[15760] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Current Cites, April 2005
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (CITES Moderator)
Mon May 2 20:50:21 2005
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.10504292220150.9297-100000@library.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:51:03 -0700
Reply-To: cites@library.berkeley.edu
From: CITES Moderator <citeschk@library.berkeley.edu>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Current Cites
Current Cites, April 2005
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/CurrentCites/2005/cc05.16.4.html
Edited by [2]Roy Tennant
Contributors: [3]Charles W. Bailey, Jr., [4]Terry Huwe, [5]Shirl
Kennedy, [6]Leo Robert Klein, Jim Ronningen, [7]Roy Tennant
Chen, Xiaotian. "Figures and Tables Omitted from Online Periodical
Articles: A Comparison of Vendors and Information Missing from
Full-Text Databases" [8]Internet Reference Services Quarterly
10(2)(April 2005): 77-90. - An online article may consist of a number
of parts, the two most prominent being text and image(s). If we ignore
formatting for a moment, we're clearly at a stage in our development
where text poses far fewer problems either to capture, store or
reproduce than do images. This being the case, what is the likelihood
that database vendors will cut corners and dump the images? This is an
important consideration because some of the article's informational
value may reside in the images -- be they tables, charts or whatever.
The author identified a number of articles from various print
publications and then checked the accuracy of their representation in
a number of "full-text" databases. What she found was that several
commercial vendors tended to skip the images and that some even failed
to indicate that there was anything missing at all. The author
concludes, "it would be a big improvement if 'full-text' would
actually mean all that is implied --the full article as originally
published. To have anything less is misleading." - [9]LRK
Chudnov, Daniel, Richard Cameron, and Jeremy Frumkin, et.
al."[10]Opening Up OpenURLs With Autodiscovery" [11]Ariadne
(43)(April 2005)(http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue43/chudnov/). - A
revised and updated version of an unpublished piece cited in the
[12]December 2004 issue of Current Cites, this article describes a
world in which OpenURLs could be used more openly for a variety of
additional purposes beyond solving the classic "appropriate copy"
problem. The authors identify a number of specific scenarios in which
by simply placing OpenURL metadata in easily discoverable locations
such as embedded in HTML pages, any number of simple "hacks" to
support new services become possible. Once again we have an
illustration of the power of simple solutions to foster innovation. -
[13]RT
Davis, Harold. [14]Building Research Tools With Google for Dummies
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing Inc.,
2005.(http://www.braintique.com/research/). - A review copy of this
book showed up in the mail, and when I opened the package, I mentally
rolled my eyes. "Dummies" books...hmmm... My customers love them, some
of them really are excellent, but others...well, take "Sex for
Dummies," for example. It's by "Dr. Ruth" and the title alone is kind
of scary. What's even more frightening is the subsequent volume you
may need, "Parenting for Dummies." But I digress. This particular
book, Building Research Tools With Google for Dummies, is badly
misnamed. Yeah, it does cover using the [15]Google APIs to build your
own applications -- something that most definitely is not for dummies
-- but there is ever so much more information in here, a fair amount
of which has nothing to do with Google. For example. there's an entire
chapter on competitive intelligence. Another chapter, entitled
"Researching Like a Pro," pays homage to the reference interview and
actually explains "Why Google Is Not the Web." (This is something I
try to explain to at least a couple of my customers every week.) Yet
another chapter tells you how to package and deliver your research
results. The author -- a technology consultant and programmer with a
law degree (?!) -- does a good job of delving into the nuts and bolts
of Google; while most information professionals know their way around
Google's advanced features, this provides a refresher on some useful
things you or I may have overlooked. The book also touches on my own
two biggest web research caveats -- the need to use more than one
search engine and the need to verify the information you find on the
web. Google APIs -- I don't go there myself, but I will happily try
clever things constructed by other people -- like some of the [16]Ten
Tools That Use the Google APIs included in this book. I kinda like
this book and will keep it on the shelf next to my copy of [17]Google
Hacks, by Tara Calishain and Rael Dornfest. - [18]SK
Gonzalez, Linda. "[19]What is FRBR?" [20]NetConnect (15 April
200)(http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA515803). - This brief and
gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read
by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about.
Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for
us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective,
and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we
face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts
that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems
should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So
start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with [21]the
full report. - [22]RT
Hammond, Tony, Timo Hannay, and Ben Lund, et. al."[23]Social
Bookmarking Tools (I)" [24]D-Lib Magazine 11(4)(April
2005)(http://dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html). -
Virtually since the advent of the World Wide Web in the early 90s,
users of it have been struggling with bookmarks. Sure, it's easy to
bookmark a web site, but it doesn't take long before an
undifferentiated list becames unwieldy. Meanwhile, this initial
problem has grown up into a suite of solutions and opportunities best
described as link management and social bookmarking, while a number of
new tools, techniques and services have created entirely new methods
of interaction. This useful overview article, as well as a
[25]companion case study of Connotea can serve as useful background
for a more visionary piece by Chudnov, et.al. also cited in this
issue. - [26]RT
Hickey, Thomas B.. "[27]Experiments with a Small Supercomputer"
[28]OCLC Newsletter (267)(January-March
2005)(http://www.oclc.org/news/publications/newsletters/oclc/2005/267/
research.htm). - As I reported in [29]a recent Library Journal column,
OCLC Research has been experimenting with using a cluster of
off-the-shelf computer hardware to create a supercomputer. This brief
but intriguing piece provides additional background, as well as
context for OCLC's experiments with this method of speeding up both
batch and online processing. As a tie-in to another piece cited in
this issue, this cluster is being used to perform much of OCLC's FRBR
work. Hickey once again proves that OCLC Research rocks, and that we
can expect some interesting and exciting times ahead. - [30]RT
Hirtle, Peter. "[31]Adopting 'Orphan Works'" [32]RLG DigiNews
9(2)(15 April
2005)(http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20571#article3). - This
brief but informative piece should be required reading for anyone
interested in copyright and intellectual property issues. The issue of
works under copyright for which the copyright owner cannot be located
(dubbed "orphan" works) can substantially impact the ability of
libraries and others to use the work in effective ways. For example,
as identified in formal comments submitted to the Copyright Office by
organizations such as the UC San Diego Libraries and the Cornell
University Library, the inability to locate a copyright holder can
prevent libraries from digitizing materials -- even when doing so is
unlikely to result in any harm to the copyright holder (orphan works
are most likely in this state due to the inability of the copyright
holders to make any money from them). As Hirtle reports in his usual
well-articulated style, the Copyright Office investigation of this
issue is ongoing and those who wish to comment still have an
opportunity to influence the outcome. - [33]RT
Horowitz, Lisa R., Patricia A. Flanagan, and Deborah L. Helman. "The
Viability of Live Online Reference: An Assessment" [34]portal:
Libraries in the Academy 5(2)(April 2005): 239-258. - This is an
interesting article about Chat reference at MIT. It's interesting not
because it's about "how we done good" but because it's about "how we
done bad". After a year and a half of existence, the initial attempt
at Chat Reference at MIT came to an end. Basically the usage was too
low to justify the time and training involved, particularly when
compared to alternatives like Email Reference and traditional
walk-ins. Nevertheless, you get the feeling while reading the article
that had they handled the service a bit differently, things might have
turned out better. Of particular value is their analysis of the
software they were using (LSSI). The Web Team at MIT has already
racked up considerable experience in usability thanks to a
site-redesign running at the same time. Their analysis of the
Chat-software is something all initiatives of this type should take to
heart: "user interface guidelines used by the most popular chat
software packages should be referenced to help choose an interface
that would be most helpful of the user." The closer we get to the kind
of "chat" our users are used to using, the easier it'll be both for
ourselves and for them. - [35]LRK
Jeon-Slaughter, Haekyung, Herkovic Andrew C., and Keller Michael
A.. "[36]Economics of Scientific and Biomedical Journals: Where Do
Scholars Stand in the Debate of Online Journal Pricing and Site
License Ownership Between Libraries and Publishers?" [37]First
Monday 10(3)(7 March
2005)(http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/jeon/). - The
authors evaluate the "big picture" of e-journal usage and licensure,
taking into consideration the roles not only of libraries, but also of
authors, users and publishers. These participants in the knowledge
creation and consumption process have complex and vibrant with
relationships with each other, and the balance of power between them
is in flux. The authors argue that the importance of scholars'
behavior in the pricing of scientific journals has been overlooked in
the debate between libraries and publishers, particularly regarding
site license practices. They cite a Stanford survey that indicates
that rapidly increasing costs are the main reason for individual
subscription cancellation, causing users to use the library more
heavily. Consequently, libraries continue to be vital providers in the
electronic era and their role in the evolution of scholarly
communication will grow. The driving forces behind this growth are
effective "branding" of the library and very strong and durable
relationships with users. Indeed, libraries have taken a role of
"agency" on behalf of users, and users are increasingly aware of this.
On the other side of the marketplace, publishers must find new
strategies for building better relationships with individual users.
They conclude by asserting that a cooperative spirit among the three
sectors (libraries, publishers, users) holds the greatest hope for an
optimized digital future. - [38]TH
Klang, Mathias. "[39]Free Software and Open Source: The Freedom Debate
and its Consequences" [40]First Monday 10(3)(7 March
2005)(http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/klang/). - The
Swedish author of this article published it in response to a lively
online course that was held at the University of G?teborg on the
topics of freeware and open access. He makes the timely point that to
the average net citizen, the ethics of software and the meaning of
open access are not really on the radar screen -- something that's
easy for librarians and other superusers to lose track of. Experts, he
argues, grasp the ethics and make informed choices, while casual users
see freeware and vendor products as s both the online world and by
extension the marketplace. He goes on to evaluate the characteristics
of each group, and how their choices influence both the online world
and by extension the software marketplace. His goal is not so much to
offer solutions or strategic suggestions as it is to simply define the
cognitive differences between the two cohorts of users. - [41]TH
Molnar, David, and David Wagner. "Privacy and Security in Library
RFID: Issues, Practices and Architecture" [42]Proceedings of the 11th
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (October 2004)
- When a library adopts radio frequency ID tags for inventory control,
it can become a hot button issue for the library's community. Many
have heard of large retail chains which use RFID tags to compile data
on consumer behavior, and of course it's become common (and warranted)
to be on the alert for threats to the confidentiality of library
patron records, so a level of paranoia may arise. This ACM conference
paper carefully examines what threats to privacy there may be in RFID
implementation for libraries, and proposes a solution to the insecure
transmission of data between tag and reader. The first half sets out
what is currently known about RFID tag technology, production and use,
and which security problems exist. Scenarios are described in which an
eavesdropper who doesn't have access to the patron files may yet,
through consistent multiple efforts, track the movements of particular
books which may be on a hotlist of titles to be monitored. The second
half of the paper is more technical, and sets out a private
authentication scheme which keeps tag and reader password transmission
secret. In their conclusions, the authors make a recommendation which
is simple enough to be restated here: libraries which use RFID systems
in their current state should encode the very minimum of information
in the tag, ideally just the item's barcode. - JR
Ober, John L.. [43]Postprint Repository Services: Context and
Feasibility at the University of California Oakland, CA: California
Digital Library, University of California, 31 March
2005.(http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/UC_pos
tprintstudy_final.pdf). - The California Digital Library (part of the
University of California) recently established the Office of Scholarly
Communications. But even before this event, the CDL had been working
with faculty to try to change the scholarly communications paradigm.
This publication is therefore merely the latest salvo in CDL's work to
change how UC faculty publish and receive recognition for, and
increased use of, their publications. Supported by a grant from the
Andrew W. Mellon foundation, this brief publication reports on
research on six issues: 1) potential postprint volume (postprints
being copies of published articles deposited in an institutional
repository), 2) postprint service cost, 3) UC participation in non-UC
repositories, 4) personal and departmental postprints, 5) open access
journal publishing, and 6) copyright attitudes and behavior. The
report recommends seven actions that the University of California
should take based on the findings. - [44]RT
Suber, Peter. "[45]Getting to 100%" [46]SPARC Open Access Newsletter
(84)(2005)(http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/04-02-05.htm#
100). - In this article, Suber considers the obstacles that slow the
continued growth of open access journals and self archiving, and he
provides "a short progress report on where we stand in removing them."
First, there are [47]disciplinary differences that affect OA journal
economics and other key factors. One major difference is the level of
research funding that the disciplines have: less funding, more
difficulty in paying author fees. This can be overcome by universities
paying membership fees to OA publishers that eliminate or reduce
direct fee payment by authors; however, their willingness to do so is
likely tied to an assessment of how membership costs stack up against
traditional subscription costs. A widely heralded [48]study by Cornell
seemed to sink hopes that OA journals would be cheaper, but this study
was found to have made questionable assumptions. Second, there are
diverse OA journal business models, and the models of journals that do
not use author fees are poorly understood (according to a [49]recent
study only 47% of OA journals have processing fees). On the other
hand, self archiving faces two major problems: scholars need
disciplinary archives or institutional repositories (IRs) to deposit
articles in and, given how busy they are, they need to find the time
to do so. (I would add that they need to be convinced to do so as
well.) Progress is being made in automatic metadata generation upon
deposit, and a [50]recent study suggests that an active scholar may
spend as little as 40 minutes per year self archiving. Universities
should establish IRs, but what should scholars without access to
disciplinary archives or IRs do in the meantime? Here's the big news:
Suber is working with the Internet Archive to establish "an
OAI-compliant 'universal repository' that will accept eprints from any
scholar in any discipline." - [51]CB
_________________________________________________________________
[52]Valid XHTML 1.0! [53]Valid CSS! [54]WebJunction.org Current Cites
- ISSN: 1060-2356 is hosted by the community at WebJunction.org.
? Copyright 2005 by Roy Tennant
[55]Creative Commons License
References
Visible links
1. http://sunsite/currentcites/
2. http://roytennant.com/
3. http://info.lib.uh.edu/cwb/bailey.htm
4. http://iir.berkeley.edu/faculty/huwe/
5. http://www.uncagedlibrarian.com/
6. http://leoklein.com/
7. http://roytennant.com/
8. http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J136
9. http://leoklein.com/
10. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue43/chudnov/
11. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/
12. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/CurrentCites/2004/cc04.15.12.html
13. http://roytennant.com/
14. http://www.braintique.com/research/
15. http://www.google.com/apis/
16. http://www.braintique.com/research/chapters/20ch.shtml
17. http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/googlehks/
18. http://www.uncagedlibrarian.com/
19. http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA515803
20.
http://libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=netconnectTOC&pubdate=4/15/05
21. http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm
22. http://roytennant.com/
23. http://dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html
24. http://dlib.org/
25. http://dlib.org/dlib/april05/lund/04lund.html
26. http://roytennant.com/
27.
http://www.oclc.org/news/publications/newsletters/oclc/2005/267/research.htm
28. http://www.oclc.org/news/publications/newsletters/default.htm
29. http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA509610
30. http://roytennant.com/
31. http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20571#article3
32. http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=12081
33. http://roytennant.com/
34. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pla/
35. http://leoklein.com/
36. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/jeon/
37. http://www.firstmonday.org/
38. http://iir.berkeley.edu/faculty/huwe/
39. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/klang/
40. http://www.firstmonday.org/
41. http://iir.berkeley.edu/faculty/huwe/
42.
http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=1030083&coll=portal&dl=ACM&type=proceeding&idx=SERIES320&part=Proceedings&WantType=Proceedings&title=Conference%20on%20Computer%20and%20Communications%20Security
43.
http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/UC_postprintstudy_final.pdf
44. http://roytennant.com/
45. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/04-02-05.htm#100
46. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
47. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/lists.htm#disciplines
48.
http://techreports.library.cornell.edu:8081/Dienst/UI/1.0/Display/cul.lib/2004-3
49. http://www.alpsp.org/openacc.htm
50. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/
51. http://info.lib.uh.edu/cwb/bailey.htm
52. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer
53.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flists.webjunction.org%2Fcurrentcites%2Fstyle.css&usermedium=all
54. http://webjunction.org/
55. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
