David Rosenthal: Stepping Twice Into The Same River
Last month, David Rosenthal, chief scientist on the LOCKSS Project, gave the keynote address entitled Stepping Twice Into The Same River to the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) and the annual International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries (ICADL) (or just ICDL/ICADL!) in Queensland, Australia. It was wide-ranging, thoughtful and provocative -- in short everything you'd want in a keynote to a major international digital library conference. David hit on publishers and the publishing industry and practices, scholarly communication, digital preservation, the intersection between technology and economics and the current state and future of libraries. He makes a great argument that the upheaval and disruption currently affecting the 3 parallel fields of publishing, libraries, and archives (what he terms "technological and economic discontinuity") creates the perfect opportunity for radical technological change toward a collaborative archival academic cloud in order to define the future of information access and preservation (at least in terms of universities and scholarly communication) in beneficial and long-term sustainable ways. Here are some main points that I gleaned from David's presentation:
- publishers are in a similar boat to news organizations and have sacrificed long-term viability for short term economic gain -- and that's going to ultimately destroy them;
- libraries and archives need to focus their preservation goals on dynamic services rather than the static content:
"...it's less about what we are preserving and more about how preserved information is accessed. Less about HTML and other formats, and more about HTTP and other protocols. The reason is that static information is a degenerate case of dynamic information; a system designed for dynamic information can easily handle static information. The converse isn't true."
- distributed digital preservation and archives offer the more economically and technologically sound opportunities in the long run;
- data preservation will take steady long-term funding;
- since ingest is a major cost for any digital preservation system, universities need to start seeing their Web space/infrastructure in terms of academic clouds rather than leasing from commercial cloud companies like Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2):
"Unless something dramatic happens, scholars who want to publish services wrapped around their, or other people's, data will take the path of least resistance and use Amazon's services. Miss a credit card payment, your data and service are history. Worse, do we really want to end up with Amazon owning the world's science and culture?"... ...What Universities get for the extra cost is the permanence they need. The permanence comes from the fact that the University already has its hands on the data and the services in which it is wrapped, instantiated in highly robust and preservable hardware. Thus, no ingest costs and very low preservation costs. With the model of Amazon and a separate archiving service, as well as paying Amazon, Universities have to pay the archiving service, and pay the ingest costs. When these extra costs are taken in to account, because the ingest costs dominate, it is likely that Amazon would be more expensive.
NARA Announces Launch of “Our Archives” Wiki
"The National Archives announces the launch today of its first public wiki called "Our Archives" on Wikispaces located at: http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net. "Our Archives" provides a collaborative space for members of the public, researchers, and staff to share knowledge about National Archives records, resources and research. The wiki is an opportunity for researchers, historians, archivists, and citizen archivists to work together to create pages on specific records or topics as well as to share information and resources to connect with other researchers." -- National Archives Announces Launch of New "Our Archives" Wiki. Press Release, National Archives (July 8, 2010). Hat tip to BeSpacific. Continue reading
Courts say that 75 Percent of PACER Users Won’t Pay for Access Under New Fee Schedule
75 Percent of PACER Users Won’t Pay for Access Under New Fee Schedule. Press Release. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (July 09, 2010). The complete release:
A recent change in the fee exemption policy of the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records system means that 75 percent of PACER users won’t pay any fee this year. The policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States approved last March 16 an adjustment to the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule so that users are not billed unless they accrue charges of more than $10 of PACER usage in a quarterly billing cycle. That adjustment was implemented almost immediately after the Conference action. Previously, users were not billed until their accounts totaled at least $10 in a one-year period. The result of the adjustment has the effect of quadrupling the amount of data available without charge. About 50 percent of all PACER users did not pay a fee in 2009, and preliminary indications are that the percentage will climb to 75 in 2010 under the new fee schedule.Hat tip to BeSpacific. Continue reading
More news on FR 2.0
We're getting closer to the release date for Federal Register 2.0, the Office of the Federal Register's joint project with GPO to take the XML version of the FR and make it into a "newspaper" of regulatory activity.
- National Archives Unveils New Federal Register 2.0 Web Site to Mark 75th Anniversary. Press release (12 July 2010).
Belated introduction of Shari Laster, guest blogger for July
My sincere apologies for not introducing Shari Laster sooner as our guest blogger for July (I swear I have an excuse :-)) Shari's taking time out of her busy schedule (she just started a 3-year term on Depository Library Council!) to find and write about juicy documents tidbits on FGI. Thanks and take it away, Shari!! Continue reading