote partnership
    If you don’t let communities know what you’re offering it’s all gone to waste. Use your connections to publicise (they might have radio, newsletters, TV station) but also put things in writing; use other events to distribute info, have a stand and staff there. Make sure you use plain English and suitable translation. Visit migration centres, daycares, language schools.
  6. Evaluate your project and what to do next (and back to #1/2)
    Capture stories as well as number who attended. What worked with the partnership as well as the project.

Examples: exhibitions and displays, celebration of key events, bilingual story telling, conversation classes, movie night, baking

How hard to find volunteers?
Always found one. Often worth asking the people who are busiest! Sometimes daunting to say “We need volunteers”, so can have morning tea to chat, and then can identify the keenest and say “I need your advice” and go from there.

How to get people from specific groups to the library when they’re working every day?
Some groups see library as ‘government’ building and wary of it; so started developing in shopping centres. Also tried a different language. Deliver in their space, gain trust, then can slowly move to the library. Also food usually helps.


Open your mind – Vinh Giang #open17

Hard to blog a magic show, but…

Magic is just a problem you can’t solve.

Perspective is power. When focused on a problem you get “change blindness”.  Perspective from a completely different field/pov is needed to not only solve the problem but also see the opportunities in it.

Importance of influence (especially from negative people in your life). “You’re the direct reflection of the top 5 people you spend time with.”

First step to creating something possible is to believe it’s possible. Beliefs dictate actions and take first step. You have to be on the journey before you can see step two.

The Dangerous Myth about Librarians – Laurinda Thomas #open17

Laurinda gave a talk at TEDxWellington in 2016, focusing not on the future of libraries but the present of libraries; that we get so caught up in the nostalgia of libraries that we’ve missed how crucial libraries are to society today.

Every day someone comes into the library who’s never been before – what will they think of it all? Librarianship is very old and very adaptable. Of course we’ll survive – but will we flourish? Myth of who we are plays into decisions we make, which affects experience newcomers have.

We take things you’d normally have to pay for and provide it for free. Social entrepreneurs since before there was a word for it. We have  a bigger influence than we think and need to remember it.

Change is constant – in terms of the type of change as well as how much eg financial, technological, society. We’re already dealing with this change. But we’ve become used to the downwards trajectory of budget cuts; have become used to what we think we do and don’t do.

Wants us to put in not extra effort but extra intentionality – rethink what we do. To date we’ve added things to what we do but don’t really match how our users think and want to use things. Need to be more deliberate and think who are we really here for? what purposes are advanced by what we do?

Cf the UK – libraries didn’t waste away because they weren’t used. Were attacked by “austerity” cuts. Choosing where to cut funding isn’t a politically neutral act. Shows you what the people cutting the money value.

Libraries are powerful. We give people the means to apply for jobs, communicate with family. Easy to misuse power – both deliberately and accidentally. But important to use our power. Words have power – pay attention to the language we use.  eg “We need to remain relevant” ends up getting echoed back from others as “Are libraries still relevant?” How about striving for “responsive” or “customer-focused”? Similarly “Save our libraries” is echoed back as “Libraries are endangered / dying.” Need to use language in a way that spurs us forward instead of holding us back.

We’ve been having the same ‘relevance’ conversation for literally decades. How can we have better conversations? We need to have these conversations with the people who haven’t been in the library for a decade or more. We see every day how vital our services are; need to make other people see this too. To do that, remember we’re not all the same; some people don’t care about social good of library. Find out what they do care about and show them how libraries affect that. Both stories and quantitative numbers so stories don’t just get brushed off as anecdata.

Ask what we’re afraid to ask. And be open to the answers. Don’t need to do all the things – just honestly engage with them.

  • Stop misusing numbers (eg door stats – if 10 fewer people came in the door, we’re not less valuable).
  • Stop relying on how ‘obvious’ our value is
  • Stop being lazy about biculturalism. Have not made as much progress since the 80s as we should have.
  • Stop looking for a single ‘thing’ (especially technology) to save us.
  • Stop avoiding politics. Libraries are not idealogically neutral. We believe in things! We have values and strong views. Don’t be afraid of making enemies; need to own our values. Use our power, as private individuals if not in our professional role.

Value ourselves. The world is full of rules – but we can make new rules. Have courage – ie doing the things that need to be done. Be visible. Need to make our profession impossible to be ignored.


How do we challenge budget cuts?
Focus on outcomes – not our traditional outcomes, but the outcomes that people holding the purse-strings care about. Highlight the impact of our skills on the community. Not a simple answer but need to keep having the conversations.

He aha tō whakaaro mō te kupu ‘biculturalism’?
Some libraries doing great stuff; a lot haven’t gone beyond some bilingual signs. 20 years ago would have thought we’d all be bilingual by now and we’re definitely not. Need to take responsibility for doing better.

Overseas can look for funding from non-government bodies. Many other innovative ways of funding – have a book dedicated to you for a day. Trouble is in NZ with smaller population does the effort justify what you get out of it?

What if we work politically to get wellbeing back into the Local Government Act?
Depends on whether this will be useful influencing those with the purse strings.

Not just aligning with what funders want – but align with what we think they’ll want in future.
Pitch what we’re doing to what’s becoming important to them.

Checking out the Elsevier / U of Florida pilot

One of the papers at Open Repositories 2017 I couldn’t attend was:

Maximize the Visibility and Impact of Open Access and other Articles through integration of Publisher APIs
Letitia Mukherjee (Elsevier), Robert Phillips (University of Florida)

The University of Florida searched for solutions to expand access to university-authored journal articles thru institutional repository. UFL and Elsevier collaborated to automatically feed journal platform data and links to the IR through free APIs. The project enabled UFL to support university authors/researchers and compliance with US public access policies.

I wrote most of this blog post based on what I heard about the presentation at conference, and my own investigations a couple of days later (ie a month ago); I’ve made some small edits and am posting this now after seeing the presentation recording on YouTube.

I first read about this project a year ago in an Inside Higher Ed article (in which Alicia Wise is quoted with an infuriating “The nice thing about this pilot is it opens up the repository”. No, it doesn’t open the repository. The repository was already open. It also doesn’t open up Elsevier content, which remains completely closed) and in a more sceptical blog post (which describes it as turning the repository into “a de facto discovery layer”. From what I can tell, this is being extraordinarily generous: as a discovery layer it doesn’t even make a particularly good Amazon affiliate programme, because Amazon at least pays you a few cents for the privilege of linking to them.)

Before going further I want to make it clear that any and all scathing comments I make in this post are reflective of my opinions about Elsevier stinginess, not about the repository or its staff who are clearly just doing what Elsevier allows them to do. Also I’m writing about the system as it is right now (Phase I). [Phase II was briefly discussed starting about 18:55 in the video and in Q&A at the end of the presentation.]

While still at conference, I heard that Robust Discussion was had following the presentation (and this is captured in the video too). Among other questions, an audience member asked if Elsevier would offer all subscribers the ability to download final accepted manuscripts via API for example (21:59). The eventual answer (after some confusion and clarification) seems to be that it’s not currently available to all subscribers as they’re creating author manuscripts specifically for the pilot and need to work out whether this is scalable (24:44). [This raises the question to me of why. Why not just use the actual author manuscript instead of converting the author manuscript into the publisher manuscript and then apparently converting it back?]

In any case, when I asked the same question at the vendor stall, I was told that if they provided the pdf to repositories, they wouldn’t be able to track usage of it. The vendor also asked me why we’d want to. I talked about preservation, primarily because I foolishly assumed that the system they’ve got with Florida actually worked as advertised to provide ‘public access’ but a couple of days later, somewhat recovered from the exhaustion of conference, I had second thoughts. Because of course the other things that we want are full-text searching and access via Google Scholar. Also access for the general public, not just our own university. Also, well, access at all. I thought this went without saying until I actually began to test how it works in practice.

So University of Floriday’s repository is IR@UF. I ran a general search for {Elsevier} and turned up 32,987 results. I chose an early result that wasn’t from the Lancet because the Lancet is a special snowflake: “(1 1 0) and (1 0 0) Sidewall-oriented FinFETs: A performance and reliability investigation”.  The result is plastered honestly with “Publisher version: Check access”.

Is it open access? I clicked on the title. Elsevier has made much of “embedding” the content in the repository. I think this is in fact intended for phase II but they’d managed to give the impression that it was already in place so at this point I expected to be taken to a repository page with a PDF embedded in an iframe or possibly some unholy Flash content. Instead, I was taken straight to the item pay-to-download page on Elsevier. Further exploration uncovered no additional ways to access the article. So there’s no access to the public: it’s not open access and it does absolutely nothing to support “compliance with US public access policies”.

Is it easily accessible to institution members? If I was a UFL student or staff member who happened to be off-campus (say, at a conference, or researching from home) there’s no visible way to login to access the article. I assume UFL has IP access to content in which case it’d work on campus or through a VPN, but that’s it.

Is it findable through full-text search? I dug up access through my own library to download the pdf so I could select a phrase early on in the full-text that didn’t appear in the title or abstract. But doing a full-text search in IR@UF for {“nMOS FinFET devices”} resulted in “Your search returned no results“.

(Just to be sure the full-text search was working, I also tried it with a phrase from the title, {“Sidewall-oriented FinFETs”}, which did bring up the desired article. The link from this result is broken, though, which is presumably a bug in the implementation of the scheme, since links for non-Elsevier results on similar full-text searches are fine.)

Is it findable via Google Scholar? Scholar lists 6 records for the article, none of which are via IR@UF. Not, at this point, that there’s any advantage to seeing the IR@UF version anyway, but the pilot is certainly not driving traffic to the repository.

Is it a discovery layer? Even aside from the lack of full-text search and the inability to get access off-campus, it only works for ScienceDirect articles by UFL authors, so no.

If I had to come up with an analogy for what it is and does, I guess I’d say it’s a bit like a public-facing RIMS or CRIS, except those would include more data sources and more reporting functionality.

So to answer the question as I could have if I’d realised how limited this functionality is: why do institutional repositories want to have the full text?

  • to make it discoverable via full-text searching
  • to provide easy access for our own institution’s members
  • to provide open access for the rest of the world
    • thereby increasing its impact (including but not limited to that measured in citations and altmetrics)
  • to ensure it’s preserved and accessible for the centuries to come
  • to bring traffic to our own repository and the rest of its valuable collections; and
  • to track usage.
    UFL’s repository can do this last one. Sort of. It’s got a page for “Views” (hits) and “Visits” (unique visitors) . But it doesn’t tell us how many of these visitors actually succeeded in accessing the full-text. My suspicion is that this number would be much lower.

Phase II, if it works as advertised, may address some of these issues, but I’m not sure how many. I feel we’re getting conflicting messages of how it will actually function and at this point am not inclined to believe anything until I see it in action. For now it’s the same as any other vapourware.

Round-up of 16 #or2017-related sessions

For #or2017 I attended 16 sessions (including satellite events), most of which include 3 presentations or 8 lightning talks, so there’s a lot of information that’s gone into my head over the last week. (As a result I now have 26 new items on my To Do list, which range from “Check X is on Y’s radar” to “Found a new national conference”.)

Below is a summary with key points and highlighting of things I particularly want to remember for some reason [plus thoughts of my own].

Monday – CAUL Research Repository Community Day

  • Session 1: APCs not a solution so need to strengthen repositories. [This doesn’t entirely follow because there’s an excluded and oft-forgotten middle: gold OA journals that don’t charge APCs but are funded through other streams. But as it happens I do believe in repositories too or I probably wouldn’t be here.] Discussion about forming an Australasian (and/or New Zealand) formal consortium to make it easier to feed into COAR etc. NISO “Free_to_read” and “License_ref” tags [which I need to find out more about and how they work in the OAI context].
  • Session 2: ORCID developments; repository self-assessment and repository metadata output health-check with some suggested standards from the point of view of one aggregator (Trove); two views on dealing withnon-traditional and creative works.
  • When the Australians started talking about REF, the Kiwis bailed. My suggestion to talk about PBRF was overwhelmingly voted down. We had a robust discussion about metadata instead.
  • I also squeezed in a visit to the State Library. I liked their coffee tables as advertisement: they were printed with a nice design listing the services they had on offer. And of course their Digital Futures space: the kinetic sand with a sensor/projector above that sensed the height of the sand and projected colours and contour lines accordingly; the tin can connected to wire flowers where you touch a flower and hear a random comment about the future from a previous visitor; and VR and touchscreens and stickers to put on a paper timeline mounted along the wall.


  • Getting started with Angular 2 and DSpace workshop: 2 parts: background on what Angular is [I understand it so much better now! This was a far better explanation than any of the ones I’d tried while struggling with Primo’s new UI] followed by a hands-on working through the exercises. [This was a little quick for me but I managed to catch up using the github code as reference, and only failed on step 2 because the presenters missed a step too. 🙂 So I came out feeling very accomplished… though I still hate dependencies.]
  • FOLIO presentation hosted by EBSCO – “a community collaboration to develop an open source Library Services Platform (LSP) designed for innovation”. Still very early stages but the “APIs all the way down” and responsiveness of the architecture is nice; worth keeping an eye on as it develops more modules.
  • Electronic poster presentation: researcher metrics dashboards; CORE Repository Dashboard; IIIF image framework; OA retrospective theses; increasing OA content in your repository; improving the DSpace workflow


  • Perverse incentives: how the reward structures of academia are getting in the way of scholarly communication and good science: basic introduction to scholarly communication and the need for OA from a mathematician’s perspective
  • Research and non-publications repositories, Open Science: 8 lightning presentations: an intro to IIIF but most of the rest were about research data, including RDM training; data paper publication best practices from a journal’s perspective; data management plan record
  • Scholarly workflows:
    • “Scholarly Tools…” looked beyond RDM and [where I usually think of managing/publishing code, methods] talked about research tools of which there are a bazillion – it more raised the scope of the issue than provided a firm path forward but that’s fair at this point!
    • “Research Offices As Vital Factors…” was an inspiring view from a research office that Gets RDM – might be a useful primer for other research offices.
  • Demonstrating impact: “A New Approach for Measuring Value…” mentioned the idea of value as beyond a simple dollar figure to basic/expected/desired/unanticipated value. By contrast “How to Speak Business Case” talked about how to get down to the kind of value that speaks to project managers.


  • Repository admin and integration: 8 more lightning presentations.
    • “Mind the Gap!…” proposed ResourceSync as a replacement to OAI-PMH (retaining the latter for legacy purposes as appropriate) due to various advantages.
    • “Leading the Charge…” mentions the imminent “UK Scholarly Communications License” on the Harvard model which would be a great extension of precedent.
    • “Towards an Understanding…” talks of driver behind The Conversation to improve govt/public awareness/understanding of new research.
    • “Batch processes…” described a workflow for semi-automating identifying of low-hanging fruit to gather/import into IR. [I want to check with our workflows to see if this might help or if our workflows with Elements are about as efficient already.]
  • Extending DSpace:
    • “Archiving Sensitive Data” was awe-inspiring [albeit irrelevant to me].
    • “Full integration of Piwik analytics” was relevant to me [due especially to us I think stuffing up what analytics DSpace does give us – but probably a bit too technically challenging].
    • “The Request a Copy Button” suggested it’s possible to get it working sensibly if we ever decide it’s worth it for us.
  • Evaluation and assessment:
    • “Cambridge’s journey towards Open Access” is not that different from ours [which is heartening]. “Open Access policy 3 years in” at UniSA has a stronger mandate than us and still low deposit rate [ditto]; pre-population with CrossRef lookup on DOI is nice. [Probably replicates the functionality in Elements.]
    • “Self-Auditing as a Trusted Digital Repository” sounds like a pain in the proverbial though useful if you can bear to.
  • Integrating DSpace: “Harvesting a Rich Crop” on multi-tenancy DSpace. “DSpace in the centre” on Elements/DSpace integration. “DSpace for Cultural Heritage” introduces DSpace-GLAM with IIIF-compliant image viewer, audio-visual streaming, dataset visualisation.


  • Institutional Publications Repositories and beyond:
    • “Curating, But Still Not Mediating” on appreciative demanding of README files asap under the principle of “The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago; the second best time is now”.
    • “Uniform metadata for Finnish repositories” was determined by a national working group. [This has now inspired discussions about doing the same in New Zealand. I approve the idea but mourn the cleanup I’ll have to do in our repository… or maybe just in our OAI crosswalk…]
    • “Isomorphic Pressures…” looks at difference in IR ecosystem in Japan cf the USA and specifically factors influencing this: regulatory/coercive pressures; cognitive/mimetic pressures; normative pressures. [I like big words for new ways to think of things.]
    • “The role of the repository…” spins the citation advantage concept to do an analysis of the altmetric advantage of depositing in a repository. They find one.
    • “Scholarly Identity and Author Rights…” on popularity of workshops on creating your researcher profile.
    • And I got a chocolate koala for finishing my own lightning presentation on time. 😀
  • Ideas Challenge:
    • “Data Pickle” modelled on should definitely be a thing.
    • “Global Connections” – I don’t know how well this would work in practice but having seen what machine learning does with Resene paint colours and Doctor Who titles I’d actually really like to see it generating metadata (and/or, per my question/suggestion, simply skipping a step and generating new research…)
    • “Brisbane Declaration ON the Elimination Of Keywords (B-DONEOK)” – if there is a mass global wave of cataloguers murdering institutional repository folk in the next week, you know why.
  • Beyond Repositories: From Resource-oriented towards Problem-solving-oriented: I didn’t blog this well, it was very dense and full of ideas that are simultaneously catching up with things I see and well ahead in others – especially well ahead in determination to grab hold of it all and go for it.

And finally, a photo from the gala at the museum:

me in a nice dress and gladiator helmet, with sword and shield

All dressed up to attack messy metadata.