[Updated 7:20 AM Thursday, 10 May: see below]
[Update 2 8:20 AM Friday, 11 May; see below]
Today I went to the 2nd meeting of Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, held at ALA in Chicago. Seven of us from UIUC went.
It was quite interesting, I have extensive notes which I will post. But I am exhausted! I was up at 3:30 AM and have ridden to Chicago and back with a full day of sitting in between.
By the way, I mean that “interesting” in a normal sense, not any sort of “you just wait till I tell you” sort of sense.
I notice Diane Hillman has already posted her notes on the first half of the day at the LITA Blog. So, if your jonesin’ for some info see hers and keep an eye out for her 2nd part and perhaps a few other reports elsewhere. I’ll try to get mine up over the weekend, but I took a lot of notes! I have a “sore on my thumb lot” of notes.
Thank you for being patient. And if you aren’t, well, too bad.
Update:
I did not speak at the meeting yesterday, except perhaps to make supportive or snide comments—as they situation called for—to those around me. I awoke to find a link to this post stating that I had, and saw that Diane Hillmann had posted part 2 of her notes and seems to be the source of this claim. I have made comments at both places I have seen the claim.
Please, please, please. That was my boss, Michael Norman, Head of Content Access Management at UIUC, and not me. I have no idea how Diane Hillmann substituted my name for Michael’s.
But please do not replicate that mistaken information. As someone who will be looking for a job shortly (on my time scale anyway), it doesn’t seem to be a good way to start off by being given credit for something your boss did. Or, period.
I would also never deign to speak for my institution, at this point in my career, without explicit permission.
Other than that, I think Diane Hillmann has done a pretty good job of reporting on the events. In a few cases, my report will end up parroting hers, or more accurately the speaker’s slides. I only skimmed portions of part 2 of her report this morning, but they still look pretty accurate. Except for one glaring mis-attribution.
Update 2:
I see that the LITA Blog post has been corrected and my comment approved sometime in the last hour or so. Thank you.
I have started working on my notes and should have the 1st group up tonight.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Christine Schwartz // May 9, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Mark, I’m glad you took extensive notes. I’m looking forward to reading your posts about this important meeting. I’ll be patient!
2 LC Working Group Meeting, May 9 « Minerva Shelved // May 9, 2007 at 9:36 pm
[...] Lindner, who attended and spoke as well, has a teaser, but promises to post his notes over the weekend. (Diane gives a covers his remarks in Part 2 of [...]
3 Jenn // May 9, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I’m on pins and needles! (Sorry, too tired to come up with a more interesting cliche…) No, really, I am. I’m quite curious.
4 Kathryn La Barre // May 10, 2007 at 10:25 am
Hey Mark. I’ve got 12 pages of notes I’ll send to you soon to compare with yours I’d like to see as much of this online as soon as possible.
Thanks for attending the meeting
5 Minerva // May 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Again, please forgive the mistake on my part. In the meantime, I am waiting to read your notes on the meeting. And please be sure to include the snide remarks as well.
6 Mark // May 10, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Thanks for waiting, ladies and thanks to Minerva for updating her post.
But I sure wish Diane Hillmann or someone else at the LITA blog would approve my comment! It’s only been 5 hours+ since I made it. I realize that isn’t a long time in a normal course of events, but considering this is one of the hottest topics of our day one might think….
Thanks, Kathryn. I’ve received a couple pages so far and will happily bounce them off of mine while I post. And I’m glad I went, too.
7 Mark // May 10, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Minerva, not a problem. I am assuming you got the info from Diane Hillmann’s 2nd post and if so then there really isn’t a mistake, as such, on your part.
If you came to that conclusion on your own then OK. But still no big deal. You made a quick correction and I appreciate it.
Although I am getting antsy for someone at the LITA blog to approve my comment and to correct that post!
I sent Michael an email early this morning and let him know that I had commented and asked that it be corrected. Honest mistakes are one thing; but this is beginning to look sort of shaky and the longer that stays uncorrected the more people will make the same mis-attribution.
8 Jenn // May 10, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Hey, I just went and looked at both parts of the post, and well, shit. She said some really tacky and condescending things about David Bade. I’ve read Mr. Bade’s remarks on the ALA headings listserv and I never found his thoughts to be incoherent. But then, maybe I’m a conservative, too. I’m glad Jeffrey Beall called her out on it; but her “explanation” wasn’t even close to adequate.
Also, I didn’t see your comment. Maybe she’s of the type to think that she couldn’t possibly have been mistaken and that you must obviously be wrong…?
9 Mark // May 11, 2007 at 5:47 am
I don’t know, Jenn. I try to be “better in the world” and try not to ascribe intention to people when there is so much info lacking (but we all do it). But it’s now 24 hours later and no correction or even approval of my comment. I am a tad upset.
Maybe this is my punishment for setting foot in ALA; you know, kind of like the church falling down on the heathen….
10 Tracy // May 11, 2007 at 9:14 am
Hey Mark.
Ms. Hillman didn’t do a very good job correcting her attribution. The last sentence of the paragraph still says:
Mark also spoke briefly about how automated metadata generation is being considered as part of the package moving forward, for their institutional repository, for instance.
I’m sure people will know by now that this is a mistake, but still…
Anyway, thanks for this blog.
11 Mark // May 11, 2007 at 10:10 am
Thanks, Tracy. I guess I didn’t look close enough. But then you’ve already seen my minor name attribution error from last night on AUTOCAT so I have to remain somewhat humbled.