Skip to content
Curtin University
LIBRES blog

Current Cites, October 2011

By Kerry Smith 1 November 2011 Journal News No Comments »

No tags for this post.

From: Public-Access Computer Systems Publications [mailto:PACS-P@LISTSERV.UH.EDU] On Behalf Of Roy Tennant
Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2011 2:37 AM
To: PACS-P@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Subject: [CurrentCites] Current Cites, October 20

Edited by [2]Roy Tennant

       http://lists.webjunction.org/currentcites/2011/cc11.22.10.html

   Contributors: [3]Charles W. Bailey, Jr., [4]Peter Hirtle, [5]Leo Robert
   Klein, [6]Roy Tennant
            _____________________________________________________

   [7]Bibliographic Framework Initiative General Plan  Washington, DC:
   Library of Congress, 31 October
   2011.(http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-103111.html). -
   Although it seemed clear from the time the [8]Bibliographic Framework
   Transition Initiative was launched by the Library of Congress that
   change was near, this is the clearest statement so far that the days of
   the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) standard are numbered. And that
   number is not a large one. “The Library of Congress is committed,” this
   paper states, ” to developing, in collaboration with librarians,
   standards experts, and technologists a new bibliographic framework that
   will serve the associated communities well into the future.” The
   essential bit in that sentence is “bibliographic framework”. They are
   not describing a new carrier format, nor new rules for filling it –
   but something much broader and more accommodating of different methods
   of description. On this they are very clear: “The new environment
   should be agnostic to cataloging rules…” Another money quote: “The
   new bibliographic framework project will be focused on the Web
   environment, Linked Data principles and mechanisms, and the Resource
   Description Framework (RDF) as a basic data model.” As the person who
   wrote a column in Library Journal titled [9]“MARC Must Die” over nine
   years ago, I can’t help feeling some vindication. A year later, in
   2003, I wrote a longer piece called [10]“A Bibliographic Metadata
   Infrastructure for the Twenty-First Century” that I flatter myself is
   just the kind of brave new world where we are presently headed. Kudos
   to the Library of Congress for leading the way as they did some 40
   years ago with the development of the MARC standard itself. – [11]RT

   Baker, Thomas, Emmanuelle  Berm?s, and Karen  Coyle, et. al.[12]Library
   Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report  Cambridge, MA: World Wide Web
   Consortium, 25 October
   2011.(http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/). – This
   report by the [13]W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group examines the
   potential use of linked data, such as bibliographic data, authorities,
   and concept schemes, by libraries. Initially, the report investigates
   the benefits of library linked data (e.g., it is sharable, extensible,
   and re-usable). After analyzing current issues with traditional library
   data, discussing the current availability of library linked data, and
   examining rights issues, it concludes by offering recommendations for
   library leaders, library standards bodies, data and systems designers,
   and librarians and archivists. For example, it suggests that library
   leaders “identify sets of data as possible candidates for early
   exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and
   rights.” For further information, see Michael Kelley’s “[14]How the W3C
   Has Come to Love Library Linked Data” in Library Journal, which
   discusses a draft version of the report. – [15]CB

   Day, Colin. “[16]How ownership affects the growth strategies of
   scientific journals: A study of economics journals 1950 to 2000″
   [17]Aslib Proceedings  63(5): 445-463.
   (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111164950). – There was a great
   expansion of scholarship following WWII. More scholarship meant more
   scholars producing more journal articles. How to accommodate this
   onrush? Was there a difference in approach between for-profit and
   non-profit publishers? The author looked at 70 journals in the field of
   economics during the ‘golden age’ as he terms it, of 1950-2000. He
   found that the for-profits increased in number and in the frequency of
   publication which had the effect of decreasing overall market share for
   the non-profits from three-quarters to 43%. – [18]LRK

   Head, Alison J., and Michael B.  Eisenberg. [19]Balancing Act: How
   College Students Manage Technology While in the Library during Crunch
   Time  Seattle, WA: Project Information Literacy, University of
   Washington, 12 October
   2011.(http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_techstudy_Fall2011_noappendice
   s1.1.pdf). – I’d say virtually every report coming out of [20]Project
   Information Literacy is worth your time if you’re a academic librarian,
   and this one is no different. You don’t need to read the entire thing
   to garner some good advice — jumping to the reccomendations is often
   enough. Some sample tidbits: “In our study we heard more complaints
   about the quality of Wi-Fi service or the cost of printing than the
   long line at the reference desk or books not being on the shelves. The
   challenge to libraries now is how to meet the needs of students without
   abdicating their role in disseminating knowledge. How do libraries
   remain relevant to students beyond providing technological equipment
   like printers and desktop computers and quiet places to sit?” How,
   indeed? And “These new study practices have a common thread–students
   study while they are on the go. In fact, they can study anywhere,
   eschewing heavy books in favor of portable devices that may be the size
   of a pack of playing cards and weigh even less.” Although a study like
   this doesn’t attempt to come up with the answers, knowing the issues is
   a pretty good start. – [21]RT

   Lang, Andrew S.I.D, and Joshua  Rio-Ross. “[22]Using Amazon Mechanical
   Turk to Transcribe Historical Handwritten Documents”  [23]Code4Lib
   Journal  (15)(31 October
   2011)(http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/6004). – Amazon’s
   [24]“Mechanical Turk” is a service that allows virtually anyone to put
   a job that needs to be done on the web for others to choose to do for
   whatever price you set. The price is often pennies for a specific task,
   such as transcribing a short audio clip, or in the case of this
   article, transcribing a page from a handwritten diary. As the father of
   twins, I’m hardwired to seek out revenue enhancing activities, so I’ve
   played around with Mechanical Turk enough to know that no one is
   getting rich doing this. But the workforce that finds this a reasonable
   job is no doubt living in a different economy. Be that as it may, this
   article demonstrates without a doubt that the days of typical
   transcription and proof-reading services are largely over for this kind
   of job. If you’re willing to farm out your job in chunks, and get it
   back in chunks over time, then you can have digitized handwritten texts
   transcribed and proofread for a fraction of what traditional services
   cost. This article illustrates the benefit of exploiting the latest
   technologies to do things differently, and more efficiently, than
   before. – [25]RT

   McHale, Nina. “[26]Open Access Publishing With Drupal”  [27]Code4Lib
   Journal  (15)(31 October
   2011)(http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5913). – This is a case
   study of how a state library association (Colorado) decided to
   transition from a print journal to an open access online journal. The
   entire process from the challenges that led to the change to the
   complete implementation are described in some detail. This detail is
   helpful enough that anyone could use this piece as a recipe to take
   their publication online, which is exactly the kind of practical
   assistance one hopes to find in the Code4Lib Journal. This case study
   of the use of the modular nature of the open source Drupal content
   management system is testimony to its flexibility but also illustrates
   a possible drawback — the project is somewhat dependent on a module
   that is maintained by an individual who may or may not choose to
   upgrade it as the Drupal platform advances. McHale concludes the
   article with evidence that the transition moved this once relatively
   obscure publication to the international stage, with potential benefits
   for the association that are as yet unrealized. Organizations who may
   be contemplating their choices as print publication becomes ever more
   expensive would do well to consider the benefits of open access
   publishing online. Here is chapter and verse both on why it can be a
   good path to take, and exactly how to walk it. – [28]RT

   Neujahr, Joyce. “[29]Lightning Fast Interlibrary Loan: Using E-readers
   for On-demand Delivery”  [30]College & Research Libraries News
   72(9)(October 2011): 531-541.
   (http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/531.full). – How can libraries take
   advantage of the expanding e-book reader market? Neujahr describes how
   the University of Nebraska-Omaha (UNO) uses Amazon’s Kindle to
   supplement its ILL services. Patrons are given the option of getting
   ILL requests immediately through purchase via one of the library’s
   Kindles; the Kindle containing the acquired item is then checked out to
   the patron. Such actions may be prohibited by the Kindle’s license
   terms, but UNO has elected to treat Kindle content as if it were
   purchased, and thus subject to copyright provisions, rather than
   licensed. Neujahr notes that Amazon has never contacted them to tell
   them to stop. As the price of Kindles continues to drop, other
   libraries might wish to consider whether loaning e-books on dedicated
   physical devices is an attractive way of acquiring content. – [31]PH

   Sims, Nancy. “[32]Library Licensing and Criminal Law: The Aaron Swartz
   Case”  [33]College & Research Libraries News  72(9)(October
   2011): 534-537. (http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/534.full). – Aaron
   Swartz’s arrest in July 2011 while allegedly accessing articles from
   JSTOR created a small Twitter and blog-storm of commentary and opinion.
   Even though there has been no resolution yet to the charges, Sim’s
   thoughtful analysis of the case so far and public reaction to it still
   provides a valuable service. She demonstrates that most of the media
   got the legal issues in the case wrong. But while the case isn’t about
   copyright or even necessarily JSTOR’s terms of service, it does
   implicate how we license material. Sims argues that the confusion about
   the legal issues involved is evidence of public misperceptions of
   libraries and of licensed content. There is, she suggests “significant
   disparity between what our users understand our services to be, and
   what we agree to when we sign contracts for licensed resources.” She
   notes as well how the case has become a locus around which discussions
   of open access and scholarly communications are taking place. Sims
   concludes that Swartz’s alleged “activities, and the public reactions
   they have generated, highlight some of the most troubled, and
   troubling, legal and ethical issues in academic licensing, open access,
   and scholarly communication.” Regardless of the legal outcome of the
   case, Sims leaves us to wonder whether our licensing and publishing
   norms need to change. – [34]PH
     __________________________________________________________________

   Current Cites – ISSN: 1060-2356 is hosted by the community at
   WebJunction.org. (c) Copyright 2011 by Roy Tennant
   [38]Creative Commons License

References

   Visible links
   1. http://lists.webjunction.org/currentcites/
   2. http://roytennant.com/
   3. http://www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/cwbaileyprofile.htm
   4. http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436
   5. http://leoklein.com/
   6. http://roytennant.com/
   7. http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-103111.html
   8. http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/
   9. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA250046.html
  10. http://roytennant.com/A_bibliographic.pdf
  11. http://roytennant.com/
  12. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/
  13. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
  14. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891826-264/how_the_w3c_has_come.html.csp
  15. http://www.digital-scholarship.org/
  16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111164950
  17. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0001-253X
  18. http://leoklein.com/
  19. http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_techstudy_Fall2011_noappendices1.1.pdf
  20. http://projectinfolit.org/
  21. http://roytennant.com/
  22. http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/6004
  23. http://journal.code4lib.org/
  24. https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
  25. http://roytennant.com/
  26. http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5913
  27. http://journal.code4lib.org/
  28. http://roytennant.com/
  29. http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/531.full
  30. http://crln.acrl.org/
  31. http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436
  32. http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/534.full
  33. http://crln.acrl.org/
  34. http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436
  35. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer
  36. http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer
  37. http://webjunction.org/
  38. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

Comments

No Responses to “ Current Cites, October 2011 ”


You will need to log in to comment on this post.