This study aims to understand educators’—specifically those in positions of authority in graduate-level library education programs—perceptions of and attitudes toward design thinking and methods in graduate-level library curricula by investigating the following research questions: What is the current landscape for the integration of design into the LIS curriculum, from the program director’s perspective? What do these directors think about the competencies required for future librarians, and where does design fit into those competencies? What are the possibilities for a future degree focused on reconceptualizing the field from a design perspective rather than the traditional library science? Thirteen MLIS program directors and people in equivalent positions at ALA-accredited programs in the United States and Canada were interviewed to investigate these queries. The conversations suggest there is a growing openness to design education that may contribute to the diversification of the curriculum so that graduates’ competencies more closely reflect recommendations in the literature and address the needs of employers. They also reveal dichotomies in how LIS program directors define and integrate design education into LIS curricula, such as barriers of bureaucratic concerns versus interest in experimenting with design courses available elsewhere in their universities, or even the potential for a dual library science/library design degree option. The article concludes with recommendations for next steps in advancing design in library education so as to prepare graduates for the growing number of user experience, public programming, or even more traditional teaching librarian positions where a design thinking approach leads to effective practice.

Through the standardized rights statements it provides, RightsStatements.org allows institutions to clearly communicate the copyright status of digitized cultural heritage works, promoting their reuse. However, it can be tricky for institutions to determine correct statement usage through the site without additional context. The Rights Statement Selection Tool [bit.ly/RSSTOOL] is an interactive infographic that serves to visually explain the statement selection workflow, allowing a copyright novice to identify the correct statement through decision tree alone. This legal tool lets cultural heritage institutions assign rights statement review work to non-experts, potentially increasing the number of items that can be evaluated. It’s meant to be integrated into cataloging workflows: clickable links lead to each statement’s URI page, and it can be viewed in a browser alongside the RightsStatements.org site. The Tool serves as a complete visual reference to the statements: each is covered and explained. It aggregates relevant resources and serves as a structural bridge between related copyright status determination charts and Creative Commons charts. Donation agreements–often a source of confusion for rights statements reviewers–are covered as well. The Tool is, by design, as agnostic to national law as possible. The US-centered copyright status determination charts that feed into it (such as the Hirtle and Sunstein charts) could easily be swapped for resources reflecting other countries’ national law; the RightsStatements.org logic that it covers would remain unchanged, and so would the chart. As the RightsStatements.org standard goes global, this tool can be translated, adapted, and re-used beyond the US.

RightsStatements.org, through the standardized rights statements it provides, allows institutions to clearly communicate the copyright status of digitized cultural heritage works, promoting their reuse. However, it can be tricky for institutions to determine correct statement usage through the site without additional context. The Rights Statement Selection Tool is an interactive infographic that serves to visually explain the statement selection workflow, allowing a copyright novice to identify the correct statement through decision tree alone. This legal tool lets cultural heritage institutions assign rights statement review work to non-experts, potentially increasing the number of items that can be evaluated. It’s meant to be integrated into cataloging workflows: clickable links lead to each statement’s URI page, and it can be viewed in a browser alongside the RightsStatements.org site. The Tool serves as a complete visual reference to the statements: each is covered and explained. It aggregates relevant resources and serves as a structural bridge between related copyright status determination charts and Creative Commons charts. Donation agreements–often a source of confusion for rights statements reviewers–are covered as well. The Tool is, by design, as agnostic to national law as possible. The US-centered copyright status determination charts that feed into it (such as the Hirtle and Sunstein charts) could easily be swapped for resources reflecting other countries’ national law; the RightsStatements.org logic that it covers would remain unchanged, and so would the chart. As the RightsStatements.org standard goes global, this tool can be translated, adapted, and re-used beyond the US.

The “Metadata Requirements for 3D Data” chapter provides recommendations for metadatai based on the five-stage digital asset lifecycleii. The “Create” section covers some of the principal ways 3D models are created and discusses what metadata can be captured during the creation process. This section looks at not only what metadata could be captured during model creation, but also why capturing that information is important. The “Manage” section covers the metadata needs for organizing, verifying, and providing accessiii to 3D data. Recommendations include grouping files together as much as possible (by 3D object, by collection of objects, and by project) in order to apply organizational metadata that can be used for access and reuse purposes. The Distribution and Publication section discusses the need for a variety of distribution platforms that support the broadly varying metadata needs of different disciplines. Examples include the need for more granular metadata to support reproducibility and privacy in certain fields, as well as concerns around metadata requirements for accessibility for disability more broadly. Though the circulation and access norms for 3D data are still evolving, the Access and Reuse section posits key metadata anticipated to be useful in the discoveryiv and access of 3D data and models for research or reuse. The “Archive” section utilizes PREMIS as a basis for its recommendations. The rapid changes in the tools and platforms that support the creation and utilization of 3D data results in heavier emphasis on metadata that provides context to data that is often no longer supported by the latest technologies. Additional portions of PREMIS that may be of interest to readers are also specified. The chapter ends with an overall table of recommended metadata fields along with future work needed, naming annotation metadata and metadata for accessibility needs as top priorities for standardization and best practice recommendations.