Early CLOCKSS Lessons
Reprinted with permission from the LOCKSS Alliance mailing list: ------------------- Dear Colleagues, The CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS) Board would like to take this opportunity to apprise you of our progress, to share early lessons, and to encourage you to participate in the process of building this shared resource. The CLOCKSS participants (major academic publishers, research libraries, and the Stanford University team) are building a community-governed, stable, digital archive for published scholarly content. CLOCKSS access is unbundled from fees: after a “trigger†event (when a publisher is no longer able to provide electronic access to some or all of its archived material), content will be freely available to all. Many libraries have moved away from building and preserving collections, and there is increasing interest in community stewardship and preservation of, and guaranteed long-term access to, scholarly publications. Since its inception early in 2006, the CLOCKSS members made significant strides towards the effective management of archived materials, and learned some important lessons. We are also extremely proud to have been awarded the ALA ALCTS 2007 Outstanding Collaboration Citation, which will be formally presented at ALA’s annual meeting in Washington in June. To find out more about our early lessons and progress, go to www.clockss.org and click on the link “CLOCKSS Lessons.†As always, we welcome comments and suggestions. Please let us hear from you. Sincerely, Vicky Reich vreich@stanford.edu -------------------- I took Vicky's advice and checked out some of the CLOCKSS lessons. While I think you should read the entire five page documents, here are some good quotes that I think are worthwhile to documents librarians. Just think of "federal government" whenever you see the word "publisher":
The most important, and first, lesson learned by CLOCKSS participants was that commercial, university press, and society publishers; and librarians can collaborate effectively and thrive by working as equals to build a community-governed archive. The CLOCKSS Board meets formally twice each month by phone and twice a year in person. The Board establishes policies and implements procedures for wide range of social, business, content, and technical issues.---------
The archived content is a valuable asset, into which scholars, librarians, and publishers have made considerable long-term investments; it must be protected from a wide variety of possible disruptions whether deliberate or accidental. The CLOCKSS archive network is made up of widely distributed host libraries spanning geographic, political and legal boundaries, and this global network, under the stewardship of those who’ve invested so heavily in it, will protect these important assets for future generations of scholars.------------
In February 2007, the CLOCKSS team first successfully demonstrated the process that would follow a trigger event (retrieving preserved presentation content from the network of CLOCKSS boxes, transferring it to a publishing platform, and making it available to readers).-------------
Over the long term, the CLOCKSS Board intends to raise a capital fund to pay for most (if not all) of the archive’s ongoing expenses. Digital preservation requires continuous processes; when active preservation ceases, materials are lost. By building a capital fund and becoming selfsustaining, CLOCKSS will ensure that the preservation processes continue over time, regardless of the availability of outside sources of revenue (a circumstance with which libraries are wellfamiliar – witness the recent rescission of Library of Congress NDIIPP funding to help finance other American government priorities).---------------- No one agency can or should preserve government information all on it's own. There is another way. Continue reading
Does it still cost libraries $4 bucks for every GPO dollar?
One of the ways we FGI volunteers try to keep up with the government information news is through the use of Google Alerts. Sometimes these "new alerts" dredge up old information that is still of interest. For example, today's alert looking for instances of "Free Government Information", brought out this interesting item from the new ERIC database: ERIC #: EJ491407 Title: Costing Out a Depository Library: What Free Government Information? Authors: Dugan, Robert E.; Dodsworth, Ellen M. Source: Government Information Quarterly, v11 n3 p261-84 1994 Back in 1994, the authors came to this somewhat startling conclusion in their abstract:
In 1993, the Georgetown University library spent over four dollars to support its depository program for every dollar the Government Printing Office spent to distribute the information. Methods used to calculate costs, cost-sharing issues, and suggested action are discussed. Appendixes include a summary of the cost-compilation model and a selective bibliography. (Contains 30 references.) (KRN)Anyone out know if this is still true? Although printed output of government is down drastically, people still need to discover, describe and provide access to government information resources. A quick browse of the first two screens of ERIC documents related to Depository Libraries took me back to 2001 without a similar study. Please let us know about more recent studies in the comments section. Continue reading
Gary Price on Library Geeks podcast
Gary Price, our March blogger of the month was just interviewed on Daniel Chudnov's great new library geek podcast. It's great to hear Gary, to put a voice to a blogger so to speak. and Congratulations Gary on your recent marriage!! Continue reading
Should copyright be abolished?
Thought you had a handle on the concept of copyright? Think again! Last week there was a post on Slashdot entitled, "Should Copyright Be Abolished?" by Greg Bulmash (full article posted on his blog, "Brainhandles"). I think this discussion has relevance to government documents and libraries in general, since we are steadily moving away from a copyright information world and into a licensing information world. I'm trying to get my head around this shift and so welcome the reading material. The ideas of attribution, distribution, DRM, fair use, licensing, public domain... all feature prominently in this discussion. Bulmash waded into the copyright debate, taking on those in the tech community that seek to abolish copyright. The gist of Bulmash's argument was that "you can't oppose copyright and support open source." Bulmash opines that the GNU Public License, the license under which much open-source software is distributed (there are several flavors of open source licenses, but I won't get into that here), depends on copyright to be enforceable. Therefore, you can't have the GPL without copyright. Bulmash argues for reforming copyright, not abolishing it -- "surgery, not euthanasia."
These members of the anti-copyright crowd cite the GPL (GNU Public License) as an alternative to copyright without any sense of the ironic fact that the GPL can't exist without copyright. They're proposing a solution while simultaneously advocating the destruction of the thing that makes their solution workable. While the GPL is less restrictive than other licensing methods, it's a license and it does impose some restrictions on or conditions for use of the work. It is a method of controlling your work. But without copyright, the GPL could not be enforced.Bulmash was answered the next day by Karl Fogel of Question Copyright in his essay, "Supporting Open Source While Opposing Copyright." Fogel makes a very compelling argument that the abolition of copyright doesn't necessarily go against the spirit of the GPL, nor does the GPL need to rely on copyright in order to forward the cause of open source or free software (two different, but conflated ideas!). He suggested that Bulmash, "mixes up two completely different concepts: the right to be credited for a work, and the right to control distribution of that work." Fogel goes on to state that copyright is simply the current enforcement tool du jour, but is not a natural and uncontroversial "right."
The basic argument of copyright abolitionists is that people should be free to share when sharing does not result in any diminution of supply. The GPL simply uses copyright law in a jiujitsu-like manner to enforce this principle, in a legal environment where sharing is prohibited by default and must be explicitly permitted to be legal. All the GPL does is create a space where permission to share is enforced. Take his exercise in imagination all the way: imagine if we had laws that did away with most prohibitions against sharing, but that enforced crediting and permitted authors to enforce GPL-like provisions requiring sharing.and...
Put bluntly: a future law that merely allows authors to enforce sharing need have little in common with today's laws that allow the restriction of sharing. Since these two things are more opposite than alike, calling them both "copyright" doesn't make much sense. But that is what Bulmash does, when he implies that the current copyright regime (or something structurally similar to it) is the only way the GPL could be enforced.There are some great comments in both threads so if you have the time, brew a pot of tea, sit down and wade through them. You'll be glad you did because this debate definitely has import to what librarians do! Continue reading
Google and state documents
According to Library Journal, Google announced last week that it had formed "partnerships" with four states, Arizona, California, Utah, and Virginia, to offer index and search capabilities for public information in state government databases. Google's Public Sector program seeks to make government information, much of it in the dark web of databases, more accessible through their SiteMaps protocol. A Sitemap is "an XML file that lists the URLs for a site. It allows webmasters to include additional information about each URL: when it was last updated, how often it changes, and how important it is in relation to other URLs in the site. This allows search engines to crawl the site more intelligently" (Wikipedia). I'm all for making govt information at all levels more findable to search engines, and SiteMap is an interesting way for Web masters to do that -- sort of a MARC record for crawlers. Another way to do that is for libraries to write/blog about their collections, their documents, the questions they answer and the resources they use to answer those questions. Libraries can also use web services like del.icio.us to collect and describe the Web sites that they use on a daily basis (see our tag cloud for an example). (On a side note, has anyone seen 50 matches, a search engine that only crawls web sites that were bookmarked or voted for by people, in sites like del.icio.us, digg and reddit?) These will in effect release the information that libraries traditionally hold in closed systems and databases, make our collections (both digital AND physical!) more findable and vet the Web for our users. Got other ideas for "info-catharsis"? Let us know in the comments. Continue reading