Re: [CODE4LIB] Limit EBSCO Search Box Builder by date

2009-11-18 Thread Michael Gorrell
Hi Joel,

We're updating our documentation/the Search Box Builder site to also include
these parameters.

Search Box Builder - a form to take in the user's query/limiters/etc is
essentially a way to build up what we call a persistent link.  Our link
syntax has a few basic parameters.  Look at this search for football from
the Academic Search Premier database (db code aph):

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=aphbquery=(football)
cli0=FTclv0=Ycli1=DT1clv1=200901-200911type=0site=ehost-live

I've got 2 limiters in this search - Full Text and Date (200901-200911).

Our limiters are passed through cli{N} and cliv{N} key/value pairs.

So in the above - FT is the key for the full text limiter, and it's
Value is Y.  For date, DT1 is the key and the date range 200901-200911 is
the value.

Other limiters that might be used would be Peer Reviewed (RV=Y) or
References Available (FR=Y) or Publication/Source (SO=value).  These are
our Search Tags.  Note - that if you want to play around and see what the
URL looks like, you can use the UI, and click on the Alert/Save/Share link
- we show a permalink on the little popup - this (basically) is the same
persistent link you would build up through Search Box Builder.

I hope that makes sense.  If you have further questions, feel free to
contact our support team - ept...@ebscohost.com.

Thanks for pointing out this weakness in our documentation - and thanks for
using the feature!

-mdg
-
Michael Gorrell, m...@ebscohost.com
Senior VP and CIO
EBSCO


On 11/17/09 3:11 PM, Joel Marchesoni jma...@email.wcu.edu wrote:

 Hi Everyone,
 
 One feature missing from the EBSCO Search Box Builder is the ability to limit
 by date.  Does anyone know of a way to do this from the search box code?  I
 tried all the values from the results page with no success.
 
 I'm having a hard time finding any information about this online and was
 hoping a fellow coder has figured it out already.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Joel


[CODE4LIB] JOB ANNOUNCEMENT: Digital Web Projects Fellowship at the University of Houston

2009-11-18 Thread Rachel Vacek
**Message is cross-posted.  Please excuse the duplication.**

The University of Houston has a new position!  The Digital and Web Projects
Fellowship is a two-year fellowship that offers a recent graduate the
opportunity to work in a technologically advanced research library on
diverse projects involving digital information and Web development. 

For more information, please see:
http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/jobs/job.html?id=27

If you have any questions about this position, I am more than happy to talk
with you.

Thanks,
Rachel

Rachel E. Vacek
Web Services Coordinator
University of Houston Libraries
114 University Libraries
Houston, TX  77042

713-743-5820 (o)
713-743-9811 (f)
reva...@uh.edu






image.png

Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

2009-11-18 Thread Rees, John (NIH/NLM) [E]
And DOIs are just a managed implementation of Handles which the IDF created, so 
you could go the Handles route for free. But then you lose the CrossRef 
services, etc. if that is important to you.

John P. Rees, MA, MLIS
Curator, Archives and Modern Manuscripts
History of Medicine Division, MSC 3819
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894




-Original Message-
From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.a.schnei...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:59 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

The first question is: what are they trying to accomplish by having DOIs?

Do they have a long-term plan for persistence of their content? Financial
plan?

If they're looking for persistent identifiers, I don't understand (a
priori), why DOI is better, as an identifier scheme, than any other
'persistent identifier scheme' (ARK [1], PURL, Handle, etc[2]). (Though I
really like CrossRef and the things they're doing.)

[1] http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/
[2] http://www.persistent-identifier.de/english/204-examples.php

-Jodi

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Bucknell, Terry 
t.d.buckn...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:

 You should be able to find all the information you need about CrossRef fees
 and rules at:

 http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/20pub_fees.html

 and

 http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/59pub_rules.html

 Information about the system of registering and maintaining DOIs is at:

 http://www.crossref.org/help/

 Note that as well as registering DOIs for the articles in LLT, LLT would be
 obliged to link to the articles cited by LLT articles (for cited articles
 that have DOIs too). Looking at the LLT site, it looks like they would have
 to change their 'abstract' pages to 'abstract plus cited refs', or change
 the way that their PDFs are created so that they include DOI links for cited
 references. (Without this the whole system would fail: publishers would
 expect traffic to come to them, but wouldn't have to send traffic
 elsewhere).

 I'd agree that DOIs are in general a Good Thing (and for e-books / e-book
 chapters, and reference work entries as well as e-journal articles). The
 CrossRef fees are deliberately set so as not to exclude single-title
 publishers. Here's an example of a single-title, university-based e-journal
 in the UK that provides DOIs, so it must be a CrossRef member:
 http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/.


 Terry Bucknell
 Electronic Resources Manager
 University of Liverpool


 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
 Jonathan Rochkind
 Sent: 17 November 2009 23:20
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

 So I have no actual experience with this.

 But you have to pay for DOI's.  I've never done it, but I don't think
 you neccesarily have to run your own purl server -- CrossRef takes care
 of it.  Of course, if your documents are going to be moving all over the
 place, if you run your own purl server and register your purls with
 CrossRef, then when a document moves, you can update your local purl
 server; otherwise, you can update CrossRef, heh.

 It certainly is useful to have DOIs, I agree.  I would suggest they
 should just contact cross-ref and get information on the cost, and what
 their responsibilities are, and then they'll be able to decide.  If the
 'structure of their content' is journal articles, then, sure DOI is
 pretty handy for people wanting to cite or link to those articles.

 Jonathan

 Ranti Junus wrote:
  Hi All,
 
  I was asked by somebody from a college @ my institution whether they
  should go with assigning DOI for their journal articles:
  http://llt.msu.edu/
 
  I can see the advantage of this approach and my first thought is more
  about whether they have resources in running their purl server, or
  whether they would need to do it through crossref (or any other
  agency.) Has anybody had any experience about this?
 
  Moreover, are there other factors that one should consider (pros and
  cons) about this? Or, looking at the structure of their content,
  whether they ever need DOI? Any ideas and/or suggestions?
 
 
  Any insights about this is much appreciated.
 
 
  thanks,
  ranti.
 
 



Re: [CODE4LIB] Limit EBSCO Search Box Builder by date

2009-11-18 Thread Joel Marchesoni
That does make sense, Michael.  I had tried using the cli and clv parameters 
but I had used just 'DT' instead of 'DT1' and it didn't work.  Thanks so much 
for this!

Joel

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael 
Gorrell
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:39 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Limit EBSCO Search Box Builder by date

Hi Joel,

We're updating our documentation/the Search Box Builder site to also include
these parameters.

Search Box Builder - a form to take in the user's query/limiters/etc is
essentially a way to build up what we call a persistent link.  Our link
syntax has a few basic parameters.  Look at this search for football from
the Academic Search Premier database (db code aph):

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=aphbquery=(football)
cli0=FTclv0=Ycli1=DT1clv1=200901-200911type=0site=ehost-live

I've got 2 limiters in this search - Full Text and Date (200901-200911).

Our limiters are passed through cli{N} and cliv{N} key/value pairs.

So in the above - FT is the key for the full text limiter, and it's
Value is Y.  For date, DT1 is the key and the date range 200901-200911 is
the value.

Other limiters that might be used would be Peer Reviewed (RV=Y) or
References Available (FR=Y) or Publication/Source (SO=value).  These are
our Search Tags.  Note - that if you want to play around and see what the
URL looks like, you can use the UI, and click on the Alert/Save/Share link
- we show a permalink on the little popup - this (basically) is the same
persistent link you would build up through Search Box Builder.

I hope that makes sense.  If you have further questions, feel free to
contact our support team - ept...@ebscohost.com.

Thanks for pointing out this weakness in our documentation - and thanks for
using the feature!

-mdg
-
Michael Gorrell, m...@ebscohost.com
Senior VP and CIO
EBSCO


On 11/17/09 3:11 PM, Joel Marchesoni jma...@email.wcu.edu wrote:

 Hi Everyone,
 
 One feature missing from the EBSCO Search Box Builder is the ability to limit
 by date.  Does anyone know of a way to do this from the search box code?  I
 tried all the values from the results page with no success.
 
 I'm having a hard time finding any information about this online and was
 hoping a fellow coder has figured it out already.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Joel


[CODE4LIB] agile methodologies

2009-11-18 Thread susan teague-rector
Anyone using agile methodologies for Web applications / projects - 
particularly user stories to define requirements for Web projects?


Thanks,
Susan

Susan Teague-Rector
Web Applications Manager
VCU Libraries


Re: [CODE4LIB] agile methodologies

2009-11-18 Thread Leslie Johnston
Depending on the project, we use use cases or user studies.  We've just 
completed collecting users studies for a new project and used them to create a 
system gap analysis, in preparation for creating a design document.

Leslie

--
Leslie Johnston
Digital Media Project Coordinator
Office of Strategic Initiatives
Library of Congress
202-707-2801
lesl...@loc.gov

 susan teague-rector setea...@vcu.edu 11/18/2009 9:44 AM 
Anyone using agile methodologies for Web applications / projects - 
particularly user stories to define requirements for Web projects?

Thanks,
Susan

Susan Teague-Rector
Web Applications Manager
VCU Libraries


Re: [CODE4LIB] agile methodologies

2009-11-18 Thread Sarr, Nathan
Hi Susan,

   We used Use Cases which are generally a little more structured to help 
define the requirements for our IR+ system here at the University of Rochester 
- you can see our production system here: https://urresearch.rochester.edu .  
They were also re-used to help with user testing of the system.

-Nate

Nathan Sarr
Senior Software Engineer
River Campus Libraries
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY  14627
(585) 275-0692

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of susan 
teague-rector
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:44 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] agile methodologies

Anyone using agile methodologies for Web applications / projects - 
particularly user stories to define requirements for Web projects?

Thanks,
Susan

Susan Teague-Rector
Web Applications Manager
VCU Libraries


Re: [CODE4LIB] agile methodologies

2009-11-18 Thread Glen Newton
Susan wrote:
 Anyone using agile methodologies for Web applications / projects - 
 particularly user stories to define requirements for Web projects?

It might be worth your while reading Ravi Mohan's interesting Let the
Agile Fad Flow By  
http://pindancing.blogspot.com/2009/09/let-agile-fad-flow-by.html

-- 

Glen Newton | glen.new...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Researcher, Information Science, CISTI Research
 NRC W3C Advisory Committee Representative
http://tinyurl.com/yvchmu
tel/t l: 613-990-9163 | facsimile/t l copieur 613-952-8246
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI)
National Research Council Canada (NRC)| M-55, 1200 Montreal Road
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/
Institut canadien de l'information scientifique et technique (ICIST) 
Conseil national de recherches Canada | M-55, 1200 chemin Montr al
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6  
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada   
--


Re: [CODE4LIB] Limit EBSCO Search Box Builder by date

2009-11-18 Thread Joel Marchesoni
My other problem is that I wasn't specifying the range correctly.  It seems 
that the range must be specified in the clvN field exactly in the  
'mm-mm' format.  Something I learned in asking through the website 
support is that it is possible to add a more flexible range by adding it to the 
ebscohostkeywords field as 'DT+' and then the range.  Doing it that way I was 
able to use '1999-' as the range and it worked just fine.  I'm guessing it 
could be added to the actual search terms as well as long as there is an 'AND' 
between the range and the actual query.

Joel

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael 
Gorrell
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:39 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Limit EBSCO Search Box Builder by date

Hi Joel,

We're updating our documentation/the Search Box Builder site to also include
these parameters.

Search Box Builder - a form to take in the user's query/limiters/etc is
essentially a way to build up what we call a persistent link.  Our link
syntax has a few basic parameters.  Look at this search for football from
the Academic Search Premier database (db code aph):

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=aphbquery=(football)
cli0=FTclv0=Ycli1=DT1clv1=200901-200911type=0site=ehost-live

I've got 2 limiters in this search - Full Text and Date (200901-200911).

Our limiters are passed through cli{N} and cliv{N} key/value pairs.

So in the above - FT is the key for the full text limiter, and it's
Value is Y.  For date, DT1 is the key and the date range 200901-200911 is
the value.

Other limiters that might be used would be Peer Reviewed (RV=Y) or
References Available (FR=Y) or Publication/Source (SO=value).  These are
our Search Tags.  Note - that if you want to play around and see what the
URL looks like, you can use the UI, and click on the Alert/Save/Share link
- we show a permalink on the little popup - this (basically) is the same
persistent link you would build up through Search Box Builder.

I hope that makes sense.  If you have further questions, feel free to
contact our support team - ept...@ebscohost.com.

Thanks for pointing out this weakness in our documentation - and thanks for
using the feature!

-mdg
-
Michael Gorrell, m...@ebscohost.com
Senior VP and CIO
EBSCO


On 11/17/09 3:11 PM, Joel Marchesoni jma...@email.wcu.edu wrote:

 Hi Everyone,
 
 One feature missing from the EBSCO Search Box Builder is the ability to limit
 by date.  Does anyone know of a way to do this from the search box code?  I
 tried all the values from the results page with no success.
 
 I'm having a hard time finding any information about this online and was
 hoping a fellow coder has figured it out already.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Joel


Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

2009-11-18 Thread Han, Yan
Currently DOI uses Handle (technology) with it social framework (i.e. 
administrative body to manage DOI). In technical sense, PURL is not going to 
last long. 
Crossref handles DOI registration in U.S. In Europe and Aisa, they have other 
organizations to handle it. DOI is also currently going through ISO 
standardization process. The other fact is that DOI has the biggest number of 
usage than other Persistent Identifiers. More info can be found at 
http://www.doi.org/faq.html 

Yan

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jodi 
Schneider
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:59 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

The first question is: what are they trying to accomplish by having DOIs?

Do they have a long-term plan for persistence of their content? Financial
plan?

If they're looking for persistent identifiers, I don't understand (a
priori), why DOI is better, as an identifier scheme, than any other
'persistent identifier scheme' (ARK [1], PURL, Handle, etc[2]). (Though I
really like CrossRef and the things they're doing.)

[1] http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/
[2] http://www.persistent-identifier.de/english/204-examples.php

-Jodi

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Bucknell, Terry 
t.d.buckn...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:

 You should be able to find all the information you need about CrossRef fees
 and rules at:

 http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/20pub_fees.html

 and

 http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/59pub_rules.html

 Information about the system of registering and maintaining DOIs is at:

 http://www.crossref.org/help/

 Note that as well as registering DOIs for the articles in LLT, LLT would be
 obliged to link to the articles cited by LLT articles (for cited articles
 that have DOIs too). Looking at the LLT site, it looks like they would have
 to change their 'abstract' pages to 'abstract plus cited refs', or change
 the way that their PDFs are created so that they include DOI links for cited
 references. (Without this the whole system would fail: publishers would
 expect traffic to come to them, but wouldn't have to send traffic
 elsewhere).

 I'd agree that DOIs are in general a Good Thing (and for e-books / e-book
 chapters, and reference work entries as well as e-journal articles). The
 CrossRef fees are deliberately set so as not to exclude single-title
 publishers. Here's an example of a single-title, university-based e-journal
 in the UK that provides DOIs, so it must be a CrossRef member:
 http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/.


 Terry Bucknell
 Electronic Resources Manager
 University of Liverpool


 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
 Jonathan Rochkind
 Sent: 17 November 2009 23:20
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

 So I have no actual experience with this.

 But you have to pay for DOI's.  I've never done it, but I don't think
 you neccesarily have to run your own purl server -- CrossRef takes care
 of it.  Of course, if your documents are going to be moving all over the
 place, if you run your own purl server and register your purls with
 CrossRef, then when a document moves, you can update your local purl
 server; otherwise, you can update CrossRef, heh.

 It certainly is useful to have DOIs, I agree.  I would suggest they
 should just contact cross-ref and get information on the cost, and what
 their responsibilities are, and then they'll be able to decide.  If the
 'structure of their content' is journal articles, then, sure DOI is
 pretty handy for people wanting to cite or link to those articles.

 Jonathan

 Ranti Junus wrote:
  Hi All,
 
  I was asked by somebody from a college @ my institution whether they
  should go with assigning DOI for their journal articles:
  http://llt.msu.edu/
 
  I can see the advantage of this approach and my first thought is more
  about whether they have resources in running their purl server, or
  whether they would need to do it through crossref (or any other
  agency.) Has anybody had any experience about this?
 
  Moreover, are there other factors that one should consider (pros and
  cons) about this? Or, looking at the structure of their content,
  whether they ever need DOI? Any ideas and/or suggestions?
 
 
  Any insights about this is much appreciated.
 
 
  thanks,
  ranti.
 
 



Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

2009-11-18 Thread Ranti Junus
Fascinating. I learned a lot from these discussions. Thank you all so much!


ranti.

-- 
Bulk mail.  Postage paid.


Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

2009-11-18 Thread Stuart Lewis
To me, one of the most important selling points of DOIs over any of those other 
systems, is that the DOIs are starting to have brand-recognition with users. 
Faculty generally know what a DOI is, what it does, and the importance of 
having one, whereas they don't know what a PURL or a handle is. (I say this 
coming from a DSpace background where we have to explain what handles are, and 
usually end up saying they're like DOIs to which the audience starts nodding).


Stuart Lewis
IT Innovations Analyst and Developer
Te Tumu Herenga The University of Auckland Library
Auckland Mail Centre, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Ph: 64 9 373-7599 x81928
http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/


On 18/11/2009, at 12:58 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote:

 The first question is: what are they trying to accomplish by having DOIs?
 
 Do they have a long-term plan for persistence of their content? Financial
 plan?
 
 If they're looking for persistent identifiers, I don't understand (a
 priori), why DOI is better, as an identifier scheme, than any other
 'persistent identifier scheme' (ARK [1], PURL, Handle, etc[2]). (Though I
 really like CrossRef and the things they're doing.)
 
 [1] http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/
 [2] http://www.persistent-identifier.de/english/204-examples.php
 
 -Jodi
 
 On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Bucknell, Terry 
 t.d.buckn...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
 
 You should be able to find all the information you need about CrossRef fees
 and rules at:
 
 http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/20pub_fees.html
 
 and
 
 http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/59pub_rules.html
 
 Information about the system of registering and maintaining DOIs is at:
 
 http://www.crossref.org/help/
 
 Note that as well as registering DOIs for the articles in LLT, LLT would be
 obliged to link to the articles cited by LLT articles (for cited articles
 that have DOIs too). Looking at the LLT site, it looks like they would have
 to change their 'abstract' pages to 'abstract plus cited refs', or change
 the way that their PDFs are created so that they include DOI links for cited
 references. (Without this the whole system would fail: publishers would
 expect traffic to come to them, but wouldn't have to send traffic
 elsewhere).
 
 I'd agree that DOIs are in general a Good Thing (and for e-books / e-book
 chapters, and reference work entries as well as e-journal articles). The
 CrossRef fees are deliberately set so as not to exclude single-title
 publishers. Here's an example of a single-title, university-based e-journal
 in the UK that provides DOIs, so it must be a CrossRef member:
 http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/.
 
 
 Terry Bucknell
 Electronic Resources Manager
 University of Liverpool
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
 Jonathan Rochkind
 Sent: 17 November 2009 23:20
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content
 
 So I have no actual experience with this.
 
 But you have to pay for DOI's.  I've never done it, but I don't think
 you neccesarily have to run your own purl server -- CrossRef takes care
 of it.  Of course, if your documents are going to be moving all over the
 place, if you run your own purl server and register your purls with
 CrossRef, then when a document moves, you can update your local purl
 server; otherwise, you can update CrossRef, heh.
 
 It certainly is useful to have DOIs, I agree.  I would suggest they
 should just contact cross-ref and get information on the cost, and what
 their responsibilities are, and then they'll be able to decide.  If the
 'structure of their content' is journal articles, then, sure DOI is
 pretty handy for people wanting to cite or link to those articles.
 
 Jonathan
 
 Ranti Junus wrote:
 Hi All,
 
 I was asked by somebody from a college @ my institution whether they
 should go with assigning DOI for their journal articles:
 http://llt.msu.edu/
 
 I can see the advantage of this approach and my first thought is more
 about whether they have resources in running their purl server, or
 whether they would need to do it through crossref (or any other
 agency.) Has anybody had any experience about this?
 
 Moreover, are there other factors that one should consider (pros and
 cons) about this? Or, looking at the structure of their content,
 whether they ever need DOI? Any ideas and/or suggestions?
 
 
 Any insights about this is much appreciated.
 
 
 thanks,
 ranti.
 
 
 


Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

2009-11-18 Thread Ross Singer
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Han, Yan h...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote:
 Currently DOI uses Handle (technology) with it social framework (i.e. 
 administrative body to manage DOI). In technical sense, PURL is not going to 
 last long.

I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean (re: purl), but
I'm pretty sure it's not true.

I'm also pretty sure there's little to no direct connection between
purl and doi despite a superficial similarity in scope.

-Ross.