Search (51 results, page 2 of 3)

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=677,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a dynamic, information and technology-driven society, librarians can create new roles by assessing changes in their environment, the potential effect and ways to reposition themselves. Scenario building, literature reviews, situation analysis, speculation and forecasting may be used. Librarians have a good idea of what they can offer, but are often unable to reposition themselves in time. Reasons for this generally slow reaction are speculated on and the future role of librarians (including expected knowledge and skills) is briefly reviewed. An argument is then pursued on how an educational perspective that supports a constructivist-learning environment, portfolio assessment, and affective and metacognitive skills could support librarians in preparing for change. The value of task analysis, needs assessment, and market research are mentioned briefly. Apart from knowledge (cognitive level), teaching should focus on affective and metacognitive skills, decision-making abilities, environmental scanning, change management and the typical personality characteristics required to survive in the cyber age (e.g. assertiveness, self-confidence, creative thinking, and innovativeness).

Type

a

0.0022149503 = product of:
  0.0044299006 = sum of:
    0.0044299006 = product of:
      0.008859801 = sum of:
        0.008859801 = weight(_text_:a in 512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008859801 = score(doc=512,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16683382 = fieldWeight in 512, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The range, depths and limits of what we know depend on the media with which we attempt to record our knowledge. This essay begins with a brief review of developments in a) media: stone, manuscripts, books and digital media, to trace how collections of recorded knowledge expanded to 235,000 in 1837 and have expanded to over 100 million unique titles in a single database including over 1 billion individual listings in 2007. The advent of digital media has brought full text scanning and electronic networks, which enable us to consult digital books and images from our office, home or potentially even with our cell phones. These magnificent developments raise a number of concerns and new challenges. An historical survey of major projects that changed the world reveals that they have taken from one to eight centuries. This helps explain why commercial offerings, which offer useful, and even profitable short-term solutions often undermine a long-term vision. New technologies have the potential to transform our approach to knowledge, but require a vision of a systematic new approach to knowledge. This paper outlines four ingredients for such a vision in the European context. First, the scope of European observatories should be expanded to inform memory institutions of latest technological developments. Second, the quest for a European Digital Library should be expanded to include a distributed repository, a digital reference room and a virtual agora, whereby memory institutions will be linked with current research;. Third, there is need for an institute on Knowledge Organization that takes up anew Otlet's vision, and the pioneering efforts of the Mundaneum (Brussels) and the Bridge (Berlin). Fourth, we need to explore requirements for a Universal Digital Library, which works with countries around the world rather than simply imposing on them an external system. Here, the efforts of the proposed European University of Culture could be useful. Ultimately we need new systems, which open research into multiple ways of knowing, multiple "knowledges". In the past, we went to libraries to study the recorded world. In a world where cameras and sensors are omnipresent we have new recording worlds. In future, we may also use these recording worlds to study the riches of libraries.

0.002152729 = product of:
  0.004305458 = sum of:
    0.004305458 = product of:
      0.008610916 = sum of:
        0.008610916 = weight(_text_:a in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008610916 = score(doc=3099,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16214722 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"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, 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 excerpts taken out of context? Would Google users eventually forgo the experience of holding a book or looking at a historicaldocument? 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 University, Harvard and the New York Public Library. The plan, in the words of Paul Duguid, information specialist at the University of California at Berkeley, will "blast wide open" the walls around the libraries of world-class institutions.
David Nasaw, a historian and director of the Center for the Humanities at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, said the ability to use keywords to locate books and documents could save academics traveltime and money and broaden their research. "This all captures people's imagination in a wonderful way," Said Kate Wittenberg, director of the Electronic Publishing Initiative at Columbia University. "But whether it's right or wrong is not the whole question and not the whole answer." This year Ms. Wittenberg's group completed a three-year study of research habits that included 1,233 students. The study concluded that electronic resources had become the main tool for gathering information, particularly among undergraduates. But Ms. Wittenberg does have concerns. "What I've learned is that libraries help people formulate questions as well as find answers," Ms. Wittenberg said. "Who will do that in a virtual world?" On the other hand, she Said, an enhanced databank could make it easier for students to research topics across disciplines. For example, a topic like "climate change" touches an both political science and science, she Said, and "in the physical world, the books about them are in two different buildings at Columbia." Online research could bring the two subjects together instantly. Robert Darnton, a professor of history at Princeton who is writing a book about the history of books, noted that by looking at a book's binding and paper quality, a researcher can discern much about the period in which it was published, the publisher and the intended audience.
"There may be some false consciousnesses about this breakthrough, that all learning will be at our fingertips," Mr. Darnton said of the plans to enhance Google's database. He saw room for both Google and real-world research. Libraries have already been changed by the Internet, said Paul LeClerc, president and chief executive of the New York Public Library: But libraries will still be needed to coliect and store information, he said. "TV did replace radio," Mr. LeCIerc said. "Videos and DVD's did not replace people going to the movies. It's still easier to read a book by hand than online." "The New-York Public Library Web site gets three-fourths of a billion hits a year from 200 different countries and territories, and that's with no marketing or advertising," he said. "That's the context in which this new element has to be placed." "We had 13 million reader visits last year," he continued. "We're serving a multiplicity of audiences - we serve people physically and virtually. It's an enormous contribution to human intellectual development." Many university leaders realize that for most people, information does not exist unless it is online, said Paul Courant, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Michigan. Mr. Courant envisioned that in 20 years archives would be shared by institutions. While the world needs "tens of thousands of copies of 'To the Lighthouse,"' he said, "we don't need to have a zillion copies of some arcane monograph written by a sociologist in 1951."

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1299,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1299, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this research study, Nemertes performed an independent in-depth analysis of Internet and IP infrastructure (which we call capacity) and current and projected traffic (which we call demand) with the goal of understanding how each has changed over time, and determining if there will ever be a point at which demand exceeds capacity. To assess infrastructure capacity, we reviewed details of carrier expenditures and vendor revenues, and compared these against market research studies. To compute demand, we took a unique approach: Instead of modeling user behavior based on measuring the application portfolios that users had currently deployed, and projecting deployment of those applications in future, we looked directly at how user consumption of available bandwidth has changed over time.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 6924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=6924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=618,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To argue that theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines can be of practical benefit to practitioner LIS research. In the area of digitisation collection development policy, such models highlight the importance of digital library preservation issues. Design/methodology/approach - An application of formal models from cultural theories derived from structuralism and semiotics to LIS problems. Findings - Theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines help illustrate and understand problems such as developing information literacy in the digital library environment or creating a balance between the need to develop new digital collections and the preservation of the digital collections which have already been created. Research limitations/implications - This is a theoretical argument that could be tested by practical case study investigation. Practical implications - The paper suggests that resourcing should be applied to digital preservation activity rather than a fresh round of digitisation of print originals, the preservation implications of which are uncertain. Originality/value - This paper gives some original perspectives on practical LIS challenges by applying abstract ideas from the area of cultural theory and applied linguistics.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 5194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=5194,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5194, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=1115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2815,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2815, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2815)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the future, frontier research in many fields will increasingly require the collaboration of globally distributed groups of researchers needing access to distributed computing, data resources and support for remote access to expensive, multi-national specialized facilities such as telescopes and accelerators or specialist data archives. There is also a general belief that an important road to innovation will be provided by multi-disciplinary and collaborative research - from bio-informatics and earth systems science to social science and archaeology. There will also be an explosion in the amount of research data collected in the next decade - 100's of Terabytes will be common in many fields. These future research requirements constitute the 'eResearch' agenda. Powerful software services will be widely deployed on top of the academic research networks to form the necessary 'Cyberinfrastructure' to provide a collaborative research environment for the global academic community. The difficulties in combining data and information from distributed sources, the multi-disciplinary nature of research and collaboration, and the need to move to present researchers with tooling that enable them to express what they want to do rather than how to do it highlight the need for an ecosystem of Semantic Computing technologies. Such technologies will further facilitate information sharing and discovery, will enable reasoning over information, and will allow us to start thinking about knowledge and how it can be handled by computers. This talk will review the elements of this vision and explain the need for semantic-oriented computing by exploring eResearch projects that have successfully applied relevant technologies. It will also suggest that a software + service model with scientific services delivered from the cloud will become an increasingly accepted model for research.

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 4788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=4788,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4788, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Part of a Special Issue: Accessibility of web-based information resources for people with disabilities: part 2. Vgl. auch unter: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/07378830210452668.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=262,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Under the leadership of Ruth Carter's generation, cooperative, shared cataloging grew and flourished among academic and research libraries. The authors provide an overview of trends and challenges from a golden age of expanding budgets and international cooperation during the 1970's and 1980's and later responses to the economic retrenchment and demographic changes of the 1990's and early 2000's. Responses to current challenges, including the impact of outsourced cataloging, increasing complexity of cataloging rules, and emerging technological options, are discussed.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1086,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Digital information and the increasing amount and availability of its basis, data, is changing scholarship to a more or less dramatic extent. New areas of research and knowledge have been created by machine-produced data, calculations, and simulations in various academic disciplines. However, no adequate infrastructure for digital information has emerged yet. Whereas in the field of scientific information providers (libraries, document centers, publishers etc.) new services, arrangements and business models are being experimented, the scholarly disciplines are, by and large, lagging behind these developments, as are most scientific work practices. To sum up: An information infrastructure of scholarly information has been developed, but not one for scholarly information, yet. What this means, and some ideas of what could be done about it, shall be discussed in the talk.