[16682] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
[CurrentCites] Current Cites, March 2006
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roy Tennant)
Tue Mar 28 21:33:49 2006
X-Original-To: currentcites@lists.webjunction.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.3)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0759221299=="
Errors-To: currentcites-bounces@webjunction.org
Message-ID: <887DB8A5-25A5-41F2-918D-CFF62BF2AB98@ucop.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:50:58 -0800
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
From: Roy Tennant <roy.tennant@UCOP.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
--===============0759221299==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Current Cites, March 2006
Edited by Roy Tennant
http://lists.webjunction.org/currentcites/2006/cc06.17.3.html
Contributors: Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Leo Robert Klein, Jim =20
Ronningen, Roy Tennant
DLF-Aquifer Services Institutional Survey Report Washington, DC: =20
Digital Library Federation, 9 March 2006.(http://www.diglib.org/=20
aquifer/SWGisrfinal.pdf). - This 45-page report from the Digital =20
Library Federation (DFL) Aquifer Services Working Group consists of =20
summarized responses from DLF members "to discover user-services =20
assessment efforts and to assess what services are desired by en =20
users and institutions and how the Acquifer project might potentially =20=
meet these needs. Key findings of the survey include: 1) Use of =20
digital collections and services is often assessed at the point of =20
introduction or update, rather than systematically over time, 2) =20
searching is the most common way that digital collections are used, =20
3) metadata standardization is the most commonly reported strategy =20
for supporting digital collections, 4) budgetary, time, and personnel =20=
constraints challenge the ability of institutions to develop needed =20
services, and 5) institutions and users desire cross-resource =20
discovery tools and greater ability to personalize service options. A =20=
very useful feature of this report is the list of user studies =20
undertaken by DLF institutions, with abstracts for each. - RT
Cohen, Daniel J. "=46rom Babel to Knowledge: Data Mining Large Digital =20=
Collections" D-Lib Magazine 12(3)(March 2006)(http://www.dlib.org/=20
dlib/march06/cohen/03cohen.html). - This is a fascinating account of =20
how you can construct a search engine optimized for specific tasks =20
such as finding course syllabi using simple technologies, access to =20
such resources as Google's application program interface (API), and =20
intelligent post-processing. A few conclusions from the author's =20
research include: 1) More emphasis needs to be placed on creating =20
APIs for digital collections, 2) Resources that are free to use in =20
any way, even if they are imperfect, are more valuable than those =20
that are gated or use-restricted, even if those resources are =20
qualitatively better, and 3) Quantity may make up for a lack of =20
quality. For explanations and justifications of these points see the =20
article, which anyone building search systems should definitely do. - RT
Harnad, Stevan. "Maximizing Research Impact through Institutional and =20=
National Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates" (2006)(http://=20
eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12093/). - A recent study by Tom Wilson =20
("Institutional Open Archives: Where Are We Now?") investigates item =20
deposit rates at most UK institutional repositories (excluding ETDs =20
where possible). After reviewing his findings, Wilson states: "By any =20=
measure it can hardly be claimed that the concept of open archiving =20
has taken off in British universities and I don't think that any of =20
its protagonists would claim otherwise. The movement is at an early =20
stage, with something in the order of 12 per cent of UK universities =20
involved and with a minuscule proportion of the total research output =20=
covered by the IOA [Institutional Open Archives]." Little wonder then =20=
that open access proponent Stevan Harnad has come to advocate =20
mandatory self-archiving at the institutional and national levels as =20
a solution to low institutional repository deposit rates. (Harnad =20
suggests that there is "a spontaneous 15% baseline rate" for =20
institutional repository deposits.) One might imagine that =20
researchers would resist mandatory deposit; however, Harnad notes =20
that a 2005 study by Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown found that only 5% =20
of researchers would refuse to do so. He further notes that in the =20
three institutions and one department (CERN, Queensland University of =20=
Technology, the University of Minho, and the University of =20
Southampton's Department of Electronics and Computer Science) that =20
have mandated deposit, the strategy appears to be working. Will =20
publishers allow self-archiving? Harnad indicates that only 7% of =20
publishers do not allow self-archiving. Why do it? Harnad deftly =20
recaps the open access research impact argument. With possible =20
national-level deposit mandates in the works, such as the American =20
Center for CURES Act of 2005 and the Research Councils UK's Position =20
Statement on Access to Research Outputs, mandatory deposit is a hot =20
topic, and Harnad's heavily linked paper provides a good summary of =20
the pro-mandate position. - CB
Levy, Stephen, and Brad Stone. "The New Wisdom of the Web" =20
Newsweek (April 3, 2006)(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12015774/site/=20
newsweek/). - The living web, web 2.0, online community - however you =20=
refer to the phenomenon of the web as a world forum, the simplicity =20
and timeliness of publishing whatever you want is nothing short of =20
revolutionary. This overview article is probably most valuable for =20
those non-participants who'll read it in paper form later this week; =20
bloggers and others are already critiquing it online, basically =20
treating it as just another post, one opinion among many. In fact, =20
while its content does provide a nice sampling of current web =20
community trends and efforts to capitalize on them, the impact of the =20=
changes described in it is really driven home when you take the =20
article as a lesson in itself about the current state of the =20
infosphere. It used to be that a news weekly could start a debate =20
when it introduced to the general population a topic previously known =20=
only to a few; today, numerous forums already exist in which aspects =20
of web community are being discussed by countless individuals (not to =20=
mention many, many more simply using the web to share comments, =20
images, audio and video, without the theorizing). Those of us engaged =20=
in this are already learning something from 'the wisdom of crowds' =20
about the nature of what we're doing as we do it, and don't have much =20=
use for a snapshot of the ocean when we can wade in and swim whenever =20=
we want to. - JR
St. Laurent, Simon. "The Next Web?" XML.com (March 15, 2006)(http://=20=
www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/03/15/next-web-xhtml2-ajax.html). - "You could =20=
always go home, Dorothy," is the underlying theme of this review of =20
popular web technologies that haven't yet lived up to their promise. =20
Web veteran Simon St. Laurent briefly goes over the XML Web, the =20
Semantic Web, XHTML and Web Services, explaining that each required =20
substantial new infrastructure to implement and for that reason =20
"never quite made it to mainstream web development". In contrast he =20
points to the success of Ajax where the parts, namely JavaScript and =20
HTML, have been around for ages. "After waiting for all of those =20
promises of better tools to come," he concludes, "it seems that =20
developers looked at the parts they had available, and chose the ones =20=
they could use today. It can be annoyingly hard work, but the results =20=
are impressive." - LRK
Stanger, Nigel, and Graham McGregor. Hitting the Ground Running: =20
Building New Zealand's First Publicly Available Institutional =20
Repository Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago, March 2006.(http://=20
eprints.otago.ac.nz/274/). - This paper describes the rapid =20
implementation of an institutional repository using open source =20
software. Although they get high marks for rapidity out of the gate, =20
and for a promising beginning, the paper is light on such details as =20
to how the initial success will be sustained. The reader is also left =20=
to wonder how they plan on taking this pilot project for one of the =20
university's schools and deploying it university-wide, if indeed they =20=
intend to do so. But those concerns aside, this can be a useful =20
article for demonstrating how little it takes technically to get a =20
repository launched and for achieving early success in terms of paper =20=
discovery and downloading. - RT
Suber, Peter. "Three Gathering Storms That Could Cause Collateral =20
Damage for Open Access" SPARC Open Access Newsletter (95)(2006)=20
(http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/=20
03-02-06.htm#collateral). - The Internet is a-changin', and those =20
changes may make old timers long for the days when it was an obscure, =20=
purely noncommercial enterprise. In this paper, noted open acces =20
advocate Peter Suber previews three potential changes that you should =20=
be aware of: (1) the WIPO "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting =20
Organizations," (2) threats to Net neutrality, and (3) fees for bulk =20
e-mailers to circumvent major e-mail services' spam filters. These =20
potential changes may not sound alarming, but they are harbingers of =20
deeper changes in the fundamental nature of the Internet that may =20
have significant long-term implications. Let's take one of them as an =20=
example: AOL and Yahoo want to charge bulk e-mailers to avoid spam =20
filters. The implications? Here's what Suber says: "The program is =20
insidious and would lead almost everyone to pay the fees if they =20
could--account holders at Yahoo and AOL and the bulk mailers who send =20=
to Yahoo and AOL addresses. It would also lead other email providers =20
to adopt similar policies or fear that they were leaving money on the =20=
table. This would harm everyone who sends or receives non-spam mass =20
mailings. This newsletter is an example but only one of many. The =20
program would harm every form of OA content delivered by email, from =20
emailed eprints and listserv postings to journal current-awareness =20
messages like tables of contents and the results of stored searches. =20
It would hurt non-profit groups and informal communities that network =20=
by email, including academic and political groups. Cash-strapped =20
operations relying on email for distribution would either be forced =20
to shut down or face higher costs that threaten their stability." - CB
Wakimotoa, Jina Choi, David S. Walker, and Katherine S. Dabboura. =20
"The Myths and Realities of SFX in Academic Libraries" The Journal =20
of Academic Librarianship 32(2)(March 2006): 127-136. - The report =20
of a three-fold study ("end-user survey, librarian focus group =20
interviews, and sample SFX statistics and tests") to answer these =20
questions regarding the use and effectiveness of an OpenURL resolver =20
(SFX from ExLibris) in an academic setting: "How successful is the =20
system in actually meeting the research needs of librarians and =20
library users? Do undergraduate students, who have increasingly high =20
expectations of online resources, think that SFX lives up to their =20
expectations? Do librarians feel comfortable relying on SFX for =20
accurate and consistent linking? Do the perceptions of librarians and =20=
library end-users reflect the reality of SFX usage?" Their =20
conclusions? "Ultimately, this study showed that end-user =20
expectations were slightly higher than their actual experiences of =20
obtaining full text. The majority of the librarians were positive, =20
however, reporting that SFX worked most of the time. Both groups had =20
complaints about SFX and saw areas for improvement, but they still =20
rely heavily on it for their research." - RT
Current Cites - ISSN: 1060-2356 is hosted by the community at =20
WebJunction.org.
=A9 Copyright 2006 by Roy Tennant
--===============0759221299==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
CurrentCites mailing list
CurrentCites@webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/currentcites/
--===============0759221299==--
