[Sigcr-l] Next year's SIG/CR workshop and proceedings

[Barbara Kwasnik]

Hi Melanie,
>From my perspective the theme of "interfaces for interactions with
classifications" sounds like a very reasonable way to extend the "theme"
-- my sense is that was what was meant or implied anyway when people
talked about visualizations -- or at least that was what the BIGGER
theme was.

Do you have any ideas of who else would like to work as co-chair of the
workshop with Joan? Hint hint. Barbara

>>> Melanie Feinberg <feinberg at u.washington.edu> 11/19/2006 3:01 PM
>>>
Hello,


If I might pipe up about the workshop theme...


The focus on visualization seems quite narrow. I know that people at 
this year's workshop were excited about tag clouds, but in general, 
visualization of information spaces is difficult, and from my 
perspective there's not a lot of interesting stuff. (I did a basic 
review of this area a few years ago when I was a master's student.) 
Also, it doesn't seem like the core constituency of the SIG-CR will be

that interested in pursuing work in this area (although I admit that I

could just be voicing my own predilictions here).


I think it might be worthwhile to expand the theme slightly to
encompass 
interfaces or more generally interactions with classifications, which 
could then include visualizations. While this is still a relatively 
focused theme, it opens the door to a much wider range of possible 
topics, from the tag clouds to the integration of tags with a library 
catalog (such the PennTags system that many workshop attendees were
also 
enthusiastic about this year). A theme based on interactions would also

resonate with information architects, who seem like a natural target
for 
expanding the SIG.


Just a suggestion.


Melanie
(doctoral student at the Univ. of Washington)


*****************
Next order of business: This year's workshop and proceedings.

First of all, let me personally and collectively on behalf of the
entire SIG thank Joe Tennis and Jonathan Furner for a fantastic,
well-run, and stimulating workshop. In my opinion it really captured
the
spirit of the early workshops and generated excitement that took us
through the rest of the conference and into planning for next year.

As you may know, we are no longer publishing proceedings as Advances,
due to a change in the agreements with the publisher. Thus, our
proceedings have been languishing. One of the outcomes of the planning
meeting was that we agreed to post and store our proceedings for one
year on a trial basis on D-List. This is an open-access depository
that
is presently being funded on a trial basis. By putting our proceedings
there we will help demonstrate to the funders that this is a useful
and
desirable service for the LIS community. The site is especially
intended
for small organizations, committees, and SIGs such as ours that
struggle
with publishing issues and archival storage of our resources.

The good thing is that while our proceedings will be maintained by the
staff of D-List (after we input them), and will be searchable via the
web, and covered by citation services, we do not relinquish our rights
to them whatsoever. That is, if, at a later time we wish to publish a
monograph, or collected papers, or publish them as a special issue of
some journal, we will be able to do that. In the meanwhile, we should
also try to get the proceedings from the last few years settled on
D-List as well. Later, we can decide what else we might want to do.

Now, on to next year's Workshop.

Several issues: theme? cooperation with other SIGS? who will run it?
and when should it be held?

Theme: We all thought that a focussed theme worked exceptionally well.
At the end of this year's workshop and at the planning meeting,
Jonathan
and Joe collected ideas for next year's workshop. There were several
ideas converging generally on the theme of "visualization of
classification." So, unless a substantive number of you don't like
this
theme or the idea of having a theme in general then we'll proceed with
this theme.

Cooperation with other SIGs. When Joe went to the General SIG Planning
Session in my stead (sorry had a conflict) he brought up the idea of
cooperation for the workshop. Several SIGs expressed interest in
sharing
the work of organizing and sponsoring. These included SIG/VIZ,
SIG/USE,
and one other  (Joe, remind me which SIG that was: SIG/HCI?). So, in
my
opinion, that's very promising, since this topic very naturally
extends
to those other SIGs. It will be the job of the Workshop Chair to
coordinate with the other SIGs.

Who will run it? We have one volunteer, Joan Lussky, of Catholic Univ.
Thank you, Joan. She agreed to give it a shot, but stipulated that
since
she's a newcomer to this and has no experience, she'll need a
side-kick.
I agreed to be a shadow advisor, but since I'm on sabbatical next year
and out of the country for part of it, I don't want to "officially"
volunteer. Would someone else be willing to help Joan, and also, to
coordinate with the other SIGs?

Chairing the workshop is a lot of work, but very satisfying. It
includes sending out the call for papers and posters, assembling a
stable of reviewers, supervising the review process, selecting the
papers, deciding on the format and activities and program, and then
coordinating the prep of the proceedings both before and after the
workshop. In addition, there is a considerable amount of "event
coordination" with Headquarters involving everything from mikes to
lunch, to extra chairs.

When should it be held? First a little background. When we first had
the workshop 17+ years ago, it was a small but lively event meant to
provide a forum for people intensely involved in Classificaiton
Research
who could share ideas without "starting from scratch". We also tried
to
extend the scope of CR, and brought in researchers from other
disciplines and professions (nursing and geography for instance). We
asked researchers in possibly unfamiliar fields (such as machine
learning) to make their work accessible to all, but the general intent
was that the workshop was to generate ideas, share, and present work
underway. It was, in other words, a WORKSHOP not a mini conference
track. Another important aspect was that we tried to make the workshop
inexpensive so that students and others could easily afford to attend.

Over the  years, ASIST has tried to incorporate the workshop under the
"continuing ed" banner by treating it like one of the pre-conference
tutorials which usually cost a lot more and have, in my opinion, a
different mandate and audience. We've fought against this vehemently,
but the fight had to be repeated each and every year that I know of.

This year, it appears that we have run into a more serious situation.
We have the choice of either adopting the business model of the other
pre-conference events, or put our workshop at the end of the
conference
(so as not to leach away attendees from the other more profitable
pre-conference events).

We discussed this at length at the planning meeting, and here's what I
see as our options:

1. Agree to the pre-conference model: much higher fees to make the
workshop "self-sustaining."

2. Argue to keep it as is. (Joseph Busch and I have volunteered to be
the "pushy broads" (strong advocates) if needs be). I think there are
good arguments for this appeal. First of all, our workshop has
CONSISTENTLY attracted non-ASIST members and converted them into
members, and active ones at that. The workshop has consistently
provided
an energetic conceptual "priming pump" for the rest of the conference,
and we have thus added these intangibles to the life of the
organization
well beyond what it costs to "subsidize" us.

3. We could decide to take the workshop "off site" (say, to the Univ.
of Wisconsin) and not cost ASIST any money at all. Expensive
conference-hotel expenses such as coffee and lunch could be handled
more
economically.

4. We could integrate the workshop into the regular program of the
Conference -- for example have a double session in the morning and
afternoon, with lunch "on your own" or even box lunches that people
buy
for themselves. This would cost the attendees nothing over the
conference fees (except lunch and snacks). This approach would require
coordination and approval of the program committee and could be tricky
in terms of double-booking with people's other commitments at the
conference. But, I also think this would be a good choice if we
contemplate coordination with other SIGs.

5. We could have the workshop at the end as a post-conference event.

So, let me know your thoughts by responding to this email, and we'll
figure out how to take it from there. Barbara