Thomas offers its first RSS feed

RSS & Email, Law Library of Congress The Law Library of Congress now offers an RSS feed for THOMAS: Daily Digest: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/rss/dd.xml . It's pretty bare bones. Just a link to full text, but it is a start! Hat tip to John Wonderlich! Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Brewster Kahle on Google Book Digitization and the Future of Libraries

Of all the things I have read about the Google book digitization project and its consequences, this is one of the best. Listen to the interview (Lunchtime Listen!) or read the transcript.

This is relevant to government documents since so many are in the project. The way they are treated and controlled by Google and Google's contracts and licenses and agreements will have lasting impact on long-term, free, public access. Kahle highlights two things that, for me, are very important. First, at least some of the participating libraries are relying solely on Google and its restrictions and are not even getting digital copies from Google although they could.
BREWSTER KAHLE: Let's take the out of copyright, the stuff that's really--it's public domain, meaning belongs to the public. It's lived long enough to become part of the public sphere. But there are perpetual restrictions that the libraries must perform, that if they get these digital copies back, they must put up restrictions on use, such that they cannot be accessible by the general public. AMY GOODMAN: Who can they be accessed by? BREWSTER KAHLE: People on campus can use them, for the out-of-copyright works, but just on campus. And otherwise, they have to put up restrictions. And what's turning out is a lot of these libraries aren't even bothering to get copies back, because what can they use them for? I mean, in the future, people are going to want to have access to as many books as possible. And what Google is doing is pulling these together for many libraries to build a great collection. Terrific. But the bits and pieces that are going back to these libraries don't make up a great collection. And what they can do with them is very, very limited. So these libraries aren't, in many cases, even bothering to get the digital copies back.
Second, when Kahle asked if Google would share copies of digitized books with the Internet Archive, Google refused.
AMY GOODMAN: Conceivably, Google could give you the digitized copies, is that right? BREWSTER KAHLE: Yes, Google could, but they have refused. AMY GOODMAN: Why? BREWSTER KAHLE: They say that they've paid for the work. They want to be the place that people go to get them. So they are going to be the proprietors of the public domain.
Although Google claims its mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," it would be more accurate to say its mission is to make money controlling the world's information. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Lieberman’s Resolution for Access to CRS Reports

Senator Joe Lieberman, long time advocate of "CRS Reports to the People!" recently introduced S.Res.118 as seen in the Congressional Record, from April 29, 2009. You can read more about the resolution at PolicyBeta's post. The resolution would allow congressmen

to provide access to CRS Reports to the public on an official website. Rather than creating a new tool for public access, the resolution would let Members and Committees share reports with the public using the same online services that are available on Congress’ internal CRS website...the new resolution also requires that an index of CRS issue briefs and reports to be made public.
Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Book Ripper (bkrpr) could facilitate small digitization projects

A post just now about recommendations for book scanners on code4lib reminded me of a comment from a Council member last week at Spring '09 DLC. The Council member said that his relatively small academic library might not have the technical or monetary means to gear up a large scale digitization project, but that he was more than willing to pitch in with small projects or one-off digitizations if there was, for example, a list of items of importance from which he could pick and choose. I commented then and will repeat now that digitization doesn't necessarily mean a library has to purchase a high end digitization unit (aka the Scribe) from the Internet Archive for $15k -- although I *love* the work that the Open Content Alliance (OCA) is doing! A small project could easily be done with off-the-shelf hardware and open source software (The Scribe's software is in fact freely available under a GPL license on SourceForge!). One such project that I'd recommend you look into is the Book Ripper project (bkrpr for short!). (Disclosure: my friend Karl Fogel is involved in bkrpr). They've even got instructions for building the camera mount. All the hardware is cheap and/or easy to build and the software is free and open source (they're experimenting now with OCRopus for character recognition processing). Check it out!

Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Reflections on DLC Spring ’09 meeting

It's hard to believe it's been a week since the Spring '09 Depository Library Council meeting in Tampa. The live-blogging didn't work out as well as we'd hoped due to the wifi snafu (note to Hyatt Regency: WTF, there's FREE wifi at Motel 6's and their ilk, B&Bs etc, why would you charge a conference $150/day/person for wifi?! And why would you NOT have a T-Mobile Hotspot available for those who paid for wifi in their rooms?! ). On the plus side, I want to thank Shari Laster for uploading her notes to the live-blog interface and the several others (Altair77, reblakeley, danwho, rhonabwy, fakegodort, amyewest, vdglenn) who tweeted along with the conference. I put my notes up online for those who are interested. All notes and tweets have made their way into the live-blog interface. This has been the first DLC in quite some time where the news and energy (at least for me!) has been more good than bad! Depository Library Council seemed more energetic (no offense intended to past Councils!) and had some very positive recommendations for GPO (see draft recommendations below). I'm most excited about the following:

  1. recommendation to request funding for grants to states for collaborative digitization projects
  2. recommendation to coordinate collaborative digitization projects
I'm not so jazzed on the recommendation to hire an outside consultant (especially a marketing consultant!), but am willing to follow along on that one and see where it leads. I had lots of fruitful discussions with people. At one point in the Council session, someone on council asked the audience how many libraries were willing to work with GPO on digital deposit and local, distributed preservation and at least 15 hands went up right away! People are really interested in increased access and cataloging. there's interest from quite a few depositories to reduce (some want to greatly reduce) their paper collections and only have digital. Toward that end, Chris Brown from UDenver had a great presentation on his nifty item selection tool (way to go Chris!). But there was also equally positive energy in the crowd that paper collections should not be discounted. The thing that really warmed my heart was that the idea of digital deposit is *finally* gaining real traction. There's interest in actual digital deposit of those digital docs rather than simply having links to GPO in bibliographic records. AND, GPO officials seem genuinely interested in working on digital deposit as part of a distributed preservation plan (OMG!!! can't hardly believe that!). I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts on how digital deposit should work. On the not-so-good side, the first session on Monday was reserved for statements from University Librarians (ULs) housing FDLP collections. From their statements, I got the feeling that documents librarians need to do a LOT more talking to our ULs. To a person, the UL perspective was that paper collections need to be digitized NOW because documents collections take up space too valuable for documents ghettos, space that they'd like to use for other (sexier?) things. I was disappointed that many of the ULs didn't stay for the other 2 days of conference because they would have seen that in fact the depository community is doing many positive things to make documents collections more useful and findable, docs librarians are working hard to reduce or save time spent on depository processes and that there are some really exciting collaborative initiatives starting to bubble up and move forward. I'd love to hear others' reflections on DLC Spring '09. Please post in the comments sections.
DLC spring '09 Tampa NOTES WEDNESDAY Council recommendations: These are draft since council has not finished. 1) to meet the goals of providing no fee, permanent public access, Council recommends that GPO hire an outside consultant to deliver a range of models on how libraries can better provide govt information to the public in the 21st century for consideration by council. This consultant report will reconsider the operations of the FDLP in the context of the electronic age and possible future teechnologies. This reconsideration will address how best to maintain and utilize tangible legacy collections and US govt digital assets to best meet the information needs of the American public. Rationale: based on feedback from the community, council feels it is crucial to have a neutral outside party develop possible new scenarios for the 21st century FDLP. (Bernadine Abbott Hoduski suggests that GPO request JCP to get GAO to look into this rather than an outside consultant.) 2) Council further recommends that GPO request funding for grants to states ("states" to be wordsmithed) for collaborative digitization projects. Rationale: as information users rely more and more heavily on electronic resources, it is crucial that the legacy got documents collection be digitized. 3) council further recommends that GPO create a list of libraries willing to participate in collaborative digitization projects and take the lead in coordinating these projects. Rationale: GPO needs to take a more active role in coordination of the digitization of legacy collection. Council further feels that commercial sector digitization projects with access restrictions do not diminish GPO and FDLP responsibility to provide no fee, permanent public access to digital versions of govt publications. 4) Council further recommends that GPO report at fall 2009 meeting on efforts to simplify the discard process. Rationale: depository discard process is extremely time consuming and burdensome for both selectives and regionals. As pressures grow both in large and small selectives to reduce collection size, the process needs to be speedier and less staff intensive. There will be other recommendations (currently drafting) regarding item selection, quality control, dark archives, and weeding material. Council adjourned.
Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Archives

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM