This is an interesting new guide to sharing bib records, but I can't help asking myself why we have placed ourselves in this legal quicksand in the first place? IP issues around a list of facts that is a bib record just lends credence to old dysfunctionalities like OCLC's WorldCat and stifles innovation around one of the few opportunities we have to place libraries in the mainstream.
I couldn't find this recent press release on the Relais website, so have pasted in the original e-mail release below. Probably best for me not to comment beyond the lack of surprise that Relais has no open source product, or even a strategy, 2 years after announcing their intentions.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 8, 2010
Update on Relais and Open Source
In 2008 Relais International announced that we would make parts of our Relais products open source. This has however remained a low priority for us in light of other commitments to customers; as a result we have not yet made a release under an open source license. Currently our resources are focussed on the launch of Relais D2D – Discovery to Delivery - we will provide an update on the status of an open source license by the end of 2010 after the implementation of Relais D2D.
Relais International remains fully committed to ensuring our products, including Relais D2D, are open. This affords our customers the maximum flexibility in integrating Relais with systems in their own libraries. To this end Relais actively supports well known library standards such as NCIP, Z39.50, OpenURL and ISO 10160/1 (ISO ILL). In addition we offer and continue to develop web services to facilitate interaction between disparate systems – for example the ability to add and query requests.
Relais™ International Inc is based in Ottawa, Canada and has been selling systems to support resource sharing, interlibrary loan and document delivery services since 1996. Relais International (www.relais-intl.com) assists libraries in implementing intelligent and automated methods to support requesting through to delivery of documents. Relais products range from scanning stations through to fully integrated request management, scanning and delivery software suitable for a single library through to a consortium.
For more details contact:
Dan Denault firstname.lastname@example.org
Relais International Inc.
Phone: 888-294-5244 X 229 (in North America) +1-613-226-5571 X 229
A new report from JISC looks at the costs of preserving research data:
This study has investigated the medium to long term costs to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) of the preservation of research data and developed guidance to HEFCE and institutions on these issues. It has provided an essential methodological foundation on research data costs for the forthcoming HEFCE-sponsored feasibility study for a UK Research Data Service. It will also assist HEIs and funding bodies wishing to establish strategies and TRAC costings for longterm data management and archiving.
On 23-24 September 2009 an international discussion workshop on “Main Drivers for Successful Re-Use of Research Data” was held in Berlin, prepared and organised by the Knowledge Exchange Working Group on Primary Research Data. The main focus of the workshop was on the benefits, challenges and obstacles of re-using data from a researcher’s perspective. The use cases presented by researchers from a variety of disciplines (13 presentations) were supplemented by two keynotes and selected presentations by specialists from infrastructure institutions, publishers, and funding bodies (national and European level, 8 presentations). By choosing this design the workshop was able to provide a critical evaluation of what lessons have been learned concerning sharing and re-using research data from a researcher’s perspective and what actions might be taken to encourage and facilitate more successful re-use. Despite the individual differences characterising the diverse disciplines, it became clear that important issues are comparable. Apart from several technical challenges such as metadata exchange standards and quality assurance it was obvious that the most important obstacles to re-using research data more efficiently are socially determined. It was agreed that in order to overcome this problem more effort should be made 1) to raise awareness and 2) to encourage stakeholders to combine forces in order to support and stimulate sharing and re-use of research data on all levels (researchers, institutions, publishers, funders, governments).
I had been meaning to look at Diigo for sometime now and there are a few things to like. The main one is how it brings together elements from a number of useful research tools, providing a single point of entry. I also like that it brings back what I thought was a brilliant idea many years ago when it surfaced with a Web app called Third Voice - the ability to mark-up webpages with your own notes. Worth some time to play despite a few rough edges.
A recent report from UC on the scholarly publishing landscape. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but a quick read of the executive summary (see below for an excerpt from the press release) seems to say that academics will go forward (or not) at their own pace, thank you very much. One statement suggests that the new "tech-savvy" grad students and post-grads are making no more use of new technologies for scholarly publishing than their older colleagues. Duh. How else are they going to get tenure? This is evidence of nothing but the same problem that vexes universities from all angles, whether online learning, open data or scholarship - the status quo suits those in the system just fine.
The final report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. Our premise has always been that disciplinary conventions matter and that social realities (and individual personality) will dictate how new practices, including those under the rubric of Web 2.0 or cyberinfrastructure, are adopted by scholars. That is, the academic values embodied in disciplinary cultures, as well as the interests of individual players, have to be considered when envisioning new schemata for the communication of scholarship at its various stages.