No abstract

51(4) LRTSR esearch libraries seeking to build or strengthen digital library programs have often created positions that focus on metadata management and creation. These positions can be found in a variety of administrative units. Libraries with a strong digital production or research focus may place a metadata specialist in the unit given responsibility for digital collection maintenance and development. Other library operations may put metadata professionals in close alignment with particular initiatives, such as institutional repositories or special collections digitization. Metadata librarians also exist outside of traditional research libraries. 2These positions are outside the scope of this discussion.Many institutions have placed the position of a metadata librarian within a traditional cataloging or technical services department. Such a department has as its major focus acquiring, describing, and cataloging monographs and serials, working primarily within a paradigm of producing MARC records that are loaded and managed in an integrated library system (ILS). Johns Hopkins University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Minnesota, Yale University, University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Tennessee, and Cornell University have (at one time or another) placed a metadata librarian in this structure. This alignment, here termed the "technical services model," will be the primary topic of this paper. The heterogeneity of other alignments makes additional generalizations difficult.Within the technical services model, similarities emerge. While specific details vary, position descriptions show some points of commonality.3 Beacom summarized the Yale approach to creating a metadata librarian position in a 2005 presentation, in which he laid out three areas of responsibility for the metadata librarian: standards development and documentation, metadata production, and collaboration on digital tools. 4 Institutions that place metadata positions within technical services departments are seeking to leverage the metadata skills of their catalogers, expressed largely in MARC and displayed within MARC-centric workflows. Such departments are using the metadata librarian as a fulcrum. For example, the job description for the metadata librarian position at the University of Minnesota states that the metadata librarian will be involved in "facilitation of the integration of new types of data description into the traditional technical services workflow."5 The

PurposeThe strategic intelligence assessment (SIA) plays an important role in contemporary intelligence‐led policing by helping to identify strategic priorities for policing activity, crime reduction and improvements in community safety. Originally defined in the UK's National Intelligence Model, the SIA is produced annually by all local UK police districts as well as other agencies in the UK and internationally that have adopted intelligence‐led principles. The purpose of this paper is to critique the two most common approaches to its production, structuring its content following a “crime‐type” template or an assessment that is based on previous strategic priorities.Design/methodology/approachThe paper's critique is based on reviewing one hundred SIAs from police forces and Community Safety Partnerships in the UK and through speaking to practitioners on their experiences in using these intelligence products to determine strategic priorities.FindingsThe paper identifies weaknesses in both, arguing that neither tends to generate strategic intelligence products that are fit for the purpose for effective decision making, and in particular in helping to harness support from local government partners to address persistent and causal factors. As an alternative the study introduce a problem‐oriented approach to the production of strategic intelligence, with an assessment made in relation to place (locations and temporal features), offending and offender management, and victimisation and vulnerability.Originality/valueThe paper illustrates that the problem‐oriented approach leads to the production of a SIA that is more cross‐cutting in its analysis of crime and community safety issues, and more naturally leads to the identification of strategic priorities that focus on addressing causal issues.

This article describes the progress of the Digital Library Federation's Aquifer Metadata Working Group and demonstrates a model for the construction, application, and testing of collaboratively-developed best practices for sharing metadata in the digital library environment. We set the metadata aggregation context in which the Aquifer initiative began, describe the development of a set of Implementation Guidelines for Shareable MODS Records and their supporting documentation and tools, and discuss how this work has contributed to the understanding of what features metadata describing primary source and humanities-based resources needs in order to support scholarly use. We end with a summary of future efforts for the Aquifer initiative, and how its lessons can be applied in other metadata harvesting environments.

Ampelisca eschrichtii Krøyer, 1842 of the Sakhalin Shelf of the Okhotsk Sea, Far Eastern Russia, comprise the highest known biomass concentration of any amphipod population in the world and are a critically important prey source for western gray whales. The high prevalence of atrophied ovaries, undersized and damaged oocytes, undersized broods of embryos and the absence of terminal phase males or females brooding fully formed juveniles among these populations in late spring and early fall are consistent with trophic stress and starvation. A. eschrichtii therefore appear to starve in summer and grow and reproduce in late fall and winter. In summer, these populations, occur below water strata containing the bulk of phytoplankton biomass and appear more likely to receive their trophic sources with vertical mixing that occurs in winter.