|
FOS Newsletter, 4/1/02
|
Peter Suber
|
Apr 01, 2002 11:48 PST
|
Welcome to the Free Online Scholarship (FOS) Newsletter
April 1, 2002
When is government data good enough to use and disseminate?
The Data Quality Act (DQA) is a federal statute adopted under the Clinton
Administration and due to take effect October 1, 2002. The law allows
"affected persons" to criticize scientific information or data disseminated
by any federal agency and used in its rule-making. If the criticisms are
valid, then the agencies must correct their information and delete the old
information from their web sites and publications. Agencies will determine
on their own when the criticisms are valid. While each agency will have
its own evaluation procedure, all must follow guidelines handed down by the
present, Bush-era Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These guidelines
contain a presumption in favor of peer-reviewed information, but the
presumption is rebuttable in special circumstances.
Proponents of the DQA argue that it will improve the quality of all
government regulations that depend on empirical data, including those that
protect food, drugs, and the environment. Opponents worry that it will
give businesses an incentive to criticize the data underlying regulations
they dislike and create a blizzard of paperwork, procedural objections, and
statistical sophistry to supplement traditional forms of lobbying.
The DQA is in the news now because the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
met on March 21-22 to discuss its implications for science, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met on May 19-22 to start designing
its evaluation procedure under the OMB guidelines. Unfortunately, I've
found only a little on the NAS meeting and nothing on the EPA meeting. An
upcoming conference of the Computing Research Association lists the DQA
among more notorious statutes (DMCA, PATRIOT, UCITA) that may "collide"
with the freedom of research.
The DQA evaluation procedure cannot be called peer review, because the
critiques it must evaluate may come from uncredentialed protesters with a
commercial or political interest in the outcome, rather than scientific
peers, and because the procedures for evaluating these critiques are
designed by a political branch of government. But neither can the
evaluation procedure be considered mere voting or lobbying on scientific
matters, because the critiques will be evaluated by scientific panels and
because the guidelines generally (but not always) defer to peer
review. The DQA won't censor information but it will determine which
information is good enough to be the basis of federal regulations and good
enough to be disseminated by the government. In that sense it will affect
the scope, content, quality, and corrigibility of government FOS in the
United States.
DQA, full text of the statute (very short)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1C124D9
OMB Guidelines for federal agencies to write their own procedures under the DQA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html
Andrew Revkin, Law Revises Standards for Scientific Study
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/politics/21DATA.html
Questions for further investigation raised by the National Academy of
Sciences about DQA
http://www.thecre.com/quality/20020325_exec.html#start
Agenda for the National Academy of Sciences meeting on the DQA on March 21-22
http://www.thecre.com/pdf/nas-agenda.pdf
Agenda for the American Bar Association meeting on the DQA on April 19
http://www.abanet.org/adminlaw/spring02/agenda.html
Agenda for the Computing Research Association meeting on July 14-16
http://www.cra.org/Activities/snowbird/2002/program.html
(scroll down to Workshop III on July 16)
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (a pro-business group) repository of
comments on the DQA
http://www.thecre.com/quality/comments/DQGuidanceComments.html
Criticism of DQA by Robert Gellman
http://www.gcn.com/20_24/tech-report/16837-1.html
("The whole process is guaranteed to be meaningless. It is Washington at
its worst. Take a disagreement and turn it into a procedural nightmare
that will resolve nothing and take forever.")
* Postscript. Normally we keep science uncontaminated by commercial and
political interests by putting it under the control of scientists. But if
science is to inform to law, which it should, then there must be a
science-law interface which cannot itself be put under the control of
scientists. The "last mile problem" in making sure that legal regulations
are grounded in sound science is to design this science-law interface so
that lawmakers are politically accountable without giving them cause to
distort the science which is not. Is this a contradiction? What's the
best that a democracy can do here? Does the DQA do it?
* PPS. Is the DQA likely to bring better science to lawmakers or bring
commercial and political corruption to the science used by lawmakers? Here
are two harbingers of the DQA in action to help you judge.
1. A challenge to the classification of dioxin as a "known carcinogen"
(using provisions of the Public Health Act analogous to the DQA)
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-5364a.txt
2. A challenge to data on global warming (using the DQA, even though it is
not yet in effect, and the OMB guidelines to the DQA)
http://www.thecre.com/quality/20020211_climate-letter.html#start
----------
Developments
* IBM and the U.S. Department of Energy are collaborating on a Science
Grid. Grid computing makes data storage and processing power available to
users the way the electricity grid makes electrical power available to
consumers. The Science Grid will store about 1.3 petabytes of data
(equivalent to 200 times the content of the Library of Congress), and
support computation at more than 10 trillion calculations per second. U.S.
scientists should have access to the grid by 2004.
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16918.html
* The Louvre is digitizing its entire collection and putting it online free
of charge. It hopes to have 165,000 works online by 2003. The online
collection will include more than 130,000 drawings too fragile for public
display.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B3471299
(Thanks to ResearchBuzz.)
* A beta or "first internet test version" of the Scientific Information
Service (SIS) is now online. SIS is a free online archive of biomedical
research methods that make animal experimentation unnecessary. It also
includes related biomedical information and research results. SIS is
funded by the European Commission.
http://ecvam-sis.jrc.it/
(Thanks to EuroCrisNews.)
* The UK's Re:source (Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries) has
given £22,500 to the National Council on Archives to fund Phase 2 of the
Access to Archives (A2A) project, which makes nine centuries' worth of
archival content from around the UK freely available online.
http://www.resource.gov.uk/news/press_article.asp?articleid=314
* In a new pilot project, journal articles and data published by Ovid will
be available to 100 clinicians throughout England on a palmtop device,
Ov-@Hand.
http://www.biblio-tech.com/UKSG/S_PD.cfm?alert=170
* Bentley Systems has released Digital InterPlot, software to create
engineering plots and convert them to web-compatible formats. This allows
the online publishing and archiving of engineering content.
http://www.content-wire.com/Home/Index.cfm?ccs=86&cs=1621
* In 1991, a student in an English course at the University of Nebraska at
Lincoln wrote two essays containing intimate details of her private
life. Without her knowledge or consent, her professor posted the essays to
the internet in 1995. She discovered them in 1997 and filed suit against
the university in 1998. She recently won a ruling that her suit is not
barred by a statute of limitations. She is suing the university for
negligence in its supervision of her English professor. (PS: One
principle of the Budapest Open Access Initiative holds that no literature
should be freely accessible online without the author's consent. We were
thinking that authors should make the decision whether to give away their
writings or try to earn money from them. We weren't thinking about author
privacy, but clearly the author-consent principle applies here as well.)
http://chronicle.com/free/2002/03/2002032601t.htm
----------
New on the net
* The Text Encoding Initiative has approved and released version 4 of its
Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange (FOSN for 8/7/01,
8/23/01). Version 3 has been in use since 1994. The new version is a very
extensive document providing XML tags to mark nearly every conceivable
aspect of a text that might have to be identified or processed by
software. The online edition of version 4 conforms to its own guidelines
and contains the tags necessary to process it with existing XML tools.
http://www.tei-c.org/P4X/
----------
Share your thoughts
* The European Commission invites expressions of interest to help shape the
agenda for the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). The earlier Framework
Progammes not only funded research and technological development, but
funded ways to make their results freely available online. Expressions of
interest in FP6 will be accepted until June 7.
http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/eoi-instruments/
(Thanks to EuroCrisNews.)
----------
In other publications
* In the April issue of _Information Today_, Richard Poynder interviews
Elsevier CEO Derk Haank. Some highlights. (1) Haank explains the rapid
rise in journal prices through exchange rates and a vicious circle in which
library cancellations force publishers to recoup their costs from a smaller
subscriber base. Elsevier profit margins are decreasing. (2) His response
to frustrated librarians and researchers is to deliver more for the price,
not to decrease the price. "The long-term solution today...lies in
converting people to our electronic products, and then delivering a service
where people say, 'Wow!' If we can do this, then the money that our
customers spend with us will be perceived as reasonable." (3) He describes
the ScienceDirect licence as "too good to be true for users". (4) What
does he think of the Budapest Open Access Initiative? "We consider open
archiving to be in line with our policy of open linking, which we have
always supported." But doesn't this confuse standards of interoperability
with free online access? Perhaps, but "[i]f people feel unhappy and want
to develop alternatives, that is always possible. But is it wise?" He is
confident that open-access journals will not be able to cover their
costs. (4) He implies that Elsevier allows author self-archiving of
refereed postprints, but in fact it only allows the self-archiving of
unrefereed preprints. (5) He asks: if users are employed by institutions
that pay for their access to online journals, regardless of how much the
institution has to pay and regardless of how many fellow researchers must
do without, "[w]hat more would they want?"
http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr02/poynder.htm
* The April issue of _CLIRinghouse_ is devoted to advice on "How to Ensure
Quality When Investing in Digital Collections".
http://www.clir.org/pubs/cliringhouse/house08.html
* The April issue of _Learned Publishing_ is contains many FOS-related
articles:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U6A223C9
Fytton Rowland, What do users want?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E3D224C9
(Argues that different disciplines have different responses to FOS in part
because they differ in their percentages of journal readers employed
outside the academy. He also argues, as have Jean-Claude Guédon and
others, that researchers have an interest in FOS as readers that they do
not have as authors.)
Kent Anderson, The useful archive
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E5F262C9
(How moving archives online makes them more active and useful both for
publishers and readers.)
Keith Silver, Pressing the 'send' key --preferential journal access in
developing countries
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V21F51C9
(Reviews the major initiatives to provide free online access to developing
countries, tries to disentangle charitable motivations from PR, and
explores ways for the various initiatives to coordinate with one another to
make their projects more useful for end users.)
Walt Crawford, Free electronic refereed journals: getting past the arc of
enthusiasm.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q34362C9
(Tracks 104 free online refereed journals from 1995, and finds that more
than half are still publishing. While this is a survival rate he finds
promising, very few are included among ISI's indexed journals and very few
can be called significant in their fields. However, their survival rate
proves that the economics can work. "It's not easy, but it can work. It
does work....Libraries should pay attention to those journals and
librarians should be part of the efforts to expand the field. It is not a
total solution, but it is one counterbalance to the power of the
international journal publishers.")
Emily McElroy, Dos and don't for electronic journal management: some
advice for publishers
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R53F12C9
(Recommendations from librarians to publishers of ejournals, based on a
recent survey. We'd all be better off if publishers would adopt these
recommendations.)
Carol Hansen Montgomery, Print to electronic: measuring the operational
and economic implications of an electronic journal collection
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y36F21C9
(What does it really cost libraries to migrate from print journals to an
all-electronic collection?)
Lara Carim, Serial killers: how great is the e-print threat to periodical
publishers?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G59F32C9
(Tries to explain why online preprint archives have not disrupted
traditional journals. They are more central to some disciplines than
others, they do not use formal peer review, and they lack the "brand" of
established journals. They will become more significant, and threatening,
as we develop widely recognized metrics that measure the impact of
individual articles rather than whole journals.)
* In a story in the March 29 _HERO_ (Higher Education and Research
Opportunities in the UK), an anonymous author summarizes Stevan Harnad's
Self-Archiving Initiative and the Open Society Institute's Budapest Open
Access Initiative, and challenges journal publishers to respond. He/she
suspects that it's too late even for nimble and long overdue publisher
action to contain the FOS genie now that it is out of the bottle.
http://www.hero.ac.uk/inside_he/the_ghost_is_out_of_the_b1365.cfm
* In an editorial in the March 26 _Taipei Times_ Lai Ting-ming criticizes
western publishers for selling textbooks to third world students at first
world prices. There is a "textbook pricing crisis" in developing
countries, which is most commonly solved by illicit
photocopying. (PS: The serials pricing crisis is best solved by turning
to FOS. But the same solution isn't immediately available for textbooks
because most textbook authors do not consent to give away their contents.)
http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/03/26/story/0000129274
(Thanks to LIS News.)
* In the March 25 _Forbes_, Karen Southwick interviews John Seely Brown,
former head of Xerox PARC and co-author of _The Social Life of Information_.
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0325/046.html
(Thanks to LIS News.)
* In a March 25 open letter to the Judiciary Subcommittee of the Georgia
House of Representatives, Barbara Simons and Eugene Spafford urge the
legislators not to adopt a bill (SB214) that "would allow a producer or
publisher of a database unprecedented control over uses of information,
including the downstream use of facts. As facts are the building blocks of
knowledge and support innovation and the advancement of knowledge in the
public and private sectors, we have concluded that SB214 would have a
'chilling effect' on the U.S. scientific research enterprise."
http://www.acm.org/usacm/Georgia_Database_Bill.htm
(Thanks to Red Rock Eater.)
* The March issues of the _High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine_ contains
several FOS-related articles:
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/index.html
Luisella Goldschmidt-Clermont, Communication Patterns in High-Energy Physics
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/1/
(Argues in favor of a system for exchanging preprints that takes advantage
of modern advances in rapid communication. If this sounds like old hat,
the reason is that Goldschmidt-Clermont envisioned and inspired the online
preprint exchanges we see to day in so many disciplines. She wrote this
article in February 1965,and for complex reasons it has not been published
until now. For the past 37 years it has circulated as a preprint, guiding
the work of many network engineers and science librarians, including her
own subsequent work. Goldschmidt-Clermont was for many years the Senior
Scientific Information Officer at CERN and a consultant to SLAC and MIT.)
Jens Vigen, New Communication Channels: Electronic Clones, but Probably
the First Steps Toward a New Paradigm
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/2/
(Explains why Goldschmidt-Clermont's article, above, had to wait 37 years
for publication and describes the role she has played in various FOS
initiatives.)
Heath O'Connell, Physicists Thriving with Paperless Publishing
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/3/
(Describes the history of online publishing in high energy physics back to
1974.)
Bernd Wegner and Michael Jost, EMIS 2001: A Portal to Mathematics in Progress
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/4/
(Describe the recent and ongoing emergence of the European Mathematical
Information Service.)
Renato Spigler, Peer Reviewing and Electronic Publishing
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/5/
(Compares and evaluates different methods of using the web to facilitate
the peer review of ejournals.)
* In the latest (undated) issue of the _Journal of Electronic Publishing_,
there are several FOS-related articles.
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/
Julie Martin and David Coleman, Change the Metaphor: The Archive as an
Ecosystem
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-03/martin.html
(Online archives are continuously changing. Their utility and future
depend on how we conceptualize them, and we should conceptualize them more
as dynamic ecosystems than as passive repositories.)
Heather Joseph, An Economic Model for Web Enhancements to a Print Journal
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-03/joseph.html
(An FOS success story from a society publisher. "By July 1999, the journal
found that by increasing its income from other sources and reducing the
dependency on institutional subscriptions, it was indeed possible to
consider offering the electronic journal free electronically.")
Susan Lukesh, Revolutions and Images and the Development of
Knowledge: Implications for Research Libraries and Publishers of Scholarly
Communications
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-03/lukesh.html
(Considers FOS the "fourth revolution" in the dissemination of knowledge,
which she traces it to the writings of Stevan Harnad, and explores its
similarities to the third revolution, the Gutenberg press.)
* In the early spring issue of _Cites and Insights_, Walt Crawford responds
to Donald Hawkins on ebooks, recent web filtering developments, and the
last batch of papers from the Text-e symposium.
http://home.att.net/~wcc.techx/civ2i6.pdf
* In the Winter 2002 issue of _Issues in Science and Technology
Librarianship_, Leila Fernandez summarizes the results of survey of York
University scientists on their satisfaction with various current awareness
(CA) services. I'm fascinated by the possibilities for CA, and therefore
appreciated these details on what the York scientists use and what they
like. Even those using paper CA (like browsing journal TOCs in the
library) are enthusiastic about the possibilities for electronic CA when
more of the relevant literature is online. Most thought the services to
digest online scholarship for CA had not yet realized their full potential.
http://www.istl.org/istl/02-winter/article3.html
* In an issue of the _Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal_ that
appeared in November 2001, F. Gregory Lastowka argues that free online
access need not infringe or threaten copyright. However, current copyright
law tends to presume that copyright holders wish to limit access to their
work, and that reading, copying, and printing without paying are
infringements. Consequently, it overprotects online content and disregards
and entire class of copyright holders. In Section VIII of his article,
Lastowka shows how large the class of disregarded copyright holders is,
through a brief overview of the many kinds of free content on the
internet. In Section IX he offers some suggestions for amending the DMCA
to help (consensual) free access thrive alongside paid and limited access.
http://www.chaihana.com/Paper.pdf
----------
Following up
To see past coverage of these stories in FOSN, use the search engine at the
FOSN archive.
http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos/read
* More on the SSSCA/CBDTPA
Proponents (Hilary Rosen) and opponents (Senator Maria Cantwell, Intel's
Les Vadasz, EFF founder Mitch Kapor) debated the CBDTPA in Arizona.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-867918.html
Rep. Adam Schiff plans to introduce a bill in the House to match the CBDTPA
in the Senate.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51400,00.html
Schiff has sent an open letter to other members of the House, inviting
co-sponsors to his bill.
http://216.110.42.179/docs/cbdtpa/schiff.dear.colleague.032702.html
(Thanks to Politech.)
Dan Gilmour has had enough. His message to content companies: "I'm not a
thief. I'm a customer. When you treat me like a thief, I won't be your
customer."
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/2922052.htm
Richard Forno compares Fritz Hollings and Jack Valenti to the
Taliban. "CBDTPA would effectively compel a huge, dynamic industry
--comprised of large and small companies, individuals, and academic
researchers-- to redefine itself simply to preserve the obsolete business
models of the American entertainment industry....It's high time that the
entertainment companies learn that if they treat their customers as
criminals, they'll not only have fewer customers, but many more criminals
to contend with. How's that for economic growth?"
http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-03.html
(Thanks to C-FIT.)
Alex Salkever condemns the CBDTPA in a commentary for _Business
Week_. "[T]he proposed cure [for online piracy] is far worse than the
disease....[T]he entertainment industry is hell-bent on stifling
technology, rather than using it in ways that eventually could become
highly profitable."
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2002/nf20020327_2364.htm
(Thanks to Current Cites.)
Jeremy Bowers has written an intelligent satire of the CBDTPA, highlighting
its barefaced absurdity.
http://www.jerf.org/writings/CBDTPA.html
(Thanks to C-FIT.)
Why do Democrats tend to support the CBDTPA and Republicans oppose
it? Follow the money, says Glen Reynolds. He itemizes exactly how much
each Democrat co-sponsor of the bill received from the entertainment
industry in 2000. And he notes the irony. The democrats usually defend
consumers against corporations, but the CBDTPA "is a complete sellout to
corporate interests". He expects that even if Republicans don't point out
this hypocrisy in the next elections, voters will see it for themselves.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U17723A9
(Thanks to Politech.)
Michael Fraase has written a very thorough backgrounder on the CBDTPA,
covering the different media affected, the relevant history of copyright
law, and the money flowing to the U.S. Senators co-sponsoring the bill.
http://www.farces.com/stories/storyReader$414
(Thanks to Politech.)
* Jason Thomas argues that markets can give Hollywood all it wants and is
entitled to get, but that Hollywood prefers the certainty of legislation to
the hard work and uncertainty of markets.
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=918
* Paul Boutin puts the CBDTPA on the "axis of evil for technology". Boutin
interviews tech people on standards-setting committees, and concludes that
there are [in this sector] three major objections to the CBDTPA: (1) the
FCC will not only design hardware, but design the hardware/software DRM
standard, (2) the standard may depend on watermarking digital content,
which will not work, and (3) the standard will favor mass-market entertainment.
http://salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/29/hollings_bill/
* Jacob Heilbrunn calls the CBDTPA "Big Brother tactics". In addition to a
routine list of the problems with the bill, he argues that Hollywood can't
be trusted to deliver high-quality digital content even if it gets the copy
protection scheme it says it needs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000022994mar31.story
(Thanks to Red Rock Eater.)
* More on filtering and the CIPA trial
Coverage of the trial (in roughly chronological order)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51312,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51309,00.html
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175448.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-868268.html
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16930.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20020326_311.html
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/2936807.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51338,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51339,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/national/31LIBR.html
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175560.html
The Australian Broadcasting Authority has released its report on the
effectiveness of internet filters.
http://www.dimi.uniud.it/~mizzaro/AH2002/
(Thanks to Politech.)
The American Library Association (which opposes CIPA) has prepared a press
kit on the issues.
http://www.ala.org/pio/presskits/cipa/index.html
While U.S. citizens fight compulsory filtering in public libraries, German
citizens fight compulsory filters for the general public, implemented
through ISPs.
http://www.netzzensur.de/index_en.html
Opponents of the filtering have set up this online petition.
http://www.odem.org/informationsfreiheit/en/
(Thanks to Politech.)
* More on the Google-Scientology case
Dave Winer describes the problem and blames the DMCA. "We're getting the
first real demo of a nightmarish scenario --a constitutional one, set up by
the DMCA. And it looks like it's going to get much worse before it gets
better."
http://news.com.com/2010-1076-866940.html?tag=nc.ne.dht.nl-sty.0
Critics of scientology and Google's action have tried to buy adwords
through Google's advertising program and use their ads to express their
criticism. Google is rejecting these ads.
http://www.microcontentnews.com/articles/googleround3.htm
(Thanks to Politech.)
* More on government deletion of online information
The government has now deleted 50 year old records of cold war
intelligence. Historians have protested that the deletions cannot serve
present-day national security. An official for the National Archives said
the records had been erroneously released in the first place.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/03/032502.html
(Thanks to Politech.)
* More on the Andrew Bunner DeCSS case
The DVD Copy Control Association petitioned the California Supreme Court to
bring California law into accord with the federal ruling in the 2600
Magazine case. This would require overturning the California Court of
Appeals' decision that source code was pure speech for the purpose of First
Amendment protection. That ruling acquitted Andrew Bunner for posting the
DeCSS source code to the net.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175512.html
* More on the Elcomsoft/Sklyarov case
Elcomsoft lawyers filed another motion to dismiss the charges against them.
http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1978&nl
Jason Hoppin reviews the issues in the case.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DE1489
----------
Catching up (old news I should have discovered earlier)
* The Netherlands Institute for Scientific Information Services (NIWI) is a
free online archive disseminating scientific information in biomedicine,
the social sciences, history, and Dutch language and literature. It also
provides information on Dutch researchers in all fields and their research
projects.
http://www.niwi.knaw.nl/us/homepag.htm
(Thanks to EuroCrisNews.)
----------
Correction
* In the last issue I said that the individual subscription price for
Oxford Reference Online was $250/year. Bob Gaskins writes to say that he
has subscribed for only $89/year. The lesson is either that Oxford should
change its web site or that you shouldn't pay retail. Thanks, Bob.
----------
Conferences
If you plan to attend one of the following conferences, please share your
observations with us through our discussion forum.
* New Developments in Digital Libraries
http://www.iceis.org/workshops/nddl/nddl-cfp.htm
Ciudad Real, Spain, April 2-3
* The New Information Order and the Future of the Archive
http://www.ed.ac.uk/iash/archive.conference.html
Edinburgh, March 20-23
* Copyright Management in Higher Education: Ownership, Access and Control
http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/copy_manage2002/
Adelphi, Maryland, April 4-5
* Global Knowledge Partnership Annual Meeting
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F21C3456
Addis Ababa, April 4-5
* What Scholars Need to Know to Publish Today: Digital Writing and Access
for Readers
http://library.albany.edu/symposium/
Albany, New York, April 8
* International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~srimani/itcc2002/cfp.html
Las Vegas, April 8-10
* E-Content 2002. Dreams and Realities. [On eBooks]
http://litc.sbu.ac.uk/econtent/
London, April 10
* NetLab and Friends: 10 Years of Digital Library Development
http://www.lub.lu.se/netlab/conf/
Lund, April 10-12
* E-Content 2002 (on ebooks)
http://litc.sbu.ac.uk/econtent/index.html
London, April 11
* Censorship and Free Access to Information in Libraries and on the Internet
http://www.db.dk/kon/temadag/Censurogytringsfrihed_eng.htm
Copenhagen, April 11
* International Learned Journals Seminar: We Can't Go On Like This: The
Future of Journals
http://www.alpsp.org/s120402.htm
London, April 12
* SIAM International Conference on Data Mining
http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm02/
Arlington, Virginia, April 11-13
* Creating access to information: EBLIDA workshop on getting a better deal
from your information licences
http://www.eblida.org/conferences/licensing/licensing.htm
The Hague, April 12
* Copyright in the Private Sector: An Engine of Free Expression or a Tool
of Private Censorship?
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/aelj/new_page_3.htm
New York, April 15
* Licensing Electronic Resources to Libraries
http://www.arl.org/scomm/licensing/pworkshop.html
Philadelphia, April 15
* United Kingdom Serials Group Annual Conference and Exhibition
http://www.uksg.org/conference.htm
University of Warwick, April 15- 17
* Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy
http://www.cfp2002.org/
San Francisco, April 16-19
* EDUCAUSE Networking 2002
http://www.educause.edu/netatedu/events/net2002/
Washington, D.C., April 17-18
* Museums and the Web 2002
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/
Boston, April 17-20
* Legal Guidelines for Use of Intellectual Property in Higher Education
http://www.oneonta.edu/conference/copyright/
Oneonta, NY, April 19
* OCLC Institute. Steering by Standards. (A series of satellite
videoconferences.)
http://www.oclc.org/institute/events/sbs.htm
OAIS, April 19. Metadata standards in the future, May 29.
* Information, Knowledges and Society: Challenges of A New Era
http://www.congreso-info.cu/venglish.htm
Havana, April 22-26
* Current Awareness Services on the Net
http://ce.fis.utoronto.ca/courses/cason.asp
Toronto, April 22 - June 3
* DAI Institute on The State of Digital Preservation: An International
Perspective
http://www.clir.org/agenda-digpres.html
Washington, D.C., April 24-25
* CLIR Sponsors' Symposium: New Challenges, New Solutions: Libraries for
the Future
http://www.clir.org/agenda_sponsorsymp.html
Washington, D.C., April 26
* The European Library: The Gate to Europe's Knowledge: Milestone Conference
http://www.europeanlibrary.org/
Frankfurt am Main, April 29-30
* WebSearch University
http://www.websearchu.com/
Stamford CT, April 30 - May 1; Washington DC, September 23-24; Chicago,
Octeober 22-23; Dallas, November 19-20.
* Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting
http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/events_01annualMtg.shtml
San Diego, May 4-7
* Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
http://arbor.ee.ntu.edu.tw/pakdd02/
Taipei, May 6-8
* DLM-Forum 2002. Access and Preservation of Electronic Information. Best
Practices and Solutions.
http://europa.eu.int/historical_archives/dlm_forum/doc/forum2002announcementrev2.pdf
http://www.dlmforum2002.org/angles/inscripcions.htm
Barcelona, May 7-8
* ContentWorld 2002 [mostly for commercial content]
http://www.contentworld.com/conference/2002conference/index.html
San Jose, California, May 13-16
* National Conference for Digital Government Research
http://www.dgrc.org/dgrc/dgo2002/
Los Angeles, May 19-22
* Libraries in the Digital Age 2002
http://www.ffzg.hr/infoz/lida/
Dubrovnik, May 21-26
* CAiSE '02. Advanced Information Systems Engineering
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/caise02/
Toronto, May 27-31
* Workshop on Personalization Techniques in Electronic Publishing on the
Web: Trends and Perspectives
http://www.dimi.uniud.it/~mizzaro/AH2002/
Malaga, Spain, May 28
* Society for Scholarly Publishing (AAP)
http://www.sspnet.org/public/articles/index.cfm?Cat=5
Boston, May 29-31
* Off and Wall and Online: Providing Web Access to Cultural Collections
http://www.nedcc.org/owol/owol1.htm
Lexington, Massachusetts, May 30-31
* Advancing Knowledge: Expanding Horizons for Information Science
http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/cais-acsi2002/
Toronto, May 30 - June 1
* Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2002
http://ce.byu.edu/cw/etd2002/
Provo, Utah, May 30 - June 1
----------
The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter is supported by a grant from the
Open Society Institute.
http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/
==========
This is the Free Online Scholarship Newsletter (ISSN 1535-7848).
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested
colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, you may
subscribe by signing up at the FOS home page.
FOS home page, general information, subscriptions, editorial position
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
FOS Newsletter, subscriptions, back issues
http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos
FOS Discussion Forum, subscriptions, postings
http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum
Guide to the FOS Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm
Sources for the FOS Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm
Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm
** If you receive this newsletter by email, then please delete the "easy
unsubscribe" footer (below) before forwarding it to friends or
colleagues. It contains a code identifying you as the original recipient
of the email. If someone down the forwarding chain clicks on the
unsubscribe link, then you will be unsubscribed. **
|
|
 |
|
