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

Websites of free Full text Articles
by Mailing List Manager 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Date: 14 Jul 2004 13:41:50 -0000 From: aravind llm shety <aravind_1(a)rediffmail.com> Dear members, I am working as Assistant Librarian in BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited, Hyderabad. The work of Internet literature searching is assigned to me.Can any body suggest the Internet sources for getting free full text articles on the following broad subjects. * Aerospace Engineering * Avionics * Radar engineering * Missile technology etc It will be of great help for me if any body suggest the websites relating to the above subjects. Thanking you Arvindkumar M Bhadrashetty Assistant Librarian BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd Hyderabad

2 1

need for web-based Platform/Software to host e-books
by Byrappa, Ananda (Research) 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Publishers are coming out with more and more e-books and existing e-book collections/databases like knovel, netlibrary and ebrary etc, does not allow us to integrate/add all the purchased e-books to their collection. This has created a barrier to Library & Information Centers to have an integrated and searchable e-book collection/database. Have you come across any third party/neutral tools/software to integrate e-books from different publishers, without compromising on IPR issues? Best Regards, Anand Anand T Byrappa Whitney Knowledge Centre GE India Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 122, EPIP, Phase 2, Hoodi Village, Whitefield Road, Bangalore - 560066, INDIA Phone : +91-80-2503-2618, DialCom: 8*901 2618 Fax : +91-80-2841-2114, Email : Ananda.Byrappa(a)ge.com

2 1

Brain Storming: OAI & OSS & S (fwd)
by Mailing List Manager 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:46:49 +0530 (IST) From: I.R.N.Goudar <goudar(a)css.nal.res.in> Open Access Services, Sources and Standards Half a Day Brain Storming Session President and office bearers of Society for Information Science, Bangalore Chapter and British Library, Bangalore cordially invite you for half a day brain storming session on Open Access Services, Sources and Standards. Following colleagues will initiate the discussion on the topics mentioned: 1. Dr. T.B. Rajashekar, Associate Chairman, NCSI, IISc, Bangalore Open Access Movement, Services and Issues 2. Dr. A.R.D. Prasad, Associate Professor, DRTC/ISI, Bangalore Open Source Software and Standards VENUE: Conference Hall, British Library, Prestige Takt, 23, Kasturba Road Cross, Bangalore 560 001 Tel: 22489220 DATE : 20th July, 2004 (Tuesday), 2.00 pm Discussions will be moderated by Prof. C.R. Karisiddappa, Ex President ILA and Professor, Dept. of LIS, Karnatak University, Dharwad. (I.R.N. Goudar) Secretary, SIS Bangalore Chapter. Please Note: I have appended a brief note on this topic, an article on OSS&S and select list of reading materials along with URLs. Please make this program interesting and meaningful by your active participation. Society for Information Science Bangalore Chapter C/O ICAST, National Aerospace Laboratories, Airport Road, Bangalore-560017 Tel: 2508-6080; Fax No: 2526-8072; e-mail:goudar@css.nal.res.in Open Access Services, Sources and Standards A Brief Note Information resources especially journals have become very expensive. Even the best universities and research organizations cannot afford to buy all those resources that they need. The open access movement has brought some relief for this eternal problem. Vast collections of high-quality publications are being made available through Internet for everybody to use without any payment. Creating and distributing this information is expensive, yet individuals and organizations provide it freely. The roots of OAI lie in the development of e-print repositories. E-print repositories were established in order to communicate the results of ongoing scholarly research prior to peer review and journal publication. The earliest of these was xxx (later arXiv), which began with high energy physics in 1991 and expanded to cover the field of physics plus related fields of mathematics, nonlinear sciences and computer science. The Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library (NCSTRL) provided access to computer sciences technical reports deposited either in xxx or in departmental repositories of cooperating research bodies. The Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) built a digital library of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) authored by students of member institutions. Few other Open Access Services are: "PubMed Service" of The National Library of Medicine; "Books in Print +" through the web site of Amazon.com; and CERN Document Server. Web interfaces allowed people to interact with these repositories and some finding aids were provided. Different interfaces were designed for different repositories, so end users were forced to learn diverse interfaces in order to access the various repositories and finding aids. Certain key players in these developments came to see interoperability as an increasingly important issue to be addressed by the e-print community. Two key interoperability problems were identified as impairing the impact of e-print archives: end users were faced with multiple search interfaces making resource discovery harder, and there was no machine-based way of sharing the metadata. Solutions that were being explored included cross-searching of archives and harvesting archive metadata in order to provide centralised search services. OAI-PMH is a simple protocol based on HTTP and XML with flexible deployment. A number of toolkits are available. Metadata and full-text resources are typically made freely available. Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program. One can read about successful software products that have these properties, and about our certification mark and program, which allow you to be confident that software really is "Open Source." One also make copies of approved open source licenses here. The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing. Some key definitions Open Archive Initiative (OAI) OAI is an initiative to develop and promote interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. Archive The term "archive" in the name Open Archives Initiative reflects the origins of the OAI in the e-prints community here the term archive is generally accepted as a synonym for repository of scholarly papers. Members of the archiving profession have justifiably noted the strict definition of an "archive" within their domain; with connotations of preservation of long-term value, statutory authorization and institutional policy. The OAI uses the term "archive" in a broader sense: as a repository for stored information. Language and terms are never unambiguous and uncontroversial and the OAI respectfully requests the indulgence of the professional archiving community with this broader use of "archive" . OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) OAI-PMH is a lightweight harvesting protocol for sharing metadata between services. Protocol A protocol is a set of rules defining communication between systems. FTP (File Transfer Protocol) and HTTP (Hypertext Transport Protocol) are examples of other protocols used for communication between systems across the Internet. Harvesting In the OAI context, harvesting refers specifically to the gathering together of metadata from a number of distributed repositories into a combined data store. Data Provider A Data Provider maintains one or more repositories (web servers) that support the OAI-PMH as a means of exposing metadata. Service Provider A Service Provider issues OAI-PMH requests to data providers and uses the metadata as a basis for building value-added services. A Service Provider in this manner is "harvesting" the metadata exposed by Data Providers Aggregator An OAI aggregator is both a Service Provider and a Data Provider. It is a service that gathers metadata records from multiple Data Providers and then makes those records available for gathering by others using the OAI-PMH. Dublin Core Dublin Core (DC) is a metadata format defined on the basis of international consensus. The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set defines fifteen elements for simple resource description and discovery, all of which are recommended, and none of which are mandatory. DC has been extended with further optional elements, element qualifiers and vocabulary terms. DCMI (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative) The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. DCMI's activities include consensus-driven working groups, global workshops, conferences, standards liaison, and educational efforts to promote widespread acceptance of metadata standards and practices. E-print An e-print is an author self-archived document. In the sense that the term is ordinarily used, the content of an e-print is the result of scientific or other scholarly research. Interoperability Interoperability is the ability of systems, services and organisations to work together seamlessly toward common or diverse goals. In the technical arena it is supported by open standards for communication between systems and for description of resources and collections, among others. Interoperability is considered here primarily in the context of resource discovery and access. Metadata Structured information about resources (including both digital and non-digital resources). Metadata can be used to help support a wide range of operations on those resources. In the context of services based on metadata harvested via OAI-PMH, the most common operation is discovery and retrieval of resources. ----------- Open Source, Open Standards Karen Coyle Information Technology and Libraries: 2004, 21(1), 33-37 (http://www.lita.org/ital/2101_coyle.html) When people speak of open source software they are referring to computer code - programs that run. But code is only the final step in the information technology process. Prior to writing code the information technology professional must do analysis to determine the nature of the problem to be solved and the best way to solve it. When software projects fail, the failure is more often than not attributable to shortcomings in the planning and analysis phase rather than in the coding itself. Open source software provides some particular challenges for planning since the code itself will be worked on by different programmers and will evolve over time. The success of an open source project will clearly depend on the clarity of the shared vision of the goals of the software and some strong definitions of basic functions and how they will work. This all-important work of defining often takes place through standards and the development of standards that everyone can use has become a movement in itself: open standards. Open standards are publicly available standards that anyone can incorporate into their software. An example from the library environment is the MARC record standard. The original documentation for the MARC record was published by the American National Standards Institute.1 The most common use of the standard, that of the MARC21 records that libraries adhere to, is also published and available for use. No one owns the MARC record format; there are no fees for its use and no restrictions on who can use it in their products. Any software developer who wishes to write for library systems therefore has access to a vital part of the system needs: the basic data structure that libraries use today. This may seem so obvious that its importance is hard to grasp. In fact, the library world has probably made more use of open standards than practically any other industry. Let's face it, "open" is practically our middle name. Examples from the non-open world of proprietary software might help us understand the importance of our preference for open standards, and the examples are not hard to find: Microsoft Windows versus the Macintosh operating system; VHS versus Betamax; Nintendo versus Sega. In each case you have unique products that are inherently incompatible. As a matter of fact, this incompatibility is purposeful and actually enhanced by the companies in question as part of their market strategy. If you need to compete, then openness is a disadvantage. If you need to cooperate, then openness is the way to go. Goals of Open Standards Open standards can serve multiple needs. The most common one is the need for interoperability. Interoperability refers to communication between systems or system parts. In the highly networked world of the twenty-first century, the ability for computer systems to exchange data in order to carry out basic functions is absolutely vital since most systems operate in a vast and varied digital community. Our library systems communicate electronically with sources of bibliographic records, book vendors, and users. They also now interconnect themselves with networked information resources outside of the library and deliver these through library-maintained interfaces. Much of this communication is through open-standard interfaces, such as Z39.50, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), and hypertext transport protocol (HTTP).2 These standards operate at the point where system boundaries touch; they determine the rules of the digital membrane but do not determine how systems handle data up to that point of permeability. Internally, few systems store bibliographic data in the format prescribed by ANSI Z39.2, the basis for the MARC record. But they are able to transform the data into that format for communication with other systems. Another purpose of open standards is to create the framework for a community. In many ways this is the prime reason for many library standards. The use of common cataloging rules does not so much allow libraries to intercommunicate as it does create a certain look and feel and a commonality between libraries that is an aid to users. It allows users to move between libraries without having to learn a whole new process for finding materials, and it makes it possible for the library profession to train librarians and hire from among a pool of candidates. The cataloging rules, published and readily available to anyone with the desire and patience to learn them, contributed to the rise of professional (rather than artisan) librarianship. Creating the rules brought members of the library community together to ponder not only the vagaries of title pages but also to confront some basic philosophical issues about the organization of knowledge. Today, in a world where many activities are performed through computer programs, open standards can be promulgated as a way to encourage decentralized development. Much of the work of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) falls into this area. The W3C is a membership-sponsored standards body that creates new standards for the Web. These standards can be used by anyone writing software for the Web. What is critical about many of these standards is that they set the foundation for entirely new Web functions; functions that will only work if many different people develop their part of the software that is needed. This is rather hard to describe but should become clear with an example. I'll use the recent development of the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P).3 P3P is a set of rules that allows Web sites to describe their privacy practices in a standard way. It would also allow Web users to express their "privacy preferences" using the same standard vocabulary. P3P does not specify how this will be implemented on the Web; the development of actual software will be left to the rather amorphous Web community. For P3P to be part of the Web, it will be necessary for Web site owners to incorporate P3P into their sites, and for Web browsers to create a user interface to the function. But for P3P to be successful, it needs to be recognized by all major browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, and AOL), and it must be used by a large number of Web sites. Since many companies and institutions make use of software like FrontPage or Cold Fusion to develop their large and complex Web sites, tools for building P3P will need to be included in these packages. By specifying a standard for privacy preferences, the W3C is attempting to set in motion a very decentralized software development project that will need to be undertaken by a wide variety of players. Sort of Open versus Really Open Although we speak about open standards, some are more open than others. This is because there are a variety of aspects to open standards, and standards that call themselves open do not always adhere to all of these. Open standards are: standards that anyone can use to develop software or functions; standards in which anyone can participate in their development and modification; and standards that anyone can obtain without a significant price barrier. The best example of standards that meet all of those criteria are those created by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF dates back to pre-Internet days, when it was a group of engineers working on the first developments that eventually became the basis for that network. These engineers developed a way of chronicling and communicating their technical ideas through a series of documents called Requests for Comments or RFCs.4 The first RFCs were almost in the form of notices ("OK, I'm going to send packets with a 5-byte header, let me know if you can read them"), but as time went on the RFCs became well-thought-out standards that had been developed by groups of volunteers. Anyone can comment on the RFC, either to point out errors or to make suggestions. Even after the technical decisions in the RFC are accepted and implemented, the RFC remains an RFC. Some RFCs improve or comment on previous ones, as technology changes or as better ideas arise. The functioning of the IETF is like a lesson in democracy: one person or a group of people sees the need for a new or modified function for the Internet; they draft a proposal which is placed on the Internet for anyone to read and comment on; if the proposed function meets a need and is successfully tested with an actual program, it becomes part of Internet use. The IETF is open to anyone who wishes to participate. That last statement needs qualification, however: participation in the IETF requires a high level of technical knowledge and a considerable amount of a person's time. Those who make up the various IETF committees are a self-selected technocracy. And while the philosophy of the IETF is one of engineering "purity," today's committees invariably have members who represent technology companies that often have a particular bias toward their own products. Still, there is no other standards organization that is as open as the IETF, and there is still considerable input from the academic and research communities. This can be compared to the W3C, the standards organization formed to develop and promulgate standards for the Web. Participation in the W3C is limited to members - predominantly technology companies - who pay between $5,000 and $50,000 per year to belong to the group. Compared to the IETF, this group is lacking the academic and research engineers who bring a financially neutral viewpoint to the discussions. There are also almost no members who might represent a public interest viewpoint. This latter is significant because the W3C does not limit itself to standards of engineering; there is an effort called Technology and Society (within which P3P was developed) that develops standards for functions like content filtering and privacy. There are a number of other standards bodies, such as the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), the International Standards Organization (ISO), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). These organizations have members who participate directly in the development of standards. The standards, once developed, are not only open for use, but some of them are actually mandatory within certain industries. Obtaining the actual text of the standards is, however, another question. Standards-making is an expensive enterprise and standards bodies have traditionally made money on the sale of the printed form of their standards. Since many companies and organizations would be required to adhere to the standard, this provided a kind of guaranteed audience for the standards documents, many of which carried rather hefty price tags. The W3C, having arisen from the Internet community (and with the example of the IETF preceding it) makes its standards available for open access on the Web. In comparison, the document from ISO describing the Universal Character Set which all modern computing is moving toward is priced at about one hundred dollars. Although it isn't a huge price if viewed in light of the research and development budget of a company, it does make it difficult for small organizations, nonprofits, schools and libraries, and individuals to make active use of the standards. Responding to these needs and to the move toward greater openness in the standards area, in 2000 NISO became the only national standards organization making its standards available over the Internet for free. There is some risk because this removes a significant revenue stream from the organization. The gain is that the organization should be even more successful in its primary mission, which is that of providing standards for widespread use. Open Standards and Libraries The first of the library technology standards was the decision at the first annual ALA meeting in September of 1877 to standardize the catalog card at 7.5 x 12.5 cm.5 While this was intended to make mass production of cards possible (and by analogy more standardized production of card cabinets as well), the advantages of an open standard manifested themselves when in 1898 the Library of Congress (LC) began its printed card service. This was possible only because libraries in the United States were using the same sized card and thus filing into cabinets that held cards of that size. We can consider the LC card service the technological predecessor of the MARC record service of the latter half of the twentieth century. The card-size standard was its key to interoperability. The next technological standard of great interest was the computerization of those same cards through the MARC record standard. Prior to the development of what we now think of as MARC, a group of librarians led by Henriette Avram of LC developed a machine-readable record format standard for bibliographic data, ANSI Z39.2. This standard made use of other national standards, such as the ASCII character set. Although at the time only LC had the capability of producing the records (and the motivation to do so), this is arguably the most significant technological development of modern librarianship. By establishing an open standard for machine-readable records, LC created the basis for the computerization of library catalogs. That wasn't the intention in 1965 when Z39.2 was proposed, however. LC was focused on automating its card production services and creating a print-on-demand card service. Like Dewey's desire to reduce the cost of card-stock production, the LC standard, because it was open, was available to be used in ways that its creators had not yet imagined. Few library open standards have been as successful as the MARC standard. Since 1965 arguably the most widely used standard is Z39.50, the protocol for information retrieval from remote databases. Z39.50 takes advantage of the existence of searchable bibliographic databases in library automation systems and the networking provided through the Internet. The protocol had a somewhat slow beginning, partly due to its complexity, but today the functionality is included in most library system packages and there are even open source versions of the software. Other standards have been less successful. One example is the Common Command Language (CCL), Z39.58. CCL is a standard set of commands for searching in online catalogs that was developed by NISO in 1992. When the standard came up for its five-year NISO review the organization's members allowed the standard to lapse. Although some systems claim to use a common command language, these generally do not use the standard commands defined in the NISO standard. So how did a standard become not a standard after all? The reason for creating a common command language was not unlike one of the original motivations behind a standardized set of cataloging rules: the uniformity between libraries makes it easier for users to move from library to library. A common command language is especially important in current times because users may be using a number of library systems almost simultaneously over the Internet. Why would such a useful standard fail? There are a number of reasons why standards might not be adopted. One of the obvious ones in terms of the CCL standard is the fact that the technology that the standard responded to, the command-line interface to library databases, was eclipsed by a new technology, the Web browser. Although some command-line searching remains, it is not the main user interface. Another reason for the lack of adoption of the CCL is something that gives standards development a tricky aspect: people seem less likely to accept standards that affect the content aspects of their computer systems. Successful standards tend to define background functions, and leave a great deal of flexibility for system developers in terms of presentation. For example, the protocols that control the Internet e-mail function do not dictate how e-mail will be presented to the user. Everything from the command line Pine e-mail software to the almost user-obsequious Microsoft Outlook product make use of the same e-mail protocols. Yet another reason is that standardizing the command line gains you very little where the underlying indexes of the system are not themselves standardized. The command line is merely the interface to a much more complex set of decisions about what fields feed into what indexes, and about how the data in those language-based fields is treated for the purpose of searching. The lesson here is that not all aspects of systems are ideal candidates for normalization. Whether rational or whimsical, system developers clearly express a need to have a certain amount of freedom. Standards need to facilitate functionality without suppressing the creativity of system developers or their ability to meet the needs of their particular target audience. Standards work best in the underlying technology layers and less well the closer one gets to the actual user. Some library standards currently in development might fit this bill. For example, the NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP) standard for interlibrary loan (ILL) is intended to facilitate interoperability between library systems for ILL transactions.6 ILL is an obvious area where communication between diverse systems is needed for automation of the function. Libraries don't live by library standards alone, however. Increasingly our library systems are interacting with the wider world of technology, delivering library services over public networks. We use mainstream standards such as the Internet protocols developed by the IETF, the Web protocols of the W3C, the character sets defined internationally by the ISO. Library representatives were heavily involved in the latter effort, having already participated in the development of a similar standard known as Unicode. However, there is virtually no library participation in organizations such as the IETF or W3C, even though the standards developed by these organizations are vital to our operations. Not only are libraries missing from the standards groups, so also are schools and nonprofit organizations, which are kept out not only by the membership fees but also by the labor requirements for active participation: the need to dedicate a significant amount of time of a highly skilled technical worker to the standards process. While it is unlikely that individual libraries would be able to be active in a standards organization, we now have a possible model for greater library participation: in 2000, the American Library Association (ALA) joined the Open eBook Forum (OEBF), an industry group working on e-book standards. By leveraging the strength of ALA's membership it has been possible to spread the burden of participation while at the same time provide a visible library presence for the standards process. Conclusion The Internet has given us an entirely new model for the cooperative development of highly complex systems and subsequently of the standards that allow those systems to work. Although the Internet has not lived up to some of the Utopian promises of its early days, it still allows a low entry barrier for active participation; so low in fact that individuals can create their own Web sites right on the same network beside those of major companies. We might not be able to give all of the credit to the IETF and its example of open standards, but it is clear that open standards are an essential element in the success of the Internet and its widespread use. Continuing the open standards tradition will be essential for its continued success. References and Notes 1. National Information Standards Organization (U.S.), Information Interchange Format (Bethesda, Md.: NISO Pr., 1994.) National Information Standards Series ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994. 2. National Information Standards Organization, Information Retrieval (Z39.50): Application Service Definition and Protocol Specification (Bethesda, Md.: NISO Pr., 1995.) 3. Full documentation on P3P is available at www.w3.org/P3P. Accessed Oct. 2, 2001. 4. There are a number of sites that house searchable copies of the IETF RFCs. The official IETF RFC site is www.ietf.org/rfc.html. Accessed Oct. 2, 2001. 5. Wayne A. Wiegand, Irrepressible Reformer: A Biography of Melvil Dewey (Chicago: ALA, 1996): 53-54. 6. NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol is a draft standard, available for review and testing. Accessed Oct. 2, 2001, www.niso.org/committees/committee_at.html.

1 0

How can we do justice?
by Mailing List Manager 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:56:32 +0530 From: rajesh chandrakar <rajesh(a)inflibnet.ac.in> Dear Professionals, Two years ago, having an enthusium to do something good in the career and for the profession, I appeared for CAT examination for Fellowship in Management offered by IIM, Ahmedabad on Information Systems. Eligibility for apprearing in the fellowship is Master Degree in any discipline with atleast 55 per cent marks. I am having Bachelor in Science (PCM), Master in Library Science & Information Science from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from the same university. Unfortunately, after getting passed in CAT-2002, I could not get the interview call letter from the IIM, Ahmedabad by saying that the Master degree which I acquired is not two years course as it is one year course after one year B.Lib.I.Sc on the subject. I contacted the Director of the Institute, Dr. Dolakiya and the Fellowship committee regarding my disqualification as mentioned to me. I got result from the committee saying that prima-facie it appears I am not illigible for it. Even though, I have contacted to the UGC as well as the Association of Indian University regarding my disqualification. I got certificates from both the institutes and submitted to the Fellowship committee, inspite of that they appeared neutral on the issue. Now, my request to the professionals, what can we do in this regards, if any dear and near professionals want to acquire kind of fellowship from kind of reputed institutes. If situation occurs like this, where they should go and get justice out it? This query is for other young professionals of the community for their bright future. with regards, Rajesh

1 0

Re: [LIS-Forum] UDC Abridbed ed. & AACR2R
by Mailing List Manager 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:44:48 +0530 From: Vijayalaxmi R Deshpande <vrd(a)powersearch.cpri.res.in> Dear Madam, You can get UDC schedules from M/s Book Supply Bureau, Bangalore who deal with BS STANDARDS. As UDC has BS Standard no. we can get it from this firm. We are using UDC and purchased from this firm. Bangalore M/s. Book Supply Bureau Mr.N.Sasidharan Mr. P. Sunil Mr. P. Sudheer 628 1st MAIN ROAD, 1st Stage, Indira Nagar BANGALORE 560 038 KARNATAKA PHONE : +91 80 525 0374, 525 3511. Mobile Ph. +91 80 36886435 FAX : +91 80 525 0662 Email: bsb(a)bgl.vsnl.net.in Andhra Pradesh Mr. S.R. Taqi Hyderabad. Ph. +91 40 407 7081 Mobile Ph. +91 40 32337375 Mr. Akbar Shaik Visakhapatnam. Ph. +91 891 526755 Mobile Ph. +91 891 3124490 With regards, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi R.Deshpande SENIOR LIBRARIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CENTRE, CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, No.8066, Sadashivanagar post BANGALORE - 560 080 -----Original Message----- From: Mailing List Manager <mailman(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in> To: lis-forum(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in <lis-forum(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in> Date: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:32 PM Subject: [LIS-Forum] UDC Abridbed ed. & AACR2R >Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:44:01 +0530 (India Standard Time) >From: indk68 <indk68(a)hotmail.com> > >Can anyone furnish the details of vendors, who can supply UDC -Abridged >edition, 2003 and AACR 2R 2003, within one week. We have been trying for >our institution since one month, but unable to locate a vendor. > > >Thank you > >Indira K. >ICFAI University >Hyderabad-500 082 > >E-mail: indk68(a)hotmail.com >

1 0

Re: [LIS-Forum] request for references
by Mailing List Manager 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:41 +0100 (BST) From: "[iso-8859-1] Prof. N. Laxman Rao." <naglaxman(a)yahoo.com> as no library or library school is getting sufficient number of journals, please try to see LISA and indian library science abstract (published by IASLIC) LAXMAN RAO -------original message-------- Mailing List Manager <mailman(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in> wrote: Date: 13 Jul 2004 10:29:54 -0000 From: Abhilash P P Dear Professionals I am doing research in the topic "IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES" Can you suggest any journals/articles or books published in this area. Abhilash SKCET COIMBATORE _______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum Prof.N.LAXMAN RAO, Dept.of Library & Information Science, Osmania University, HYDERABAD- 500 007 (INDIA) President, Indian Association of Teachers in Library and Information Science (IATLIS). Ph:+91-40-27171565 (res): +91-40- 27682290 (off) 9246547599 (Mobile) e:mail-- naglaxman(a)yahoo.com OR naglaxman(a)indiatimes.com

1 0

Re: [LIS-Forum] Criteria for evaluating library software
by Mailing List Manager 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:11:22 +0800 From: Anant Sabane <anantsabane(a)india.com> In 1997 I had submitted a dissertation on evaluation of library software to the dept of Library Science, University of Mumbai. Although I do not have a soft copy of the same, the hard copy can be referred in the university library. Along with variety of functional and IT criteria I have introduced a good decision making tool regarding final selection of a software for any library from operational research. Although the tool hails from Mathematics, it is very easy to use. Interested professionals may contact Jawaharlal Nehru Library of Mumbai Unviersity Thanks and regards Anant Sabane ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:22 +0530 (IST) > From: G. K. Manjunath <gkm(a)igidr.ac.in> > > I have sent the information on this subject, to five professionals > who sent me the request. > > Those who need it, may please contact me directly without marking the > copy of email to the entire lis forum. > > For some personal and unspecified reasons, I welcome, > discussions/clarifications on this topic only from those members who > received the documentation from me. > > thanks > g.k.manjunath

1 0

deemed university
by Vrushali Rane 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Dear All, Our institute has got Deemed University Status for more than one year. Rules and regulations have come in a big way. Many are also benefited from this. I want to know whether I am entitled for any benefits or increments. Also do I need to add on to my degree. Can someone please throw light on this. Let me know if there is any reading material available of any body. Thanks & Regards Vrushali Rane Librarian Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (Deemed University) V.L.Mehta Road, JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle(W), Mumbai 400056. Tel: 26134577/26183688/26143177 Fax:26114512 E-Mail:librarian@nmims.edu

1 0

Information Required
by Mailing List Manager 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Date: 14 Jul 2004 11:05:10 -0000 From: mamata tendulkar <mamata_78(a)rediffmail.com> Dear all I am not a very active member of the forum as far as posting messages is concerned, however I do go through the posts quite regularly. Thought of asking this to the fellow members as I am sure some of us will have the knowledge about this topic. I wish to know if the bachelors degree in Library Information Science from India is valid to get a job abroad, say in countries like UK, US if you wish to relocate. Or are there any refresher course in India which we need to do to seek the job abroad. I would be greatfull if any of the member could reply to this message. Thanking you Sincerely Mamata

1 0

Criteria for evaluating library software
by Mailing List Manager 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:22 +0530 (IST) From: G. K. Manjunath <gkm(a)igidr.ac.in> I have sent the information on this subject, to five professionals who sent me the request. Those who need it, may please contact me directly without marking the copy of email to the entire lis forum. For some personal and unspecified reasons, I welcome, discussions/clarifications on this topic only from those members who received the documentation from me. thanks g.k.manjunath CHIEF LIBRARIAN INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH FILM CITY ROAD ( GEN.VAIDYA MARG ) SANTOSH NAGAR GOREGAON ( EAST ) MUMBAI - 400 065 INDIA e-mail : gkm(a)igidr.ac.in http:// www.igidr.ac.in/lib/library.htm phone 91-22-28490653 ************************************************

1 0