Hi Emily,
I am working on a similar deduplication/appraisal project with a number of
internal and external hard drives. In my research I didn't find any 'silver
bullet' tools that allow for the kind of controlled and directed
deduplication you outlined.
Currently, the workflow I came up with for doing this work involves running
DROID on the directories to get checksum and other file information (path,
name, MTIME, etc.) I am then importing the csv exports from DROID into a
fairly simple postgres database that I created. From there, I am using SQL
queries to find groups of matches on checksum while setting rules for
keeping duplicates in various directories. I am also looking for directory
duplicates on size and name to find larger groupings of files that may not
entirely match on checksum for one reason or another. With only one hard
drive, it's also possible that you could accomplish similar results in a
spreadsheet.
I'd be more than happy to go into greater detail on the specifics of my
workflow and pass along some code if it would be helpful, just shoot me a
message!
Best,
Brock
Brock Stuessi (he/him)
Digital Archivist
Mike Kelley Foundation for the Arts
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 9:03 AM CODE4LIB automatic digest system <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There are 5 messages totaling 18361 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics in this special issue:
>
> 1. [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations (2)
> 2. Deduping with finesse (2)
> 3. Digital Initiatives Symposium 2024
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:19:49 -0700
> From: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
>
> Thanks, Kevin. My question, originally, was whether the typing assigned
> can be seen as "OR" or "AND". I know that you can define SKOS entities
> as objects and as properties and these are not seen as being in
> conflict, but SKOS is very clear in defining this, making sure that it
> is open. In the LoC case, it is an OWL declaration of ObjectProperty and
> the class Role, a kind of punning. It seems to me that all of the
> declarations are always attached to the subject, and therefore using
> them as objects would trigger inferencing inconsistencies (OWL tends to
> be strict). Have you tried that? Or are you eschewing inferencing, as
> one often does.
>
> In any case, the big question was using the relators as properties and
> the object as a string. There are folks who need to do that, and it is a
> shame that there isn't an unconstrained version that would allow this,
> since the LoC list is the most complete of all lists we can find.
> Declaration as an rdf:Property would do that, and that would entail less
> "rule" on the property definition, while users could define their own
> more strict rules for their application. Again, this brings up how far
> you can go with punning - adding rdf:Property to the mix would probably
> just make things more confusing.
>
> I vote for simpler and less constrained at the vocabulary level, leaving
> constraints to the application profile level, so everyone can have the
> usage they need.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/20/23 11:23 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > Steve is not wrong, but I think you are talking about two different
> things.
> >
> > Using a string with a Relators property would not conform to how they
> have been defined at ID.LOC.GOV. So, the answer to your specific
> question is: no, it is not our expectation Relator URIs would be used as
> properties with the object of the triple being either a URI or a string.
> Only URIs.
> >
> > But the Relators URIs have also been defined such that they can be used
> as a Property or as an Object, which is what Steve was driving at. We use
> them as Objects in Bibframe, hence their (additional) typing as a bf:Role.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Kevin
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Ford
> > Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> > Library of Congress
> > Washington, DC
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen
> Coyle
> > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 11:41 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
> declarations
> >
> > CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external source.
> Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.
> >
> > Steve, the list doesn't need to hear this, but you are not correct here.
> > The relators are defined as owl:ObjectProperties (not just "properties")
> which means that they cannot take text as objects. However, I want LoC to
> confirm that, because this is their doing.
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> > On 10/17/23 8:17 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
> >> It is an inherent problem when creating a vocabulary--should this set
> of traits be properties or types? Whichever choice you make, you face the
> problem that other vocabularies may choose differently. I believe this
> vocabulary defines relators as properties. But they also want to show how
> the terms are related to terms in OWL and BIBFRAME where they are defined
> as types.
> >>
> >> Steve McDonald
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen
> >>> Coyle
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:40 AM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
> >>> declarations
> >>>
> >>> tl;dr: Does LoC intend that its relator properties be used with both
> >>> "thing" and "string" objects?
> >>>
> >>> kc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/10/23 8:02 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
> >>>> That is not correct. The statement
> >>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf
> >>>> rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
> >>>>
> >>>> is a single predicate-object statement, enclosed within angle
> brackets.
> >>>> The following statement
> >>>> <rdf:type
> >>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
> >>>>
> >>>> is also separate statement, enclosed within angle brackets. The OWL
> >>> statement is not part of the subPropertyOf statement. The next
> >>> statement is also a separate statement. So we have three statements:
> >>>> subPropertyOf: DC contributor
> >>>> type: owl ObjectProperty
> >>>> type: BIBFRAME role
> >>>>
> >>>> The term you were looking up is the implied subject of the
> >>>> statements,
> >>> making these RDF triples.
> >>>> Steve McDonald
> >>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of
> >>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:36 PM
> >>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> Subject: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am looking at the LoC relators at id.loc.gov, and am trying to
> >>>>> understand the implications of the multiple declarations for relator
> terms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf
> >>>>> rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
> >>>>> <rdf:type
> >>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
> >>>>> <rdf:type
> >>>>> rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/Role"/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> dct:contributor is not an Object Property; there is no object type
> >>>>> given, so I suppose it is de facto an Annotation Property. I read
> >>>>> the next statement as narrowing, so at statement 2 we have:
> >>>>> subproperty of dct:contributor AND an owl:ObjectProperty
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If my reading is correct, it would be a violation of this to use
> >>>>> the relator with a string rather than a thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Stop me here if I'm wrong.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then the 3rd statement appears to say that the relator is a
> >>>>> bf:Role, which is a BIBFRAME-specific class. I can't wrap my head
> >>>>> around the functionality of this statement and would love a brief
> explanation.
> >>>>> I'm undoubtedly not into BIBFRAME deep enough to grok this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, my reading is that each relator is ALL THREE OF THESE; this
> >>>>> is an AND not at OR. Right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for any help,
> >>>>> kc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_
> >>>>> BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMc
> >>>>> J39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
> >>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Caution: This message originated from outside of the Tufts
> >>>>> University organization. Please exercise caution when clicking
> >>>>> links or opening attachments. When in doubt, email the TTS Service
> >>>>> Desk at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> or call them directly at
> 617-627-3376.
> >>> --
> >>> Karen Coyle
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ
> >>> !eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39s
> >>> lRBrXwrxVIJV$
> >>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> http://kcoyle.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:05:46 -0700
> From: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
>
> Ah, forget the first paragraph. I just found the section in the (very
> confusing - OWL DL? 2? ugh) documentation where they specifically allow
> ObjectProperty and class. But I do want to continue (or at least
> emphasize) the question of constraining the relators to
> ObjectProperties. I honestly do think that such a choice should be up to
> the folks using the vocabulary, based on their needs. If BIBFRAME wants
> to require IRIs as objects that's fine. But I see the LoC vocabularies
> as not being limited to BIBFRAME - or at least, I think that would be a
> good approach.
>
> YMMV.
>
> kc
>
> On 10/23/23 7:19 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > Thanks, Kevin. My question, originally, was whether the typing
> > assigned can be seen as "OR" or "AND". I know that you can define SKOS
> > entities as objects and as properties and these are not seen as being
> > in conflict, but SKOS is very clear in defining this, making sure that
> > it is open. In the LoC case, it is an OWL declaration of
> > ObjectProperty and the class Role, a kind of punning. It seems to me
> > that all of the declarations are always attached to the subject, and
> > therefore using them as objects would trigger inferencing
> > inconsistencies (OWL tends to be strict). Have you tried that? Or are
> > you eschewing inferencing, as one often does.
> >
> > In any case, the big question was using the relators as properties and
> > the object as a string. There are folks who need to do that, and it is
> > a shame that there isn't an unconstrained version that would allow
> > this, since the LoC list is the most complete of all lists we can
> > find. Declaration as an rdf:Property would do that, and that would
> > entail less "rule" on the property definition, while users could
> > define their own more strict rules for their application. Again, this
> > brings up how far you can go with punning - adding rdf:Property to the
> > mix would probably just make things more confusing.
> >
> > I vote for simpler and less constrained at the vocabulary level,
> > leaving constraints to the application profile level, so everyone can
> > have the usage they need.
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/23 11:23 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> >> Hi Karen,
> >>
> >> Steve is not wrong, but I think you are talking about two different
> >> things.
> >>
> >> Using a string with a Relators property would not conform to how they
> >> have been defined at ID.LOC.GOV. So, the answer to your specific
> >> question is: no, it is not our expectation Relator URIs would be used
> >> as properties with the object of the triple being either a URI or a
> >> string. Only URIs.
> >>
> >> But the Relators URIs have also been defined such that they can be
> >> used as a Property or as an Object, which is what Steve was driving
> >> at. We use them as Objects in Bibframe, hence their (additional)
> >> typing as a bf:Role.
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> Kevin
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kevin Ford
> >> Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> >> Library of Congress
> >> Washington, DC
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen
> >> Coyle
> >> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 11:41 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
> >> declarations
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external
> >> source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on
> >> links.
> >>
> >> Steve, the list doesn't need to hear this, but you are not correct here.
> >> The relators are defined as owl:ObjectProperties (not just
> >> "properties") which means that they cannot take text as objects.
> >> However, I want LoC to confirm that, because this is their doing.
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/17/23 8:17 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
> >>> It is an inherent problem when creating a vocabulary--should this
> >>> set of traits be properties or types? Whichever choice you make, you
> >>> face the problem that other vocabularies may choose differently. I
> >>> believe this vocabulary defines relators as properties. But they
> >>> also want to show how the terms are related to terms in OWL and
> >>> BIBFRAME where they are defined as types.
> >>>
> >>> Steve McDonald
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen
> >>>> Coyle
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:40 AM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
> >>>> declarations
> >>>>
> >>>> tl;dr: Does LoC intend that its relator properties be used with both
> >>>> "thing" and "string" objects?
> >>>>
> >>>> kc
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/10/23 8:02 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
> >>>>> That is not correct. The statement
> >>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf
> >>>>> rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is a single predicate-object statement, enclosed within angle
> >>>>> brackets.
> >>>>> The following statement
> >>>>> <rdf:type
> >>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is also separate statement, enclosed within angle brackets. The OWL
> >>>> statement is not part of the subPropertyOf statement. The next
> >>>> statement is also a separate statement. So we have three statements:
> >>>>> subPropertyOf: DC contributor
> >>>>> type: owl ObjectProperty
> >>>>> type: BIBFRAME role
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The term you were looking up is the implied subject of the
> >>>>> statements,
> >>>> making these RDF triples.
> >>>>> Steve McDonald
> >>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of
> >>>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:36 PM
> >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>> Subject: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am looking at the LoC relators at id.loc.gov, and am trying to
> >>>>>> understand the implications of the multiple declarations for
> >>>>>> relator terms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf
> >>>>>> rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
> >>>>>> <rdf:type
> >>>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
> >>>>>> <rdf:type
> >>>>>> rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/Role"/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> dct:contributor is not an Object Property; there is no object type
> >>>>>> given, so I suppose it is de facto an Annotation Property. I read
> >>>>>> the next statement as narrowing, so at statement 2 we have:
> >>>>>> subproperty of dct:contributor AND an owl:ObjectProperty
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If my reading is correct, it would be a violation of this to use
> >>>>>> the relator with a string rather than a thing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Stop me here if I'm wrong.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then the 3rd statement appears to say that the relator is a
> >>>>>> bf:Role, which is a BIBFRAME-specific class. I can't wrap my head
> >>>>>> around the functionality of this statement and would love a brief
> >>>>>> explanation.
> >>>>>> I'm undoubtedly not into BIBFRAME deep enough to grok this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, my reading is that each relator is ALL THREE OF THESE; this
> >>>>>> is an AND not at OR. Right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for any help,
> >>>>>> kc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_
> >>>>>> BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMc
> >>>>>> J39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
> >>>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Caution: This message originated from outside of the Tufts
> >>>>>> University organization. Please exercise caution when clicking
> >>>>>> links or opening attachments. When in doubt, email the TTS Service
> >>>>>> Desk at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> or call them directly
> >>>>>> at 617-627-3376.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ
> >>>> !eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39s
> >>>> lRBrXwrxVIJV$
> >>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >> --
> >> Karen Coyle
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
> >>
> >
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> http://kcoyle.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:11:50 -0400
> From: Emily Lavins <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Deduping with finesse
>
> Hello Code4Lib,
>
> I received a question about deduping from one of our archivists and I'm
> wondering if anyone has any experience/recommendations for this sort of
> thing.
>
> In short: We received a hard drive that has massive amounts of duplicates,
> and they are starting the process of deduping and arranging it. They want
> somewhat finer control over which duplicates get retained (currently using
> FSlint and Bitcurator), so they can ensure 'complete sets' of files are
> retained. But it'd be great to not have to manually select *every* dedup
> preference in FSlint.
>
> For example:
> 1. There is at least one folder that contains numbered audio tracks. When
> we ran fslint raw, a few of these got deduped in favor of other copies in
> the filesystem. But it would have been preferred to keep these together.
> 2. If there is a directory in which most of the working files were
> originally created together.
> 3. We'd also generally prefer to keep the copies that will *not* result in,
> post-dedup, folders containing only a single file scattered throughout the
> directory.
>
> Hopefully some of that makes sense. Has anyone found any helpful workflows
> for streamlining the deduping/arranging process?
>
> All I could come up with is logging all of FSlint's decisions, so that any
> undesirable dedups could be more easily be tracked/reversed later, but I
> really just don't know enough about any of this.
>
> Thank you very much for your time and thoughts.
>
> All the best,
> Emily
>
>
> --
> Emily Lavins
> Associate Systems Librarian
> Boston College Libraries
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:20:23 +0000
> From: Scott Prater <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Deduping with finesse
>
> Hello, Emily --
>
> As a first pass, you may want to create and record checksums for all the
> files on the hard drive, then examine which checksums are identical. Those
> files will be bit-for-bit exact copies of each other, and can be safely
> deduped.
>
> This technique won't catch the files where the content is substantially
> the same, except for insignificant changes (an embedded date stamp, for
> example), but it may get you some ways down the path.
>
> -- Scott
>
> --
> Scott Prater
> Digital Library Architect
> UW Digital Collections Center
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Emily
> Lavins
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Deduping with finesse
>
> Hello Code4Lib,
>
> I received a question about deduping from one of our archivists and I'm
> wondering if anyone has any experience/recommendations for this sort of
> thing.
>
> In short: We received a hard drive that has massive amounts of duplicates,
> and they are starting the process of deduping and arranging it. They want
> somewhat finer control over which duplicates get retained (currently using
> FSlint and Bitcurator), so they can ensure 'complete sets' of files are
> retained. But it'd be great to not have to manually select *every* dedup
> preference in FSlint.
>
> For example:
> 1. There is at least one folder that contains numbered audio tracks. When
> we ran fslint raw, a few of these got deduped in favor of other copies in
> the filesystem. But it would have been preferred to keep these together.
> 2. If there is a directory in which most of the working files were
> originally created together.
> 3. We'd also generally prefer to keep the copies that will *not* result
> in, post-dedup, folders containing only a single file scattered throughout
> the directory.
>
> Hopefully some of that makes sense. Has anyone found any helpful workflows
> for streamlining the deduping/arranging process?
>
> All I could come up with is logging all of FSlint's decisions, so that any
> undesirable dedups could be more easily be tracked/reversed later, but I
> really just don't know enough about any of this.
>
> Thank you very much for your time and thoughts.
>
> All the best,
> Emily
>
>
> --
> Emily Lavins
> Associate Systems Librarian
> Boston College Libraries
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:02:26 -0700
> From: Amanda Makula <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Digital Initiatives Symposium 2024
>
> [image: save the date.png]
>
>
>
> *CALL FOR PROPOSALS: *The 2024 Digital Initiatives Symposium (DIS) at the
> University of San Diego
>
> This year’s conference – celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the DIS –
> is a full two-day live event with workshops and concurrent sessions on Day
> 1, and keynote, featured, and invited speakers on Day 2.
>
> The DIS is now accepting proposals for its concurrent sessions, scheduled
> for the afternoon of Monday, April 29, 2024 at the University of San Diego.
>
>
> We welcome proposals from a wide variety of organizations, including
> colleges and universities of all sizes, community colleges, public
> libraries, special libraries, museums, and other cultural memory
> institutions. Concurrent sessions will be 40 minutes in length (please
> allow 10-15 minutes for Q&A) and are limited to 1-2 speakers. This year we
> are particularly interested in receiving proposals about: AI, data science,
> diversity and digital collections, controlled digital lending, collection
> audits, new OA initiatives, and relevant legislation.
>
>
> *For full submission information, and to submit a proposal, please go to: *
> https://digital.sandiego.edu/symposium/ and click on *Submit Proposal *on
> the left side column.
>
> Proposal Submission Deadline: Friday, Dec. 15, 2023.
>
> Questions? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> *Amanda Y. Makula *(she/ella)
>
> Associate Professor
>
> Digital Initiatives Librarian
>
> University of San Diego
>
> 5998 Alcalá Park
>
> San Diego, CA 92110-2492
>
> Phone: (619) 260-6850
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Open access publishing at Digital USD <http://digital.sandiego.edu>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CODE4LIB Digest - 20 Oct 2023 to 23 Oct 2023 - Special issue
> (#2023-240)
>
> *******************************************************************************
>
--
Brock Stuessi (he/him)
Digital Archivist
Mike Kelley Foundation for the Arts
7019 N. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90042
Tel: 323-257-7853
Fax: 323-257-4984
https://mikekelleyfoundation.org
*CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information contained in this email
message, including attachments, is the confidential information of, and/or
is the property of the Mike Kelley Foundation for the Arts. The information
is intended for use solely by the individual or entity named in the
message. If you are not an intended recipient and you received this in
error, then any review, printing, copying, or distribution of any such
information is prohibited, and please notify the sender immediately by
reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail from your system.*
|
