Papers

Full papers either describe innovative work in detail or provide critical, well-referenced overviews of key developments or good practice in the areas outlined above. Full papers will be assessed using the following criteria:

1. Originality of the approach to the topic and potential for implementation
2. Quality of the contribution to the implementation community
3. Significance of the results presented
4. Clarity of presentation

A select international committee makes Full Paper selections following full peer-review.

(8-10 pages: full work)

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

Project Reports

Project reports describe a specific model, application, or activity in a concise presentation. Project reports will be assessed using the following criteria:

1. Addresses inovative solutions or practices
2. Conciseness and completeness of technical description
3. Usability of the technical description by other potential implementers
4. Clarity of presentation

A select international committee makes Project Report selections following full peer-review.

(8-10 pages: full work)

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

Posters

Posters are for the presentation of projects or research under development or late-breaking results. Poster proposals should consist of a one-two page extended abstract. Posters will be assessed using the following criteria:

1. Concise statement of research or project goals and milestones
2. Significance of the research or project
3. Framing of key barriers and future research
4. Statement of results and accomplishments
5. Clarity of presentation

One session will be scheduled for display and discussion of posters at the conference venue. Instructions on the preparation of the display poster will be forthcoming on the conference website. Poster extended abstracts are included in the published proceedings.

(2-3 page extended abstract + poster image file)

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

Presentations

Presentations on interesting metadata topics in the areas of metadata services, development and deployment projects, in-process metadata exploration, and other innovative developments. Presenters will have approximately 20 minutes to present their topic with 20-30 minutes per session allocated for discussion.

Presentation selections are made by the Conference Committee on advice of the Program Committee chairs. Selection criteria:

• Of likely interest and concern to a significant number of conference attendees; and
• A strong likelihood of successful presentation.

(Submit: 1-page abstract. Bring to conference: presentation file)

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

Special Sessions

Proposals for panel sessions should be 2-4 pages in length and include an abstract for use in publicizing the session. Session proposals must identify the:

1. Session conveners
2. Where applicable, categories of target participants
3. Session: (a) Agenda, (b) Activities (including any technical requirements), (c) Ramp-up and follow-through (including after-conference reporting)

Conveners of accepted sessions will be expected to work closely with the Program Committee chairs to refine, schedule and convene their session. Evaluation criteria for session proposals will be:

1. Quality and organization of content;
2. Justification of format;
3. Evidence of interactivity and participatory approaches;
4. inclusivity/diversity of participation; and
5. Potential of the session to engage the conference participants in the community of interest.

Panel selections are made based on their potential interest to the anticipated conference attendees as determined by the Conference Committee on advice of the Program Committee chairs.

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

Workshops

Workshops engage participants in active work to address one or more well-defined problems or issues. Most frequently, workshops include both working in small- to medium-sized groups on either aspects of the subject matter to be addressed or on the subject matter as a whole and the sharing of outcomes, conclusions drawn, and (sometimes) definition of future work.

Submissions for workshops should include an abstract and an outline of the content, the duration (half-day 3 hours or full-day 6 hours), a description of the intended audience and expected professional level of expertise in the subject matter (e.g., novice, apprentice, expert).Selection of tutorials for presentation are determined by the Conference Committee based on the potential interest anticipated attendees to the conference.

Workshops selections are made based on their potential interest to the anticipated conference attendees as determined by the Conference Committee on advice of the Program Committee chairs.

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

Tutorials

Tutorials must be on a single topic, addressed at either an introductory level or an in-depth, expert level and are intended to impart knowledge or skills and address identified learning outcomes. Submissions for tutorials should include a brief abstract and an outline of the content, the duration (half-day 3 hours or full-day 6 hours), a description of the intended audience and expected professional level of expertise in the subject matter (e.g., novice, apprentice, expert) and a listing of the specific learning outcomes (i.e., competencies to be achieved), and a short biography of the presenter(s).

Tutorial selections are made based on their potential interest to the anticipated conference attendees as determined by the Conference Committee on advice of the Program Committee chairs.

• Carol Godby, OCLC
• Michael Lauruhn, Elsevier

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed

NKOS Workshop

Selections of presentations and presentations and demos will be made by the NKOS Workshop Program Committee:

• Joseph Busch, Taxonomy Strategies
• Jane Greenberg, Drexel University
• Diane Hillman, Metadata Management Associates
• Gail Hodge, Information International Associates
• Kathryn La Barre, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne
• Jian Qin, Syracuse University
• Dagobert Soergel, University at Buffalo
• Joseph Tennis, University of Washington
• Diane Vizine-Goetz, OCLC Research
• Marcia Zeng, Kent State University

• Joseph Busch, Taxonomy Strategies
• Gail Hodge, Information International Assoc.

Open Submissions

Peer Reviewed