| |
|
Monday, March 21, 2005
|
|
Cell Phones Used in Japan to Read Books. There is an article at Wired.com about the use of cell phones to read books in Japan. Short blurb from the story Cell-phone novels remain a niche market compared with ring tones, music downloads and video games, said Yoshiteru Yamaguchi, executive director at Japan's top mobile carrier, NTT DoCoMo. But no longer is reading books on a phone considered unbelievable, he said. [LISNews.com]
7:14:23 AM 
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 20, 2005
|
|
iPod Shuffle, iPod Scholar?.
Clifford Lynch, at the last CNI meeting, mentioned in his opening speech how the entirety of WorldCat could fit in his iPod. Now, Cliff, I don't think, was suggesting that we start creating devices which have the whole of WorldCat on them; his point, I believe, was to illustrate the point that it is becoming increasingly possible to truly create personal digital libraries. Cliff's vision of the personal digital library is one where it is also a portable digital library, though I would think a personal digital library could live both on and off of the network.
I think the idea of having a personal digital library on an iPod is a great idea, though. We bought my Dad an iPod Photo for his 60th birthday last month, and I had the opportunity to play with it just a bit. The iPod interface works remarkably well in browsing through both music and photos, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work equally as well in browsing through text and research documents. There are some really interesting possibilities here, I think; the major downside at the moment is how the documents would display on the iPod screen. At the minimum, some tweaking would need to be done to allow someone to read documents on an iPod. I don't think this would be a whole lot of tweaking, however. It would be fantastic if a group from the digital library community could work with Apple and see how an iPod Scholar might work best in an educational environment. [The Digital Librarian]
8:45:08 AM
|
|
Thoughts on Google Scholar and OpenURL.
Google Scholar has recently been experimenting with providing links to the OpenURL resolvers of different libraries. Currently, they are doing this by allowing users to set a preference of selecting up to three different OpenURL resolver links. While I think this is a very interesting and useful experiment, I am also concerned about the role of the library when it is used only as a routing point to a primary resource.
Let me explain my thoughts a bit. I think that libraries need to be working a lot more closely with the likes of Google and other mainstream information providers - I really do. There is a lot of value added by having libraries and commercial providers collaborate and share approaches. But I also think that if we, as a library community, aren't careful about our approach, the commercial provider community will take our added-value and subsume it without sharing back. This is tricky; our primary mission is to provide free access to information. But do we provide free services to commercial interests, especially commercial interests who are in some respects overlapping our own service space?
Right now, libraries are freely providing OpenURL resolver services to Google Scholar. This is a big win for Google Scholar, because it strengthens its position as a primary provider of quality scholarly information, even if in reality it is libraries who are providing a lot of the full-text resources. If Google Scholar becomes competively advantaged by taking advantage of the resources that libraries pay dearly for, shouldn't libraries in return be compensated in some way? Are we obligated to freely provide resolution services to Google in the same way we provide them to our patrons? I don't think so - in fact, I think we are obligated to be compensated for providing a valuable service. Perhaps this can be accomplished through a 'click-through' fee, a business model which is extremely familiar to Google.
Google Scholar is the start of a paradigm shift in how scholarly information will be found and accessed. If the library community wants to have a role in this shift, we need to stop thinking just within the library community and start acting as players in the information business. [The Digital Librarian]
8:44:02 AM
|
|
R.I.P 2005 - Federated Search.
2005 is the year that will be remembered (in the library world) as the year federated searching became obsolete. Google Scholar is already proving that a harvested, centralized search approach is more useful to information seekers than any federated search approach. At least one colleague I've talked to agrees with me - the only real reason for the federated searching is if you cannot harvest the data and index it locally for searching. Federated searching has too many problems which cannot be easily addressed - lack of speed and difficulty in consistantly ranking results are just two off of the top of my head.
So, here's a question: If Google can work with venders so that they can harvest and index their data, why can't libraries? It should be affordable from a technology perpective - the most expensive cost will actually be development and planning time, not hardware. But this cost is minimal in the context of libraries no longer being relevant providers of scholarly information. If Google becomes a better provider of scholarly articles and information than a typical university library, then we're going to struggle to justify not only our budgets, but our role in the academic process. We may end up not being facilitators of access to information, but instead playing a much smaller role which fences us back into the traditional, and shrinking, physical library space. [The Digital Librarian]
8:43:27 AM
|
|
Beyond the Federated Search.
In a previous post, I stated that 2005 is the year where federated searching loses its steam. Google Scholar is an example of a tool, which by combining the power of metadata harvesting with a local, indexed search, and tying the results to a registry of OpenURL providers, provides a much better user experience than any federated search tool I've encountered.
So, why is Google able to do this, and do it in a relatively short time span, while libraries haven't? An arguement could be made that Google has a greater amount of resources at its disposal, and because it is Google, can work out agreements with database providers which allow for the harvesting of their metadata (and full text) for the purpose of providing search results (but at this time, not the full-text directly). Most likely, there is at least some truth to this arguement. But I don't believe all of the credit goes to Google; a lot of the credit also goes to the Library community for being passive in its approach towards information providers. We now rent our information instead of buying it; we subscribe to journals and databases without assurance that, if we eventually cancel a subscription, we will retain access to the information for the years to which we duly paid. We accept these terms, and because we do, our technology and our services are limited by them.
So, what should we do? We should seek to emulate what Google is doing; not necessarily try to emulate Google Scholar (though we could and have done worse), but seek to work out agreements where we are allowed a copy of the data to which we are providing access. If the folks at Google can work out terms which were acceptable to content providers, I'm sure libraries can as well. Maybe, just maybe, if librarians, who are quite good at organizing and working with indexed information, could start to play with the databases, indexes, and metadata provided by our major information vendors, then perhaps we can start to explore new access tools which are users actually want to adopt and use. Otherwise, instead of being second (after google) in the information search food chain our users consume, we may start to drop to third (after Google Scholar), or worse... [The Digital Librarian]
8:43:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 18, 2005
|
|
French response to Google Print. From the report on News.com.com: Jacques Chirac told France's national library on Wednesday to draw up a plan to put European literary works on the Internet, rivaling a similar project by U.S.-based Web search engine Google. Here is BBC's report. I bet we hear more about this in the future. [LISNews.com]
9:57:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
|
|
Cites amp; Insights 5:5 available. Walt writes " Cites amp; Insights 5:5, Spring 2005, is now available for downloading. This 24-page issue, PDF as always, includes: Bibs amp; Blather: A little spring cleaning and the HTML story. copy;4: Locking Down Technology: Broadcast flag and Grokster Following Up: The dangling conversation, A walking paper cluster, The hazy crystal ball, DVD oddities, and The Black Pirate in full color (sort of) PC Progress, November 2004-March 2005: a dozen categories. Interesting amp; Peculiar Products: eight in all. Conference and Program Reports: EDUCAUSE Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference and one more from ALA Midwinter HTML is here to stay, but selectively: See the home page for hotlinks. I've done selective HTML for 4:13 through 5:5; more to follow. Watch this space or Camp;I Updates for announcements. (And, in inimitable Camp;I fashion, the very first page refers to an essay that was moved to the next issue as part of copyfitting. It won't get fixed: once Camp;I is published, it stays published, goofs and all.)" [LISNews.com]
5:14:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 18, 2005
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
|
|
The Development of an Open Source Publishing System. V writes "ARL 237: The Development of an Open Source Publishing System at Cornell and Penn State Universities is an ARL Bimonthly Report on DPubS. In spring 2004 Cornell University Library in partnership with the Pennsylvania State University Libraries and the Pennsylvania State University Press were awarded a $670,000 grant from the Mellon Foundation to generalize and enhance the DPubS system and release the resulting improved version of the software under an open source license.They say Presses and libraries can leverage one another’s strengths. Together they can offer a broad range of sophisticated, cost-effective publishing services to their communities." [LISNews.com]
7:46:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
|
|
Google lead in search is narrowing. Anonymous Patron writes "Google lead in search is narrowing is a New York Times you can read at IHT.com. They say so far, the fruits of thousands of computer scientists' labor have not seemed to shake Google from its perch at the top of the search market. Hardly a week passes without an announcement heralding an Internet search innovation by one of the big sites - Google, Yahoo or Microsoft, which is testing the search engine that it will soon promote on its MSN service. Even the smaller players, like Acoona.com and A9, the search engine run by Amazon.com, are trying to get in on the act. . ." [LISNews.com]
6:32:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 31, 2005
|
|
Web Site Acessibility.
Although I am no web designer, I do know that a couple things are important in good design and accessibility is one of them. A good discussion of accessiblity can be found here, "Accessibility From The Ground Up" from Digital Web Magazine.
As the author Matt May starts out:
"Yes, Web accessibility is growing up. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 was released over five years ago, in May 1999. This year, the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative will release Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. WCAG is the international standard for Web accessibility, and the latest version contains plenty of guidance on how to produce modern, usable, and (dare I say it?) attractive Web sites."
In addition, the numerous comments on the article break down some of the challenges of trying to provide accessibility and the various audiences.
Thanks to KB for the pointer. [TechnoBiblio]
7:34:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 27, 2005
|
|
Next Evolution of Search Engines will Think with You. search-engines-web.com sent along Seeking Better Web Searches from Scientific American. New search engines are improving the quality of results by delving deeper into the storehouse of materials available online, by sorting and presenting those results better, and by tracking your long-term interests so that they can refine their handling of new information requests. In the future, search engines will broaden content horizons as well, doing more than simply processing keyword queries typed into a text box. They will be able to automatically take into account your location--letting your wireless PDA, for instance, pinpoint the nearest restaurant when you are traveling. New systems will also find just the right picture faster by matching your sketches to similar shapes. They will even be able to name that half-remembered tune if you hum a few bars. So what will this do to the SEO folks? [LISNews.com]
5:10:01 PM
|
|
Talking about Virtual Reference. Anonymous Patron writes "After the little discussion over on mdoneil's Journal you might also be interested in three articles TeleRead Pointed to. To Chat Or Not to Chat—Taking Another Look at Virtual Reference, Part 1, by Steve Coffman and Linda Arret, in Information Today. To Chat Or Not to Chat—Taking Another Look at Virtual Reference, Part II, by the same authors. Virtual Reference: Alive amp; Well, by Brenda Bailey-Hainer, in LibraryJournal. Rothman asked; Might the typical library be better off without IM and other features of a virtual refrence desk--and perhaps simply beef up phone services?" [LISNews.com]
5:09:42 PM
|
|
Academics fight to break 'stranglehold' on journals. Aaron Tunn spotted This Guardian Article a conference at Southampton University held yesterday. The escalating cost of journals - and the rising number published - is a major headache for university libraries, but supporters of open access argue there is a moral case for making findings freely available. They hope it will increase the influence of British science internationally and help researchers in developing countries where expensive journals are hard to access. [LISNews.com]
5:08:52 PM
|
|
GPO to discontinue nearly all print distro by Oct 2005. An ALA Washington Office Press Release is extremely disturbing, if correct: ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline Volume 14, Number 6 January 27, 2005 In This Issue: Call for Oversight on GPO Initiatives ACTION: We are writing to ask you to contact your Members of Congress to tell them about GPO's proposed plan that would eliminate almost all print distribution to depository libraries beginning October 1, 2005. Urge them to support a call for an oversight hearing on the impact of the Government Printing Office's (GPO) proposed initiatives and changes to the Federal Depository Library Program and the impact on the public's permanent access to authentic government information. Use our Legislative Action Center http://capwiz.com/ala/home/>; to send a letter, or use the toll-free free number to call members of Congress: 1-800-839-5276. We also urge you to send copies of your letters to Public Printer Bruce James (bjames@gpo.gov / fax: 202-512-1347) and to Superintendent of Documents Judith C. Russell (jrussell@gpo.gov / fax: 202-512-1432). We will send out a separate ALAWON Alert on the GPO budget issue when their budget request is officially submitted. BACKGROUND: The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP)was established by Congress more than 150 years ago as a geographically dispersed system to provide no-fee public access to government information and has proven to be a very successful partnership among Congress, federal agencies, the courts, the Government Printing Office (GPO), depository libraries, and the American public in ensuring the public's right to know. At ALA's Midwinter Meeting in Boston, GPO informed the library community that their FY 2006 Salaries and Expenses (SE) appropriations request for the FDLP will be for level funding (at the 2005 level), plus cost of living increases. One result of this request will be drastic changes in the distribution of print materials to our Nation's federal depository libraries. These proposed changes would take effect October 1, 2005. Among the changes, the key is that GPO would produce and distribute in print only the 50 titles listed on the "Essential Titles for Public Use in Paper Format." The Essential Titles List http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/estitles.html", last revised in 2000, does not include important materials including maps, geological information, administrative decisions and other congressional and legal materials, as well as Senate and House reports, documents, and hearings that inform the citizenry of the workings of Congress. All other agency information will be disseminated only in electronic format to depository libraries - whether they are equipped to handle this format adequately and whether or not this is the most usable format for their publics. This decision, if allowed to go forward, will have a profound negative impact on access to authenticated government information in formats most usable to the American public. Second, to supplement the "Essential Titles" publications, GPO will initiate a Print on Demand (POD) Allowance Program of $500 for selective depository libraries and $1500 for the 53 regional depository libraries for purchase of other titles. GPO is, in effect, asking Congress to support and depository libraries to accept a new fee-based Print on Demand Program that has not yet been established or tested. [LISNews.com]
5:07:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
|
|
Library Collections Find Home Online Professional Reading Shelf
Digitization Projects
Source: AP
Library Collections Find Home Online
"'Some archivists envision the day when Internet surfers will be able to request to see a particular document -- having it "scanned on demand," perhaps for a fee. But, for now, many librarians are focusing on helping Web surfers find archive images online and understand their significance. David Bertuca at the Buffalo Arts and Sciences Libraries at the University of Buffalo is one who regularly gathers reliable links on particular topics, including the 100th anniversary of the paper that introduced the world to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Among other things, the page links to images of Einstein's handwritten journals at the Jewish National & University Library in Israel. To Bertuca, compiling such pages is only logical. 'It's what librarians do,' he says."
--
Research Libraries--Expenditures
Source: ARL
Expenditure Trends in ARL Libraries 1986-2003
+ All ARL Libraries [PDF]
+ ARL Public University Libraries [PDF]
+ ARL Private University Libraries [PDF]
+ ARL Canadian University Libraries [PDF]
--
Online Information
Source: Intelligent Enterprise
Add Value To Beat 'Googlization'
"'There's a growing mentality, particularly among the younger generation, that if it doesn't come up in an Internet search engine then it doesn't exist' says [Amanda] Spiteri, marketing director of Elsevier's ScienceDirect, a subscriber-based service for libraries, universities and research institutes." - gary [ResourceShelf]
12:29:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 24, 2005
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
|
|
AAU endorses the NIH OA plan. The American Association of Universities (AAU) has released a Statement on the NIH Public Access Proposal. Here is the statement in its entirety:
AAU strongly supports efforts to achieve the widest possible dissemination of the results of federally funded research, and the association commends the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for its proposal to increase public access to published results of NIH-funded research. Making research results freely available to the public six months after those results are published should not only benefit the public through expanded access to information but should benefit scientists and advance science through wider dissemination of new knowledge.
We appreciate the recognition by NIH of the need for any such proposal to preserve the quality of scientific information through peer review, editorial, and scientific quality-control processes. The basic elements of NIH’s proposal appear to be consistent with this goal. NIH’s stated intention to work with affected parties during the further development of this initiative should achieve the goal of expanding public access in ways that preserve the quality of published scientific information. AAU will submit comments on the proposal and looks forward to working with NIH and other affected parties toward this goal. (PS: This endorsement is very important. The AAU represents the leading research universities in the U.S. and Canada and carries great weight with Congress on issues relating to higher education, copyright, and scholarly communication. The statement is undated but was apparently released yesterday, September 27, 2004.) [Open Access News]
1:46:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
|
|
Elsevier and Google may share revenue. James Robinson, Reed and Google in talks to share revenue, The Observer, September 19, 2004. Excerpt: "Reed Elsevier is in discussion with internet search engine Google about a possible revenue-sharing agreement. Executives from the publishing group have had several meetings with Google and are trialling the concept, which would see Reed receive a small payment for each user directed to one of its websites. Reed's scientific publishing business generates around a third of the group's profits, and some industry analysts regard Google and other search engines as potential competitors....Many scientists post their research on university websites, which can be accessed free of charge. Google directs its users to Reed's sites, but Reed does not now receive a share of the revenue generated by the traffic. Google has similar revenue-sharing arrangements with other companies, but a deal with Reed would be one of the biggest of its kind. Reed could come to similar agreements with Yahoo and Microsoft." (Thanks to Joe Esposito.) [Open Access News]
9:06:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, September 10, 2004
|
|
"A Manifesto for Open Chemistry". Peter Murray-Rust, Henry S. Rzepa, Simon. M. Tyrrella, and Y. Zhanga, Representation and use of Chemistry in the Global Electronic Age, a preprint forthcoming from Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry. On the exciting potential of combining open access and the semantic web in chemistry. Excerpt: "Almost all of an author's output (compounds, spectra, reactions, properties, etc.) is nowadays computerised and in principle redistributable to the community for re-use. Few journals actively validate the primary data (e.g. spectra) involved in a publication (chemical crystallography being a clear expectation where data are intensively reviewed by machine). We reassert that chemists must now move towards publishing their collective knowledge in a systematic and easily accessible form for re-use and innovation....We urge that authors, funders, editors, publishers and readers move further towards the following protocol: [1] All information should be ultimately machine-understandable in XML....[2] Machine-understandable information for a compound should include a connection table, the IUPAC unique identifier (INChI) which guarantees that the connection table can be checked and regenerated, and a name....[3] Rights metadata. An explicit statement in the data that its re-use is consistent with the Budapest Open Access initiative and a requirement that this statement be preserved when the data is re-used....The main challenge is for chemists to recognise the value of making their data machine-understandable, rather than destroying it with traditional paper or slide-focused publication and dissemination processes." [Open Access News]
2:12:03 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 VTLS .
Last update: 3/21/2005; 10:24:19 AM.
|
|
| March 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
| 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
| 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| 27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
| Feb Apr |
|
|
