- LIS-Forum - ncsi.iisc.ernet.in

The future of rural computing and connectivity
by Subbiah Arunachalam 23 Dec '04

23 Dec '04

Friends: The recent Forrester reporter on PC growth has made some interesting observations, especially relevant to those of us who are working with the rural poor. We need to pay attention to wireless technologies, Linux and other open source software, and low-cost rugged computers and communication devices. "The personal computer market in India will see a massive boom by 2010, according to a new report by Forrester Research. India, says the report, will add 80 million (8 crore) new PC users by 2010. Despite gaining prominence as a center for outsourcing, India today has one of the lowest adoption rates in the world. However, PC adoption will grow at a 37 per cent annual rate through the end of the decade." "Rural mass market -- It'll be a long-term challenge for the PC industry to attract this segment to the PC platform; they are likely to choose PC alternatives, such as smartphones. This group is rural, low-income, and very price-sensitive. They lack community infrastructure, funding, communications, and reliable power sources to support PC platforms." "The other important factor is the Windows versus Linux battle. The advantage goes to Linux, says Forrester. Establishing the Windows platform in these new markets will be an uphill battle. No Windows legacy in these markets means that local manufacturers can drive down prices by installing Linux instead." "The third factor is the battle between the wired and the wireless providers. Forrester says the advantage goes to wireless. Investments in landline networks outside major city centers won't pay off, so rural populations must wait for new wireless technologies like WiMAX and 3G GSM networks." Best wishes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam]

1 0

On open access - a recent article by a freelance science writer
by Subbiah Arunachalam 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Friends: Here is an article from SLATE. Barbara and Leslie, we may enlist her as a cosignatory in our future articles! Regards. Arun http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/ medical examiner Health and medicine explained. Open Access Should scientific articles be available online and free to the public? By Amanda Schaffer Posted Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2004, at 1:21 PM PT If you're like most Americans, chances are at some point you've searched online for medical or health-related information. In fact, of Americans with Internet access, more have used the Web to answer health-related queries (66 percent) than to check sports scores (43 percent), hunt for a job (42 percent), or find a date (9 percent), according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project. There is clearly no shortage of medical and pseudomedical information available online. But some physicians and members of Congress have pointed out that much of the best literature, published in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine, is not immediately available for free to the public-and they have begun to argue that it should be. To the consternation of journal publishers-many of them not-for-profit associations that rely heavily on journal subscription fees for their revenue-the National Institutes of Health has thrown its considerable weight behind the notion of free access to biomedical research. In September, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni proposed that all NIH-funded scientists provide full-text copies of their research papers to PubMed Central, an online government archive, once these papers have been accepted (and thus vetted) by peer-reviewed journals; PubMed Central would then post the work, citing both the author and the journal where it first appeared, six months after publication. (The original plan called for immediate access but was mitigated in response to publishers' outcry.) The initiative is expected to cost roughly $2 million to $4 million per year, a small fraction of the NIH's total budget. As the NIH considers final guidelines, a vitriolic debate has erupted in the scientific community: How best to balance the needs of journal publishers against those of scientists, students, and members of the general public who would benefit from unfettered access? Increased access is a worthwhile enterprise. Highly accessible, electronic archives are simply too valuable to scientists-and, by extension, to the public who may eventually benefit from their work-not to establish and support as a matter of public policy. Scientists at large research universities have access to many journals, but increasingly there are gaps in library collections, and not all publications are easily searchable. The problem is of course even worse outside of major institutions and in countries other than the United States. A more robust public database would go a long way toward speeding and enhancing scientific work. (There is, in fact, precedent for this approach to biological data. Click here to read more.) The public would also benefit directly from greater access. True, not every hair-splitting research paper in, say, cell biology or biochemistry will be of interest to the populace at large. But for patients who have rare diseases or are considering controversial therapies, access to cutting-edge medical research may be vital-especially since new work is accruing so quickly that even the most assiduous general practitioners may have a hard time keeping abreast of it all. In addition, it doesn't make sense for journals to charge fees for access to primary research articles when that research is supported largely by public funding. Academic scientists, some backed by hundreds of thousands of dollars of public moneys, provide their findings and articles to most journals for free. Peer-reviewers, who perform the crucial quality-control work, also offer comments on research papers for no charge. In other words, journals receive what are in effect large subsidies from the rest of the scientific community, which in turn receives significant funding from taxpayers, through organizations such as the NIH. As a matter of basic fairness, members of the public who wish to read about this research should be able to do so without paying further charges. The movement for free online access to science research dates back as far as 1991, before most of us had even heard of the Internet. (Click here to read more.) In recent years, the project has gained considerable momentum. In 2000, Harold Varmus, then director the NIH, established PubMed Central; later that year, Varmus, along with biologists Patrick Brown and Michael Eisen, also founded the Public Library of Science, or PLoS, an advocacy organization dedicated to promoting open access. In an early effort to sway existing journals, Varmus and other key players tried to convince scientists not to publish in-or even to subscribe to-journals that did not provide articles to PubMed Central; over 30,000 scientists signed a letter in which they made this pledge. Not surprisingly, few adhered to it: With so much of a scientist's career resting on his or her publication in prestigious forums, few could afford to displease, let alone categorically abandon, the highly respected traditional journals. So, in an attempt to establish a competing venue-one that would attract the best scientists and demonstrate that open access could be compatible with very high quality-PLoS members decided to launch their own peer-reviewed journals. PLoS Biology appeared in October 2003, followed by PLoS Medicine in October 2004. PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine exemplify the philosophy of open access and thus differ from traditional forums such as JAMA, NEJM, and Science in several ways: 1) In addition to providing its content for immediate unrestricted use, PLoS allows authors to retain their copyrights-most magazines control copyrights and profit from any reprints-but requires them to sign a broad licensing agreement that allows their work to be reproduced as long as they are given proper credit through citation. (Scientists do not receive payments or royalties from article publications in either old-style or open-access journals.) 2) PLoS provides all content to PubMed Central. 3) PLoS relies on an alternate business model-instead of earning money through subscriptions and online access fees (a "subscriber-pays" model), PLoS charges authors or their funding agencies a publication fee of $1,500 (an "author-pays" model). Varmus argues that such payments can be folded into laboratory research budgets, and several major funding institutions, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, have agreed to supplement publication costs for their researchers. PLoS has also promised to waive fees for authors who are unable to pay. In theory at least, "author-pays" seems a viable economic model, according to a recent analysis by the Wellcome Trust. How have the PloS publications fared thus far? It's still hard to say, since the PLoS journals have had so little time to establish a track record of important or highly cited articles. Some researchers may doubt that work offered to the public for free will command the same respect as content people pay for. But if any journal is well-positioned for success, the PLoS vehicles are: Both have received plenty of media buzz, and Nobel Prize winners and other rock star scientists populate the PLoS board of directors. There are a few other publishers and journals that have adopted some elements of open access. But most traditional journals have resisted calls to post articles in PubMed Central, even with delays of six months. Only around 160 journals currently offer full-text articles through PubMed Central, out of the roughly 4,000 that are indexed annually by the National Library of Medicine. It would thus be virtually impossible for a scientist to build a first-rate career by publishing entirely in these forums, however sympathetic he or she might be to the goals of open access. (Some of the biggest names, such as JAMA, NEJM, and Science, have begun to make some content available for free on their own Web sites.) If the NIH decides to implement its proposed policy-and an announcement is expected sometime this month-the open-access movement will receive a crucial shot in the arm. Not only will many more articles be available through PubMed Central, but the call by advocates for faster free access (without the six-month delay) will likely grow louder. Some journal publishers will no doubt rethink their business strategies, in order to compensate for actual or expected revenue losses. Of course, it is hard not to sympathize with traditional journal publishers, who for years have been careful stewards of the scientific literature, editing articles and selecting scientists to participate in peer review. But the change would not necessarily mean their demise. Many scientists (and science writers) would likely still subscribe to publications like, say, Science and Nature, largely for the valuable extras they offer, such as news blurbs and research summaries published each week. Journals could continue to charge fees for these features, even while adopting open access policies for new research. This is a story, then, about adapting to the digital world: How should we harness its enormous possibilities while trying to reckon with vested interests that stand to lose in the transition? Ultimately, the potential benefits of open access, for both scientists and the public, are too significant not to pursue aggressively. At a time when technical material is accumulating more quickly than ever before, extensive online databases can help scientists do the most informed work possible. At a time, too, when patients are asked to participate much more actively in health care decision-making, better access to information is crucial. The NIH's proposed compromise, in which articles are posted to PubMed Central six months after publication, is a reasonable one. But it is only a first step toward a larger goal-namely, true open access, immediately upon publication, for as much scientific work as possible. Amanda Schaffer is a science writer living in Brooklyn, New York. Friends: Here is an article from SLATE. Barbara and Leslie, we may enlist her as a cosignatory in our future articles! Regards. Arun http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/ http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/ medical examiner Health and medicine explained. Open Access Should scientific articles be available online and free to the public? By Amanda Schaffer Posted Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2004, at 1:21 PM PT If you're like most Americans, chances are at some point you've searched online for medical or health-related information. In fact, of Americans with Internet access, more have used the Web to answer health-related queries (66 percent) than to check sports scores (43 percent), hunt for a job (42 percent), or find a date (9 percent), according to the http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/Internet_Activities_4.23.04.htm Pew Internet and American Life Project . There is clearly no shortage of medical and pseudomedical information available online. But some physicians and members of Congress have http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64389-2004Sep5?language=printer pointed out that much of the best literature, published in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals such as the http://jama.ama-assn.org/ Journal of the American Medical Association and the http://content.nejm.org/current.shtml New England Journal of Medicine , is not immediately available for free to the publicand they have begun to argue that it should be. To the consternation of journal publishersmany of them not-for-profit associations that rely heavily on journal subscription fees for their revenuethe National Institutes of Health has thrown its considerable weight behind the notion of free access to biomedical research. In September, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni proposed that all NIH-funded scientists provide full-text copies of their research papers to http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/ PubMed Central , an online government archive, once these papers have been accepted (and thus vetted) by peer-reviewed journals; PubMed Central would then post the work, citing both the author and the journal where it first appeared, six months after publication. (The original plan called for immediate access but was mitigated in response to publishers' outcry.) The initiative is expected to cost roughly $2 million to $4 million per year, a small fraction of the NIH's total budget. As the NIH considers final guidelines, a vitriolic debate has erupted in the scientific community: How best to balance the needs of journal publishers against those of scientists, students, and members of the general public who would benefit from unfettered access? Increased access is a worthwhile enterprise. Highly accessible, electronic archives are simply too valuable to scientistsand, by extension, to the public who may eventually benefit from their worknot to establish and support as a matter of public policy. Scientists at large research universities have access to many journals, but increasingly there are gaps in library collections, and not all publications are easily searchable. The problem is of course even worse outside of major institutions and in countries other than the United States. A more robust public database would go a long way toward speeding and enhancing scientific work. (There is, in fact, precedent for this approach to biological data. Click [A] http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/sidebar/2111025/ here to read more.) The public would also benefit directly from greater access. True, not every hair-splitting research paper in, say, cell biology or biochemistry will be of interest to the populace at large. But for patients who have rare diseases or are considering controversial therapies, access to cutting-edge medical research may be vitalespecially since new work is accruing so quickly that even the most assiduous general practitioners may have a hard time keeping abreast of it all. In addition, it doesn't make sense for journals to charge fees for access to primary research articles when that research is supported largely by public funding. Academic scientists, some backed by hundreds of thousands of dollars of public moneys, provide their findings and articles to most journals for free. Peer-reviewers, who perform the crucial quality-control work, also offer comments on research papers for no charge. In other words, journals receive what are in effect large subsidies from the rest of the scientific community, which in turn receives significant funding from taxpayers, through organizations such as the NIH. As a matter of basic fairness, members of the public who wish to read about this research should be able to do so without paying further charges. The movement for free online access to science research dates back as far as 1991, before most of us had even heard of the Internet. (Click [A] http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/sidebar/2111026/ here to read more.) In recent years, the project has gained considerable momentum. In 2000, Harold Varmus, then director the NIH, established PubMed Central; later that year, Varmus, along with biologists Patrick Brown and Michael Eisen, also founded the http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science , or PLoS, an advocacy organization dedicated to promoting open access. In an early effort to sway existing journals, Varmus and other key players tried to convince scientists not to publish inor even to subscribe tojournals that did not provide articles to PubMed Central; over 30,000 scientists signed a letter in which they made this pledge. Not surprisingly, few adhered to it: With so much of a scientist's career resting on his or her publication in prestigious forums, few could afford to displease, let alone categorically abandon, the highly respected traditional journals. So, in an attempt to establish a competing venueone that would attract the best scientists and demonstrate that open access could be compatible with very high qualityPLoS members decided to launch their own peer-reviewed journals. http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=index-html&issn=1545-7885 PLoS Biology appeared in October 2003, followed by http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=index-html&issn=1549-1676 PLoS Medicine in October 2004. PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine exemplify the philosophy of http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002766.html open access and thus differ from traditional forums such as JAMA , NEJM , and Science in several ways: 1) In addition to providing its content for immediate unrestricted use, PLoS allows authors to retain their copyrightsmost magazines control copyrights and profit from any reprintsbut requires them to sign a broad http://www.plos.org/journals/license.html licensing agreement that allows their work to be reproduced as long as they are given proper credit through citation. (Scientists do not receive payments or royalties from article publications in either old-style or open-access journals.) 2) PLoS provides all content to PubMed Central. 3) PLoS relies on an alternate business modelinstead of earning money through subscriptions and online access fees (a "subscriber-pays" model), PLoS charges authors or their funding agencies a publication fee of $1,500 (an "author-pays" model). Varmus argues that such payments can be folded into laboratory research budgets, and several major funding institutions, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, have agreed to supplement publication costs for their researchers. PLoS has also promised to waive fees for authors who are unable to pay. In theory at least, "author-pays" seems a viable economic model, according to a recent analysis by the http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD003185.html Wellcome Trust . How have the PloS publications fared thus far? It's still hard to say, since the PLoS journals have had so little time to establish a track record of important or highly cited articles. Some researchers may doubt that work offered to the public for free will command the same respect as content people pay for. But if any journal is well-positioned for success, the PLoS vehicles are: Both have received plenty of media buzz, and Nobel Prize winners and other rock star scientists populate the PLoS board of directors. There are a few [A] http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/sidebar/2111027/ other publishers and journals that have adopted some elements of open access. But most traditional journals have resisted calls to post articles in PubMed Central, even with delays of six months. Only around 160 journals currently offer full-text articles through PubMed Central, out of the roughly 4,000 that are indexed annually by the National Library of Medicine. It would thus be virtually impossible for a scientist to build a first-rate career by publishing entirely in these forums, however sympathetic he or she might be to the goals of open access. (Some of the biggest names, such as JAMA , NEJM , and Science , have begun to make some content [A] http://www.slate.com/id/2111023/sidebar/2111028/ available for free on their own Web sites .) If the NIH decides to implement its proposed policyand an announcement is expected sometime this monththe open-access movement will receive a crucial shot in the arm. Not only will many more articles be available through PubMed Central, but the call by advocates for faster free access (without the six-month delay) will likely grow louder. Some journal publishers will no doubt rethink their business strategies, in order to compensate for actual or expected revenue losses. Of course, it is hard not to sympathize with traditional journal publishers, who for years have been careful stewards of the scientific literature, editing articles and selecting scientists to participate in peer review. But the change would not necessarily mean their demise. Many scientists (and science writers) would likely still subscribe to publications like, say, Science and Nature , largely for the valuable extras they offer, such as news blurbs and research summaries published each week. Journals could continue to charge fees for these features, even while adopting open access policies for new research. This is a story, then, about adapting to the digital world: How should we harness its enormous possibilities while trying to reckon with vested interests that stand to lose in the transition? Ultimately, the potential benefits of open access, for both scientists and the public, are too significant not to pursue aggressively. At a time when technical material is accumulating more quickly than ever before, extensive online databases can help scientists do the most informed work possible. At a time, too, when patients are asked to participate much more actively in health care decision-making, better access to information is crucial. The NIH's proposed compromise, in which articles are posted to PubMed Central six months after publication, is a reasonable one. But it is only a first step toward a larger goalnamely, true open access, immediately upon publication, for as much scientific work as possible. Amanda Schaffer is a science writer living in Brooklyn, New York.

1 0

ICSU Assessment Panel report on Scientific Data and Information
by Dr. T.B. Rajashekar 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Dear All ICSU (International Council for Science) has just published the report of the ICSU/CSPR Assessment Panel on Scientific Data and Information. Online access to this and other related publications of ICSU are available at: http://www.icsu.org/2_resourcecentre/RESOURCE_list_base.php4?rub=9 The Assessment Panel was constituted by ICSU/CSPR in 2003, and charged with both assessing the strategic issues in this arena and reviewing ICSUs current activities. The report contains several observations and recommendations made by the panel, based on its assessment of current and emerging scenario in scientific data and information. A key recommendation is that ICSU should develop a long-term strategic framework for scientific data and information (policies, practices and infrastructure). An essential component of this framework is to establish an international Scientific Data and Information Forum (SCiDIF) involving all the key stakeholders. Though the report is directly addressed to ICSU in facilitating its future planning and policy making, I believe the report content will be of interest to much wider audience at different levels, including policy makers, planners, managers of scientific data and information systems, and also teachers, professionals and students in this area. You are welcome to distribute this publication/ link to whomever you feel would find it useful. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. Regards Rajashekar ------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. T.B. Rajashekar Associate Chairman Tel: +91-80-23600271, 23601427 National Centre for Science Fax: +91-80-23601426, 23600683 Information (NCSI) E-Mail: raja(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in Indian Institute of Science URL: http://144.16.72.189/raja/ BANGALORE-560012 (India) ------------------------------------------------------------- SciGate: http://www.ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/ The IISc Science Information Portal

1 0

Harish Chandra- Sushila Chandra Best Librarian Award 2004
by Sanjay Kataria 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Dear Information Scientists, I would like to share the great news about "Harish Chandra- Sushila Chandra Best Librarian Award 2004" has been presented on 18th Dec. 04 during one Seminar at Tagore Engineering Collage, Chennai, Organized by SALIS, (Chennai Chapter) and TEC Chennai. About the Award This award is constituted by Dr. Harish Chandra, Librarian, IIT Medras, Channai and will be awarded in every year by SALIS to eminent library professional contributed their outstanding work to enhance the library and information Science in India. Harish Chandra- Sushila Chandra Best Librarian Award for the year 2004 has been awarded to Dr. T A V Murthy, Director, INFLIBNET, Ahemdabad for his outstanding contribution I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr Murthy for his outstanding contribution in profession on behalf of all library & Information Scientists Thanks & Regards ==*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Sanjay Kataria Learning Resource Centre Jaypee Institute of InformationTechnology (Deemed University) A-10, Sector-62, Noida (UP) 201307 India Ph. 0120-2400973 to 978 Ext. 251 09810503341 (Mobile) E-mail: lib_scholar(a)rediffmail.com, katariasanjay2001(a)yahoo.com Website: www.jiit.ac.in --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. Dear Information Scientists, I would like to share the great news about "Harish Chandra- Sushila Chandra Best Librarian Award 2004" has been presented on 18th Dec. 04 during one Seminar at Tagore Engineering Collage, Chennai, Organized by SALIS, (Chennai Chapter) and TEC Chennai. About the Award This award is constituted by Dr. Harish Chandra, Librarian, IIT Medras, Channai and will be awarded in every year by SALIS to eminent library professional contributed their outstanding work to enhance the library and information Science in India. Harish Chandra- Sushila Chandra Best Librarian Award for the year 2004 has been awarded to Dr. T A V Murthy, Director, INFLIBNET, Ahemdabad for his outstanding contribution I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr Murthy for his outstanding contribution in profession on behalf of all library & Information Scientists � Thanks & Regards ==*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Sanjay Kataria Learning Resource Centre Jaypee Institute of InformationTechnology (Deemed University) A-10, Sector-62, Noida (UP) 201307 India Ph. 0120-2400973 to 978 Ext. 251 09810503341 (Mobile) E-mail: lib_scholar(a)rediffmail.com, katariasanjay2001(a)yahoo.com Website: www.jiit.ac.in Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/spamguard/*http://promotions.yahoo.… Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard .

1 0

library furniture supplier
by Rajeev Sharma 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Madam/ Sir Please give the addresses of library furniture supplier in Delhi and NCR. Thanks and Regards, Rajeev Kumar Sharma Officer - Information Services Business Information Center ------------------------------------------------------- Transport Corporation of India Ltd. TCI House, 69, Institutional Area Sector 32, Gurgaon Haryana, 122001 India Tel: +91 124 2381603 to 607 Ext. 104 Fax: +91 124 2381611 Email: bic.crpo(a)tcil.com Visit us at: www.grouptci.com ------------------------------------------------------- Madam/ Sir Please give the addresses of library furniture supplier in Delhi and NCR. Thanks and Regards, Rajeev Kumar Sharma Officer - Information Services Business Information Center ------------------------------------------------------- Transport Corporation of India Ltd. TCI House, 69, Institutional Area Sector 32, Gurgaon Haryana, 122001 India Tel: +91 124 2381603 to 607 Ext. 104 Fax: +91 124 2381611 Email: mailto:bic.crpo@tcil.com bic.crpo(a)tcil.com Visit us at: http://www.grouptci.com www.grouptci.com -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Radio frequency info
by Prafulla Chandra 20 Dec '04

20 Dec '04

Dear All, I would like to know the frequency details of Hindi programmes of Srilanka Broadcasting Corporation (formerly Radio Ceylon). Particularly, I am interested in their Bhoole bisre geet programme (7.30 am). Also, is there any web source which provides the programme schedule of various AIR Radio channels. Thank you Sincerely T.V. Prafulla Chandra --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NISC Export Services Pvt. Ltd. (an affiliate of NISC International, Inc. USA) S-1 Ballad Estates, St.Ann's School Road, Tarnaka, Hyderabad 500 017 Andhra Pradesh, India - Tel:+91 40 27001517 Tel/Fax:+91 40 27002538 WWW.NISC.COM A company in service to NISC worldwide. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Fw: [BOAI] GNU EPrints 2.3.7 released
by Subbiah Arunachalam 20 Dec '04

20 Dec '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note To: "AmSci Forum" <american-scientist-open-access-forum(a)amsci.org> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 7:16 PM Subject: [BOAI] GNU EPrints 2.3.7 released > Below is the announcement of the release of the latest version > of the GNU Eprints OAI-compliant OA-Archive-creating software: > http://software.eprints.org/ > > If your institution has created an OAI-compliant OA Archive (with this or > any other software), please register your institutional OA Archive(s) at: > > http://archives.eprints.org/index.php?action=analysis > > and please register your institutional OA self-archiving policy at: > > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> > > EPrints 2.3.7 released. > http://software.eprints.org/ > > The style of the default archive has been overhauled to be neater and > make better use of stylesheets. See http://demoprints.eprints.org/ for a > look at the new style. > > This release adds the option to make required file formats depend on the > type of eprint, rather than have one setting for the entire archive. > This means that in one archive an eprint about a book may not require > any formats at all, one about a presentation may require powerpoint, and > a normal article require PDF. > > Version 2.3.0 to 2.3.6 of EPrints required the "libapreq" library, this > library proved difficult for some users to install, so in response to > our users comments, from 2.3.7 is no longer used. > > Also 2.3.7 sees the addition of a XSLT style sheet to makes human > readable view of the OAI interface in Internet Explorer or Mozilla > browsers. eg. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/perl/oai2?verb=Identify > > -- > Christopher Gutteridge -- cjg(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk -- +44 (0)23 8059 4833 > University of Southampton, School of Electronics and Computer Science >

1 0

NYTimes: The Fox Is in Microsoft's Henhouse (and Salivating)
by Gerry Mckiernan 19 Dec '04

19 Dec '04

Colleagues/ Firefox is on Fire! /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Classic Overnight Librarian Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 The Fox Is in Microsoft's Henhouse (and Salivating) By RANDALL STROSS Published: December 19, 2004 [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/business/yourmoney/19digi.html ] FIREFOX is a classic overnight success, many years in the making. Published by the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit group supporting open-source software that draws upon the skills of hundreds of volunteer programmers, Firefox is a Web browser that is fast and filled with features that Microsoft's stodgy Internet Explorer lacks. Firefox installs in a snap, and it's free. [snip] With Firefox, open-source software moves from back-office obscurity to your home, and to your parents', too. (Your children in college are already using it.) It is polished, as easy to use as Internet Explorer and, most compelling, much better defended against viruses, worms and snoops. [more]

1 0

NYTimes: Questions and Praise for Google Web Library
by Gerry Mckiernan 18 Dec '04

18 Dec '04

Questions and Praise for Google Web Library By FELICIA R. LEE [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/books/18libr.html ] Published: December 18, 2004 When Randall C. Jimerson, the president of the Society of American Archivists, heard of Google's plan to convert certain holdings at Oxford University and at some of the leading research libraries in the United States into digital files, freely searchable over the Web, he asked, "What are they thinking?" Mr. Jimerson had worries. Who would select the material? How would it be organized and identified to avoid mountains of decontextualized excerpts? Would Google users eventually forgo the experience of holding a book, actually seeing a historical document, the serendipity of slow research? But in recent interviews, many scholars and librarians applauded the announcement by Google, the operator of the world's most popular Internet search service, to digitize some of the collections at Oxford, the University of Michigan, Stanford and the New York Public Library. [snip] [MUCH MORE] /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Thinking Librarian Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 gerrymck(a)iastate.edu

1 0

Candidates for RSS/Web Feed Registries | Major New RSS
by Gerry Mckiernan 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Colleagues/ I am greatly interested in learning of additional candidates for any one of my Web feed registries: _RSS(sm): Rich Site Services_ [ http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/RSS.htm ] RSS(sm): Rich Site Services is a categorized registry of library services that are delivered or provided through RSS/XML, Atom, or other types of Web feeds. RSS is an initialism for RDF Site Summary / Rich Site Summary / Really Simple Syndication. In general, for each entry, the home institution library is listed, as is a hotlinked entry for the item. When available, a link to the feed, or an associated information page, is provided. ************************************************************************ _eFeeds_ [ http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/eFeeds.htm ] _eFeeds(sm): Web Feeds from Electronic Journals_ is a categorized registry of electronic journals that offer RSS/XML, Atom, or other Web feeds. Publisher-specific and vendor Web feeds are categorized in a separate category. ************************************************************************ _B-Feeds(sm)_ [ http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/B-Feeds.htm ] _B-Feeds(sm): Web Feeds for Books and Monographs_ is a categorized registry of sites that offer RSS/XML, Atom, or other Web feeds, to compilations, directories, lists, reviews, or other relevant sources for/or about academic or scholarly books or monographic works. ************************************************************************ RSS/Web Feeds _General Bibliography_ [ http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/GenBib.htm ] ************************************************************************ In addition, I wish to note the publication and self-archived availability of an *Most Excellent* review article on RSS by Judith Wusteman (Department of Library and Information Studies, University College Dublin, Ireland) "RSS: The Latest Feed", _Library Hi Tech_ vol 22, no 4, pp. 404 - 413, 2004. Abstract The number of library-related RSS and Atom applications is increasing daily. But, as yet, the formats and technology involved are far from stable. This article looks at the current state of the field, discusses future developments and considers implications for the library [ http://www.ucd.ie/wusteman/lht/wusteman-rss.html ] Thanks (again) Judith, and Thanks (again) for citing my work {:-) Seasons Greetings! /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Irish Librarian Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 gerrymck(a)iastate.edu

1 0