Comments on: The Ithaka Report http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/ K.G. Schneider's blog on librarianship, writing, and everything else Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:59:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: The Ithaka Report up in CommentPress http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/comment-page-1/#comment-41423 The Ithaka Report up in CommentPress Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:59:18 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/#comment-41423 [...] q.v. my slant on the Ithaka report — and my take on the impact of library acquisition decisions on the fate of small-press [...] [...] q.v. my slant on the Ithaka report — and my take on the impact of library acquisition decisions on the fate of small-press [...]

]]> By: Dorothea Salo http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/comment-page-1/#comment-27873 Dorothea Salo Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:12:33 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/#comment-27873 Heh, no worries this time. Article's not due until December, so it currently exists as disconnected chunks of text, bullet points that need to be fleshed out, del.icio.us links that need mining, and lots of "I really need to say X, Y, and Z" ideas in the back of my head. It's for a journal special issue, so it should be on a fairly strict timeline once it's in. Heh, no worries this time. Article’s not due until December, so it currently exists as disconnected chunks of text, bullet points that need to be fleshed out, del.icio.us links that need mining, and lots of “I really need to say X, Y, and Z” ideas in the back of my head. It’s for a journal special issue, so it should be on a fairly strict timeline once it’s in.

]]> By: kgs http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/comment-page-1/#comment-27833 kgs Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:37:50 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/#comment-27833 We are again "violently in agreement," as you once said about a post, on just about everything, including the shortsightedness of some uni press (um... most of them?). I can't wait to see that article. One of my beefs about the traditional publishing model is that it holds up good stuff for far too long! We are again “violently in agreement,” as you once said about a post, on just about everything, including the shortsightedness of some uni press (um… most of them?).

I can’t wait to see that article. One of my beefs about the traditional publishing model is that it holds up good stuff for far too long!

]]> By: Dorothea Salo http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/comment-page-1/#comment-27832 Dorothea Salo Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:32:27 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/#comment-27832 You're right. Haven't I dripped enough venom over on CavLec about the rigidity and problematic usability of IRs? Substantial portions of the Roach Motel article I'm writing plan to make these and similar points -- decidedly, er, pointedly. And indeed, one of my suggested solutions (here I am, a-spoilin' of my own article!) is sorting out how to get into workflows by, you know, being USEFUL and stuff. And yes, I'm all for subject repositories personally. I think they're great; the value proposition is obvious. I worry about them, though, because I'm not sure they're making the same commitment to sustainability and preservation that I am -- but THAT can and should be worked around (not least by harvesting them!). (My ideal world also includes MUCH better ways to get stuff in IRs into the disciplinary venues where it will get noticed. Google's good, but social software is better.) My only quibble is that it's important to recognize that publishers have put up some of the barriers that make IRs (rather than libraries supporting disciplinary Rs) necessary. Some publishing agreements forbid deposit in DRs but allow it in IRs. This is deeply stupid, yes -- but it's real. You’re right. Haven’t I dripped enough venom over on CavLec about the rigidity and problematic usability of IRs?

Substantial portions of the Roach Motel article I’m writing plan to make these and similar points — decidedly, er, pointedly. And indeed, one of my suggested solutions (here I am, a-spoilin’ of my own article!) is sorting out how to get into workflows by, you know, being USEFUL and stuff.

And yes, I’m all for subject repositories personally. I think they’re great; the value proposition is obvious. I worry about them, though, because I’m not sure they’re making the same commitment to sustainability and preservation that I am — but THAT can and should be worked around (not least by harvesting them!).

(My ideal world also includes MUCH better ways to get stuff in IRs into the disciplinary venues where it will get noticed. Google’s good, but social software is better.)

My only quibble is that it’s important to recognize that publishers have put up some of the barriers that make IRs (rather than libraries supporting disciplinary Rs) necessary. Some publishing agreements forbid deposit in DRs but allow it in IRs. This is deeply stupid, yes — but it’s real.

]]> By: kgs http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/comment-page-1/#comment-27828 kgs Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:58:17 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/#comment-27828 Chris, yes, we are on the same page! I like your point about the "aboutness" of our tasks -- it is indeed not about the tools. Chris, yes, we are on the same page! I like your point about the “aboutness” of our tasks — it is indeed not about the tools.

]]> By: Chris http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/comment-page-1/#comment-27825 Chris Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:20:29 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/07/31/the-ithaka-report/#comment-27825 I think you and Dorothea are talking about the same issue ("We must continue to do this in Our Traditional Way"), though her ire is directed and publishers and authors and yours at librarians. You're both right. The library work of organizing and providing access is not actually related to the tools used to do it. How many useful, fungible, professionally-trained Delicious tags could we create in the time in takes to generate a MARC record for one website? I think you and Dorothea are talking about the same issue (“We must continue to do this in Our Traditional Way”), though her ire is directed and publishers and authors and yours at librarians. You’re both right. The library work of organizing and providing access is not actually related to the tools used to do it. How many useful, fungible, professionally-trained Delicious tags could we create in the time in takes to generate a MARC record for one website?

]]>