Thursday, December 17, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
notes: Legal Rights and Future of Digital Libraries
Lesk, Chapter 11
Stiglitz
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
October of 2004
" acknowledge that the current rules of the international economic game reflect the interests of the advanced industrial countries – especially of their big corporations – more than the interests of the developing world."
if you can use others' stuff, progress will suffer.
regime, temporary monopoly.
"it was clear that there was more interest in pleasing the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries than in ensuring an intellectual-property regime that was good for science, let alone for developing countries." ---not surprising.
Lynch
NSF Workshop report
Stiglitz
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
October of 2004
" acknowledge that the current rules of the international economic game reflect the interests of the advanced industrial countries – especially of their big corporations – more than the interests of the developing world."
if you can use others' stuff, progress will suffer.
regime, temporary monopoly.
"it was clear that there was more interest in pleasing the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries than in ensuring an intellectual-property regime that was good for science, let alone for developing countries." ---not surprising.
Lynch
NSF Workshop report
notes: Security and Economics
William Arms, “Implementing Policies for Access Management"
Talks about managing online information access. Although a DL may offer an item, they might not really OWN it, and cannot freely distribute it so they must develop policies to ensure they are not violating any agreement with the true "owner" of the material.
"In this approach, all information about some digital item is encapsulated in an encrypted container" is interesting, but how is it determined who can look at the file? is the whole thing password protected? or just encoded to restrict printing, copying, editing, renaming, etc.?
"All methods of access management tend to be intrusive and interfere with the user's interaction with the library collections. The worst situation occurs when every interaction requires some sort of authentication or authorization for payment."
Indicates that authentication is a problem, can use password or IP address. (what about MAC addresses? Is that only useful for wireless connections?)
Lesk Chapter 10, "Economics"
* publishing prices vs. librarie's financial status
* selling of digital information
* new access vs. traditional no-charge access
* new funding models may include charging patrons, advertising support, pledges (a la NPR, etc.)
* difficult to assign monetary value to non-transaction services
* system is inefficient for moving information "from inside one head to inside another head"
* supply curve: with new technologies it costs less per item to produce many items than to produce fewer.
* digital technology frightens publishers
* prices go up on published stuff because libraries are not buying as much
* Varian: libraries are "buying clubs" that share. Good for digital?
* micropayments?! if I have to give my credit card / bank info out, i avoid it and go find something free. It works for EZ pass but that's an occasional occurrence. To have to register with a variety of digital sources who debit or bill me would be annoying.
Are they talking about for library micropayments, or from the general public?
---Ownership
* library buying rights = publisher retaining control
* canceling subscription = losing anything they had (print and store probably illegal?)
* electronic issues raise questions: sharing? restriction of users?
---Administrative costs
* Piracy
* Academic publishing: expensive. Online publishing does not yet have the prestige for paper journals for publishing requirements for professors.
---Future of Quality Information
* Elsevier says the rejected submissions end up on the internet, seeming to claim that their submission requirements are a legit standard and the lack of review for online posted items indicates its inferiority. "editorial overhead"
* can't have immediate refereeing of papers
* online submissions = no page limits
"whether a technique could be found for anonymously recommending articles that could not be manipulated by people looking for attention is not clear." Must fight for high quality e-journals
Arms, Chapter 6
* Technology and Legislation can't fix everything
"the two usual economic forces of greed and fear." Haha!
"Mainframe companies such as Univac, CDC, Burroughs, and Honeywell were supplanted by minicomputers. Minicomputer companies, such as Prime, Wang, and Data General did not survive the transition to personal computers. Early personal computer companies have died, as have most of the software pioneers. Even IBM has lost its dominance. Will the same pattern happen with electronic information? The publishers and information services who dominated traditional markets are not necessarily those who will lead in the new ones." This is a good point. Businesses need to assume flexibility and not sit comfortably on the idea that what they have will last forever.
* open access, funded by grants (Perseus), self-budgeted, advertising
* who likes open access? research teams, govt. departments, private individuals.
* payment for open access? user restrictions. would like an auto-payment system, not credit cards. Consider pay per view (not successful ) to cable subscription (successful)
* digital information - tiny distribution costs vs. paper
"The economic system surrounding scientific journals is strange. The taxpayer pays the researcher, most of the reviewers, and many of the costs of the libraries, but the copyright is given away to the publisher."
"Studies have shown that most scientific papers are never cited by any other researchers. Many papers are completely unnecessary." My sentiments exactly. Are they writing because someone told them to, or because they have something earthshattering and useful to contribute? Are they doing research they WANT to, or HAVE to? Has an impact on the quality as well.
Lists a bunch of copyright related court cases. Might be interesting to refer to later.
Talks about managing online information access. Although a DL may offer an item, they might not really OWN it, and cannot freely distribute it so they must develop policies to ensure they are not violating any agreement with the true "owner" of the material.
"In this approach, all information about some digital item is encapsulated in an encrypted container" is interesting, but how is it determined who can look at the file? is the whole thing password protected? or just encoded to restrict printing, copying, editing, renaming, etc.?
"All methods of access management tend to be intrusive and interfere with the user's interaction with the library collections. The worst situation occurs when every interaction requires some sort of authentication or authorization for payment."
Indicates that authentication is a problem, can use password or IP address. (what about MAC addresses? Is that only useful for wireless connections?)
Lesk Chapter 10, "Economics"
* publishing prices vs. librarie's financial status
* selling of digital information
* new access vs. traditional no-charge access
* new funding models may include charging patrons, advertising support, pledges (a la NPR, etc.)
* difficult to assign monetary value to non-transaction services
* system is inefficient for moving information "from inside one head to inside another head"
* supply curve: with new technologies it costs less per item to produce many items than to produce fewer.
* digital technology frightens publishers
* prices go up on published stuff because libraries are not buying as much
* Varian: libraries are "buying clubs" that share. Good for digital?
* micropayments?! if I have to give my credit card / bank info out, i avoid it and go find something free. It works for EZ pass but that's an occasional occurrence. To have to register with a variety of digital sources who debit or bill me would be annoying.
Are they talking about for library micropayments, or from the general public?
---Ownership
* library buying rights = publisher retaining control
* canceling subscription = losing anything they had (print and store probably illegal?)
* electronic issues raise questions: sharing? restriction of users?
---Administrative costs
* Piracy
* Academic publishing: expensive. Online publishing does not yet have the prestige for paper journals for publishing requirements for professors.
---Future of Quality Information
* Elsevier says the rejected submissions end up on the internet, seeming to claim that their submission requirements are a legit standard and the lack of review for online posted items indicates its inferiority. "editorial overhead"
* can't have immediate refereeing of papers
* online submissions = no page limits
"whether a technique could be found for anonymously recommending articles that could not be manipulated by people looking for attention is not clear." Must fight for high quality e-journals
Arms, Chapter 6
* Technology and Legislation can't fix everything
"the two usual economic forces of greed and fear." Haha!
"Mainframe companies such as Univac, CDC, Burroughs, and Honeywell were supplanted by minicomputers. Minicomputer companies, such as Prime, Wang, and Data General did not survive the transition to personal computers. Early personal computer companies have died, as have most of the software pioneers. Even IBM has lost its dominance. Will the same pattern happen with electronic information? The publishers and information services who dominated traditional markets are not necessarily those who will lead in the new ones." This is a good point. Businesses need to assume flexibility and not sit comfortably on the idea that what they have will last forever.
* open access, funded by grants (Perseus), self-budgeted, advertising
* who likes open access? research teams, govt. departments, private individuals.
* payment for open access? user restrictions. would like an auto-payment system, not credit cards. Consider pay per view (not successful ) to cable subscription (successful)
* digital information - tiny distribution costs vs. paper
"The economic system surrounding scientific journals is strange. The taxpayer pays the researcher, most of the reviewers, and many of the costs of the libraries, but the copyright is given away to the publisher."
"Studies have shown that most scientific papers are never cited by any other researchers. Many papers are completely unnecessary." My sentiments exactly. Are they writing because someone told them to, or because they have something earthshattering and useful to contribute? Are they doing research they WANT to, or HAVE to? Has an impact on the quality as well.
Lists a bunch of copyright related court cases. Might be interesting to refer to later.
notes: Social Issues
Roush
Google's efforts really only offer "knowledge" to those who already have access to books - most of the developed world. Online access is access only in a different form. Roush's article recaps much of the debate over Google Books that's been previously discussed throughout my coursework. Although the Oxford library has electronic access, the lack of OCR searching capabilities makes Google's digitization project welcome.
Social Aspects report
"Our goals were to assess existing knowledge that might inform research and to propose a research agenda that would pose new questions."
The report reiterates a lot of the stuff from lecture, emphasizing that the people using the DLs need to be considered in the design of the DL. Final recommendations include collaboration and promoting diversity.
Arms, Viewpoint Analysis
"From the user's viewpoint, technology is irrelevant and organizations are of secondary importance." This is an important point - the user doesn't care so much about the technology, unless it is cumbersome or uncooperative. Advocates for a more holistic evaluation of DLs.
Google's efforts really only offer "knowledge" to those who already have access to books - most of the developed world. Online access is access only in a different form. Roush's article recaps much of the debate over Google Books that's been previously discussed throughout my coursework. Although the Oxford library has electronic access, the lack of OCR searching capabilities makes Google's digitization project welcome.
Social Aspects report
"Our goals were to assess existing knowledge that might inform research and to propose a research agenda that would pose new questions."
The report reiterates a lot of the stuff from lecture, emphasizing that the people using the DLs need to be considered in the design of the DL. Final recommendations include collaboration and promoting diversity.
Arms, Viewpoint Analysis
"From the user's viewpoint, technology is irrelevant and organizations are of secondary importance." This is an important point - the user doesn't care so much about the technology, unless it is cumbersome or uncooperative. Advocates for a more holistic evaluation of DLs.
Friday, November 6, 2009
notes: Interaction & Evaluation
QUESTION: how are site mirrors updated to ensure sameness?
Ok, so somehow I managed to delete all my notes while updating. Great. Not doing them over.
Started with Arms and how usability means all factions of the DL, not just the user. Conceptual model, interface design, and functional design seem to make or break the success of the DL - if the DL is hard to navigate, or controls are hard to find or don't make sense, the user can get frustrated.
Middleware seems to consist of script that runs in browsers, or CGI on a server, to fulfill tasks that the user may not even realize are occurring.
Multimedia Information
Summarization
Sorting and categorization
Presentations
...these are all more important considerations to help the user easily determine if results are valid for their search. Especially with images and videos I think, as demonstrated by searching for stuff on youtube and coming up with homemade videos of unrelated garbage.
Kling and Elliott
I find it interesting that DL developers do not consider ease of use when designing DLs. Isn't that counterproductive? Isn't the whole point of a DL for people to use it?
5 models of typical computer designs are discussed
Ok, so somehow I managed to delete all my notes while updating. Great. Not doing them over.
Started with Arms and how usability means all factions of the DL, not just the user. Conceptual model, interface design, and functional design seem to make or break the success of the DL - if the DL is hard to navigate, or controls are hard to find or don't make sense, the user can get frustrated.
Middleware seems to consist of script that runs in browsers, or CGI on a server, to fulfill tasks that the user may not even realize are occurring.
Multimedia Information
Summarization
Sorting and categorization
Presentations
...these are all more important considerations to help the user easily determine if results are valid for their search. Especially with images and videos I think, as demonstrated by searching for stuff on youtube and coming up with homemade videos of unrelated garbage.
Kling and Elliott
I find it interesting that DL developers do not consider ease of use when designing DLs. Isn't that counterproductive? Isn't the whole point of a DL for people to use it?
5 models of typical computer designs are discussed
Sunday, November 1, 2009
muddy point: access 2
Question: even if errors are found (Google books, badly scanned PDF) how much work is involved in fixing those errors? Once a PDF is created, is it possible to update one page within the file, or must the entire work be rescanned? If individual pages are individually linked as separate images this wouldn't be a problem, but for the PDFs I download, they are self-contained documents. Wouldn't it be less time/effort to more carefully review items before finalizing them, than to have to go back and re-digitize?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)