Site visits will be used to affirm and complete data gathered during the CO Statewide online survey completed earlier this year. We will be investigating variations from trends; trying to account for unique institutional types. The criteria used to slect organizations for a site visit included: geography and type of cultural heritage institution, e.g. tribal museum, historic house museum, art museum, public library, special library, governmental archive, historical society or special collection. Additional consideration was given to including some institutions that identified themselves as having an urgent need for a preservation survey on the online questionnaire.

Institutions will receive a brief assessment of the conditions of the organization, their collections and archives. The two surveys, online and onsite, will allow us to identify the condition of our state’s cultural heritage collections and how to focus state-wide workshops and training. If you are interested in following along with the Colorado Connecting to Collections grant check out the Wiki.

Most of us are awaiting the October 7th meeting in U.S. District Judge Denny Chin’s court room. The parties will meet to discuss how to proceed, however the Court will not hold a hearing following the Department of Justice’s September 18, 2009 Statement of Interest arguing that the terms of the Settlement do not meet important legal standards. DOJ went on to urge the court and the parties to continue discussions in an effort to secure the considerable social benefits that court result from a successful settlement. It appears that the DOJ statement has caused the parties to reexamine the agreement.

The Department of Justice was just one of 400 organizations/individuals who submitted filings to the Court in relation to the Google Books Settlement. To understand who the filers are, Brandon Butler, Law Policy Fellow for the Association of Research Libraries analyzed who the filers were and why they filed. The results are available in The Google Books Settlement: Who is Filing and What Are They Saying?

Butler notes that the filers fall into three categories–Supporter of the Settlement, Opponent of the Settlement, and Filer with Reservation. Within each category the party indicates a reason for their support or opposition and it can be–Pro- or Anti-user; Pro- or Anti-rightsholder; Pro- or Anti-competitive. Butler notes that in light of the potential modification of the agreement, positions may change and refiling is likely to take places.

In the meantime, it is very interesting reading to see who is in favor of the Settlement and who is not and for what reasons. There are some real surprises in the lists.

This was a collaborative project, the key players were the Utah State Library, University of Utah’s Marriott Library and the America West Center. Congratulations to all the players for making these resources available online.

On a hot day in Portland at Lewis and Clark College.

Back Row: Terry Reese, Michael Paulus, Jeremy Skinner, Al
Cornish, Jeremy McWilliams, Kyle Banerjee, and Karen Estlund
Front Row: Jeff Malcomson, Fynnette Eaton, Jodi Allison-Bunnell, and Janet Hauck

The Orbis Cascade Alliance (the Alliance) and the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA) initiated a digital planning process in 2007. If you aren’t aware, the Alliance and NWDA have a shared mission to facilitate the discovery and delivery of digital material, particularly of unique local collections. A Digital Program Working Group (DPWG) was established in late 2007 and promptly began planning for a digital services program at the Alliance.

After collecting data from member institutions about digital initiatives and needs, the DPWG applied for a Collaborative Planning Grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in February 2008. Fully funded, the one-year grant began in December 2008. I was lucky enough to work with an amazing group of people on the Advisory Committee (pictured above.)

According to Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Program Manager for the NWDA, “the planning grant has helped to find solutions for common and significant challenges that impede the development of sustainable digital programs at the Alliance and its member institutions. The report, (available now), presents findings and recommendation for the initial elements of a digital services program at the Alliance. The program will help address member institutions’ greatest needs and enable them to move from digital projects to digital programs.”

The Digital Program Working Group’s report with recommendations is now available. A cross-search prototype is also available. Both have received favorable member feedback.

The Alliance’s governing council will review the recommendations at its September meeting and approve further work on this strategic agenda item. Visit the the Alliance’s strategic agenda, here.

Lewis and Clark College Aubrey R. Watzek Library

A screen shot taken September 2, 2009

In preparing for my workshop last week Off the Walls: Creating Online Exhibits from the Ground Up I came across a site some of you may not be familar with, the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank. The bank is “collecting and preserving the stories of Katrina and Rita.” This is a site that is creating an online community and documenting some powerful personal stories. I hope you have a chance to check it out.

We all learned much in the wake of Katrina that is better preparing us to handle future disasters. As libraries and cultural heritage institutions, the most important thing that we learned is that we must be better prepared prior to the disaster.

One of the keys to preparedness is a relationship with the first responders and emergency managers who are integral to response and recovery. Heritage Preservation Inc.’s Alliance for Response Program notes “Regardless of the scope of the emergency, the first response will always be local. The need for dialogue is clear and partnerships must be in place before the disaster strikes.”

On September 25, 2009, Denver’s Alliance for Response forum will be held at Denver Public Library Central Library. This day long free forum will bring together representatives from different public safety organizations, libraries, museums, archives and others in the region to discuss disaster planning. This will be one of 4 such forums held by the Alliance in 2009.

We in the West don’t often think of natural disasters like those in the hurricane prone Southeast as they are currently battening down the hatches for the latest round of hurricanes, however we have had many tornadoes this summer and we have wildfires and we have ice and snowstorms all which affect our collections. Plus, we have man-made disasters which can be just as devastating.

BCR is a member of Heritage Preservation Inc, supporting the important work they do. The Alliance for Response has established programs in 11 other cities–Atlanta, Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle.

If you’re in the Denver area, sign up for the September 25th conference, if you’re in one of these other cities, connect with the Alliance for Response team, if you’re not in one of these areas, go to the Alliance for response page, they have toolkits and manuals that anyone can use.

Be prepared for the next Katrina, even if it’s named Bob.

Here is some background taken from the introduction:
“Orphan works” is a term used to describe the situation in which the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner. Proposed orphan works legislation, such as the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889) and the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S.2913), would reduce penalties for infringement if an infringer “undertakes a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright.” This statement describes what professional archivists consider to be best practices regarding reasonable efforts to identify and locate rights holders. It is based on the authors’ knowledge of the kinds of materials that are likely to qualify as orphan works and on their professional experience in trying to obtain rights information for such works in the past.

Although the statement focuses on unpublished materials because these are the types of materials that are usually found in archives, the authors recognize that many of the techniques that are useful in identifying rights holders for unpublished materials may also be useful in identifying and locating rights holders of published materials.

This is a great resource for all of us dealing with materials in our collection. The full report

Students learning in Second Life

The Department of Education has issued a report that came across my desk yesterday, complimements of the American Association of Museums Media and Technology list. Many of you may find this of interest.

From the abstract: “A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts screened these studies to find those that (a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes, (c) used a rigorous research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect size. As a result of this screening, 51 independent effects were identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes—measured as the difference between treatment and control means, divided by the pooled standard deviation—was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face. Analysts noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se. An unexpected finding was the small number of rigorous published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning conditions for K–12 students. In light of this small corpus, caution is required in generalizing to the K–12 population because the results are derived for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education).”

To see the full report.

Inside the New York Botanical Garden Herbarium. Photo taken by Cindy Newlander, Taxonomic Database Manager, Denver Botanic Garden

This just crossed my desk. For those of you working with natural history and herbaria this may be of interest.

Taxonomic Database Working Group (TDWG) is pleased to announce the commencement of the Public Review of Darwin Core - a standard for sharing biodiversity information. You will find the proposed standard is a living document with a history, an anchor in the Dublin Core, and mechanisms to grow and change. Since being officially put forward as a draft standard in February 2009, Darwin Core has undergone a peer review, a review by the TDWG Executive, and multiple revisions.

Open Invitation: We invite all who may contribute and/or consume
biodiversity information to examine this proposed standard during the Public Review period from 11th July through at least 10th August 2009.

How to Participate: Visit the Darwin Core Progress site for the latest background information on the process and critical links to content and participation. To discuss ideas with others or offer comments that are not targeted for action, please subscribe and contribute to the tdwg-content mailing list Recommended
actions or issues should be submitted to the Issue Tracker of the Darwin Core so that they may be assigned, prioritized, and tracked.

This Public Review process will be archived along with all other documentation in the TDWG Standards Track. Questions about the process should be directed to the Review
Manager, Gail Kampmeier

Looking toward the MIssissippi with the Arch framing the courthouse in St. Louis

With a large number of the staff away at the ALA meeting in Chicago this week, a quiet, sleepy Friday afternoon seemed like a good time to update you on some DPS training opportunities.

Today, I’ve been getting ready to go back to St. Louis (July 22-24) to try out our digitizing audio workshop. I’ve given the workshop in parts — some online and once as a day-long workshop here at BCR. But, I haven’t spent three days entirely focused on the topic before and I’m looking forward to working with AASLH members again in a town I love.

Summer is always a busy time and I’m developing a few other training topics that some of you may be interested in. August 11-13 will be the first time we are scheduling Digital Project Management as an online class, we’ll hold it as an in-person class on October 2 at the BCR offices in Aurora. On August 26th I will debut Off the Walls: Online Exhibits from the Ground Up as a pre-conference workshop for the AASLH annual meeting in Indianapolis. Introduction to Digital Imaging as an online class will be held September 16 and 17 and I’ll run it in -person on November 5. Introduction to Dublin Core Metadata will be on December 3rd also at BCR as an in-person class.

DPS staff will be teaching Introduction to Digital Preservation on October 23rd which will be a wonderful opportunity to delve into a topic we all need to be thinking about.

I’m also working with Ann Blonston, General Manager of Airshow Mastering to schedule a free online class to talk about digital initiatives and making the case for pilot projects — it should be a lot of fun — watch for more information on our continuing education and training website

If you’re interested in learning more about what the training staff are up to, and you haven’t seen it yet, check out the BCR Trailhead Blog which provides a forum between the BCR training team and you. It has great stuff!