Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.014044492 = product of:
  0.06554096 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Wie eine gigantische Informationslandschaft tut sich das Internet vor unseren Augen auf. Und seit sich Google im Herbst letzten Jahres mit den Autoren und Verlegern, die die große Suchmaschine wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung verklagt hatten, auf einen Vergleich geeinigt hat, stellt sich die Frage nach der Orientierung im World Wide Web mit neuer Dringlichkeit. Während der letzten vier Jahre hat Google Millionen von Büchern, darunter zahllose urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke, aus den Beständen großer Forschungsbibliotheken digitalisiert und für die Onlinesuche ins Netz gestellt. Autoren und Verleger machten dagegen geltend, dass die Digitalisierung eine Copyrightverletzung darstelle. Nach langwierigen Verhandlungen einigte man sich auf eine Regelung, die gravierende Auswirkungen darauf haben wird, wie Bücher den Weg zu ihren Lesern finden. . . .

Theme

Information

0.004897746 = product of:
  0.03428422 = sum of:
    0.027592704 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027592704 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Das kennt der Sammler: Da fängt man an, sich für eine Sache zu interessieren und alles darüber zusammenzutragen, was man kriegen kann, und dann hat man sich verhoben, weil man die Sache ein wenig zu groß angegangen ist. So ist es zum Beispiel blöd, in der Wüste zu sitzen und sich zu überlegen, alle Kiefernnadeln weltweit zusammentragen zu wollen, weil das ja von dort aus gesehen nicht so viele sein können. Und dann beginnt man nach einiger Zeit diese Website über die Kiefernwälder weltweit zu finden und sich am Kopf zu kratzen. Also beschließt man nur noch "herausragende Kiefernnadeln" zu sammeln, was immer das sein mag. Aber auf jeden Fall hat man es satt, jeden Tag mehrere Tausend Säcke Bioabfall von schwitzenden Postboten vor die Tore gestellt zu bekommen. So ähnlich muss es der Library of Congress gehen, wenn sie im Dezember 2017 genau das beschließt. Also, nicht wirklich das Sammeln von Kiefernnadeln einzustellen. Vielmehr handelt es sich ja um die umfangreichste Bibliothek der Welt, die alle möglichen Inhalte in Büchern, auf Tonbändern und eben auch Tweets sammelt. Das ist ihr jetzt zu viel geworden. Kann man verstehen, kommen wir ja schon mit dem Lesen von Tweets eines kleinhändigen Präsidenten kaum noch nach, dann muss es da draußen ja auch noch eine ganze Menge anderes Zeugs geben. Die armen Bibliothekare in den dortigen Kellern weinen ja schon, wenn sie wieder tonnenweise kommentierte Retweets und diesen Mist auf den Tisch bekamen, alleine das Ausdrucken von bis zu 280 Zeichen und Bildern dauert ja ewig ... ganz zu schweigen vom Einsortieren.

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.004760462 = product of:
  0.033323232 = sum of:
    0.029287368 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029287368 = score(doc=4250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20899329 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=4250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Über die letzten Jahrzehnte ist die Menge digitaler Publikationen exponentiell angestiegen. Doch die digitalen Bestände sind durch die schleichende Obsoletheit von Datenformaten, Software und Hardware bedroht. Aber auch die zunehmende Komplexität neuerer Dokumente und zugehöriger Abspielumgebungen stellt ein Problem dar. Das Thema der Langzeitarchivierung wurde lange vernachlässigt, rückt aber zunehmend ins Bewusstsein der Verantwortlichen und der Öffentlichkeit, nicht zuletzt wegen spektakulärer Datenverluste. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Grundlagen und Bausteine für eine technische Lösung zu entwickeln und deren Einbettung in die Aufgabenbereiche einer Archivierungsorganisation aufzuzeigen. Es fehlt eine systematische Herangehensweise zum Aufbau technischen Wissens, die der Heterogenität und Komplexität sowie der bereits vorhandenen Obsoletheit in der Welt des digitalen Publizierens gerecht wird. In einem ersten Schritt entwickeln wir deshalb ein Modell, das sich spezifisch den technischen Aspekten digitaler Objekte widmet. Dieses Modell erlaubt es, digitale Objekte bezüglich der Archivierungsaspekte zu charakterisieren und zu klassifizieren sowie technische Grundlagen präzise zuzuordnen. Auf dieser Basis können u. a. systematisch modulare Metadatenschemata gewonnen werden, die den Langzeiterhalt gezielt unterstützen. Das Modell liefert außerdem einen Beitrag zur Formulierung von zugehörigen Ontologien. Des Weiteren fördern die Modularität der Metadatenschemata und die einheitliche Begrifflichkeit einer Ontologie die Föderation und Kooperation von Archivierungsorganisationen und -systemen. Die Abstützung auf das entwickelte Modell systematisiert in einem weiteren Schritt die Herleitung von technisch orientierten Prozessen zur Erfüllung von Archivierungsaufgaben. Der Entwicklung eines eigenen Modells liegt die Einschätzung zu Grunde, dass Referenzmodelle, wie OAIS (Open Archival Information System), zwar eine geeignete Ausgangsbasis auf konzeptioneller Ebene bieten, aber sie sind zu generell und beschreiben vor- oder nachgelagerte Prozesse nur als Schnittstelle. Die aus dem Modell hergeleiteten Lösungsansätze sind zunächst unabhängig von einer konkreten Realisierung. Als Beitrag zur Umsetzung wird in einem eigenen Abschnitt der Einsatz von Datenbankmanagementsystemen (DBMS) als Implementierungsbasis ausführlich diskutiert.

Theme

Elektronische Dokumente

0.0039021978 = product of:
  0.054630768 = sum of:
    0.054630768 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054630768 = score(doc=4324,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.44904238 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Was bezahlt die ETH Bibliothek an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley? Die Antwort auf diese einfache Frage liegt nun nach gut 14 Monaten und einem Entscheid der ersten Rekursinstanz (EDÖB) vor. Werfen wir nun also einen Blick in diese nun erstmals öffentlich zugänglichen Daten (auch als XLSX). Die ETH-Bibliothek schlüsselte die Ausgaben wie von mir gewünscht in Datenbanken, E-Books und Zeitschriften auf.

0.0033944983 = product of:
  0.023761487 = sum of:
    0.019725623 = weight(_text_:web in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019725623 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.0033447412 = product of:
  0.046826374 = sum of:
    0.046826374 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046826374 = score(doc=1272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.38489348 = fieldWeight in 1272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1272)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Das Internet mache Bibliotheken überflüssig, sagt der Chef der ETH-Bibliothek im Interview. Entweder sie räumen ihre Bücherbestände aus und erfinden sich neu - oder sie werden verschwinden.

Content

Vgl. auch den Kommentar von Klaus Graf unter: http://archivalia.hypotheses.org/54235. Vgl. auch: http://ruedimumenthaler.ch/2016/02/08/sind-bibliotheken-uberflussig-eine-replik/ sowie http://ruedimumenthaler.ch/2016/02/12/bibliotheksbranche-im-umbruch-und-in-aufruhr/. Vgl. auch: http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=2077 [Es ist einfach nur peinlich realitätsfremd und dem Amt als ETH-Bibliotheksdirektor unwürdig, die heutige Situation als "established, reliable and sustainable" zu bezeichnen und sich gleichzeitig als "begnadeter Vordenker" (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13689512/begnadeter%20Vordenker.pdf) zu ernennen.] Vgl.auch: http://christoph-deeg.com/2016/02/13/quo-vadis-oeffentliche-bibliotheken-gedanken-zum-nzz-interview-von-rafael-ball-eth-bibliothek/. Vgl. auch: http://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/ueber-eine-zukunftsvision-die-ein-horrorszenario-sein-koennte-1.18693786.

0.0033447412 = product of:
  0.046826374 = sum of:
    0.046826374 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046826374 = score(doc=138,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.38489348 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> ist eine Browser-Erweiterung, die es Ihren Nutzern leichter machen soll, Open Access Kopien für wissenschaftliche Literatur zu finden. Dabei prüft Open Access Helper im Hintergrund anhand der ausgezeichneten APIs von unpaywall.org and core.ac.uk. Neben der Möglichkeit Open Access Kopien zu finden, hat Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> nun einen wichtigen Schritt gemacht, Ihre Nutzer noch besser zu unterstützen. Dank der Zusammenarbeit mit einer Bibliothek in Irland, kann die Erweiterung Ihre Nutzer nun besser unterstützen. Als Bibliothek können Sie für Open Access Helper Ihren* EZProxy* und/oder ein *Anfrageformular* bzw. *Link Resolver* hinterlegen. Es entstehen Ihnen und Ihren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern hierbei keine Kosten. Open Access Helper gibt es für Chrome, Firefox, Safari (macOS) und auch für iPad & iPhone. Download Links finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org oder über eine Such im App / Extension Store Ihrer Wahl. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org.

0.0029766145 = product of:
  0.020836301 = sum of:
    0.016555622 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016555622 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13608038 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.00428068 = weight(_text_:information in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00428068 = score(doc=1195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.

0.002787284 = product of:
  0.039021976 = sum of:
    0.039021976 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039021976 = score(doc=2923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

" Im Streit mit Google um Urheberrechte ist eine Gruppe von Buchautoren am Obersten US-Gericht gescheitert. Der Supreme Court lehnte es ab, die google-freundliche Entscheidung eines niederen Gerichtes zur Revision zuzulassen. In dem Fall geht es um die Online-Bibliothek "Google Books", für die der kalifornische Konzern Gerichtsunterlagen zufolge mehr als 20 Millionen Bücher digitalisiert hat. Durch das Projekt können Internet-Nutzer innerhalb der Bücher nach Stichworten suchen und die entsprechenden Textstellen lesen. Die drei zuständigen Richter entschieden einstimmig, dass in dem Fall zwar die Grenzen der Fairness ausgetestet würden, aber das Vorgehen von Google letztlich rechtens sei. Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe gefürchtet Die von dem Interessensverband Authors Guild angeführten Kläger sahen ihre Urheberrechte durch "Google Books" verletzt. Dazu gehörten auch prominente Künstler wie die Schriftstellerin und Dichterin Margaret Atwood. Google führte dagegen an, die Internet-Bibliothek kurbele den Bücherverkauf an, weil Leser dadurch zusätzlich auf interessante Werke aufmerksam gemacht würden. Google reagierte "dankbar" auf die Entscheidung des Supreme Court. Der Konzern hatte befürchtet, bei einer juristischen Niederlage Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe zahlen zu müssen."

0.002757334 = product of:
  0.019301336 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.0022955346 = product of:
  0.032137483 = sum of:
    0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032137483 = score(doc=1226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.0013518904 = product of:
  0.018926464 = sum of:
    0.018926464 = product of:
      0.056779392 = sum of:
        0.056779392 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056779392 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.001245368 = product of:
  0.017435152 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 5427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=5427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5427)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Für fünf deutsche Universitäten sowie ein Forschungsinstitut werden auf Basis der Publikationsdaten des Web of Science Abschätzungen zu den Gesamtausgaben für APCs erstellt und mit den derzeitigen Subskriptionsausgaben verglichen. Der Bericht zeigt, dass die Kostenübernahme auf Basis der projizierten Ausgaben für Publikationen aus nicht-Drittmittel-geförderter Forschung für alle hier betrachteten Einrichtungen ohne Probleme aus den derzeitigen bibliothekarischen Erwerbungsetats für Zeitschriften bestritten werden könnte. Dies setzt jedoch voraus, dass Drittmittelgeber neben der üblichen Forschungsförderung auch für die APCs der aus diesen Projekten resultierenden Publikationen aufkommen. Trifft dies nicht zu und die wissenschaftliche Einrichtung muss für sämtliche Publikationen die APCs selbst tragen, so hängen die budgetären Auswirkungen wesentlich von der zukünftigen Entwicklung der Artikelbearbeitungsgebühren ab.

7.6474476E-4 = product of:
  0.010706427 = sum of:
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

6.6915166E-4 = product of:
  0.009368123 = sum of:
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Der Text ist eine überarbeitete Version des von Herb, U. (2018): Zwangsehen und Bastarde : Wohin steuert Big Data die Wissenschaft? In: Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis, 69(2-3), S. 81-88. DOI:10.1515/iwp-2018-0021.

5.735585E-4 = product of:
  0.008029819 = sum of:
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Table of Contents 1 Economic Issues* 2 Electronic Books and Texts 2.1 Case Studies and History 2.2 General Works* 2.3 Library Issues* 3 Electronic Serials 3.1 Case Studies and History 3.2 Critiques 3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals 3.4 General Works* 3.5 Library Issues* 3.6 Research* 4 General Works* 5 Legal Issues 5.1 Intellectual Property Rights* 5.2 License Agreements 5.3 Other Legal Issues 6 Library Issues 6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata* 6.2 Digital Libraries* 6.3 General Works* 6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation* 7 New Publishing Models* 8 Publisher Issues 8.1 Digital Rights Management* 9 Repositories and E-Prints* Appendix A. Related Bibliographies by the Same Author Appendix B. About the Author

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Mailtext: "Im Rahmen der Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen wurden jetzt "Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern" veröffentlicht. Die formulierten Kriterien dienen als gemeinsamer und handlungsleitender Rahmen der Akteur:innen aus allen Wissenschaftsorganisationen, d.h. Hochschulen ebenso wie außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen, für Verhandlungen mit Publikationsdienstleistern. Dabei bildet die Forderung nach größtmöglicher Kostentransparenz und Kosteneffizienz im Gesamtsystem den Kern des Handelns der Wissenschaftsorganisationen im Kontext ihrer Open-Access-Strategie für die Jahre 2021-2025. Diese Kriterien gliedern sich in die Aspekte Transformation von Zeitschriften, Preisgestaltung, Transparenz, Workflow, Preprints, Qualitätssicherung, Metadaten und Schnittstellen, Statistiken, Tracking und Waiver. Deutsche Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.045 Englische Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.046 Siehe auch: Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern veröffentlicht https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/empfehlungen-fuer-transformative-zeitschriftenvertraege-mit-publikationsdienstleistern-veroeffentlicht/ Recommendations for Transformative Journal Agreements with Providers of Publishing Services published https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/recommendations-for-transformative-journal-agreements-with-providers-of-publishing-services-published/?lang=en"

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=1198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

To arrive at relevant and reliable conclusions concerning the usability of a hypermedia educational e-book, developers have to apply a well-defined evaluation procedure as well as a set of clear, concrete and measurable quality criteria. Evaluating an educational tool involves not only testing the user interface but also the didactic method, the instructional materials and the interaction mechanisms to prove whether or not they help users reach their goals for learning. This article presents a number of evaluation criteria for hypermedia educational e-books and describes how they are embedded into an evaluation procedure. This work is chiefly aimed at helping education developers evaluate their systems, as well as to provide them with guidance for addressing educational requirements during the design process. In recent years, more and more educational e-books are being created, whether by academics trying to keep pace with the advanced requirements of the virtual university or by publishers seeking to meet the increasing demand for educational resources that can be accessed anywhere and anytime, and that include multimedia information, hypertext links and powerful search and annotating mechanisms. To develop a useful educational e-book many things have to be considered, such as the reading patterns of users, accessibility for different types of users and computer platforms, copyright and legal issues, development of new business models and so on. Addressing usability is very important since e-books are interactive systems and, consequently, have to be designed with the needs of their users in mind. Evaluating usability involves analyzing whether systems are effective, efficient and secure for use; easy to learn and remember; and have a good utility. Any interactive system, as e-books are, has to be assessed to determine if it is really usable as well as useful. Such an evaluation is not only concerned with assessing the user interface but is also aimed at analyzing whether the system can be used in an efficient way to meet the needs of its users - who in the case of educational e-books are learners and teachers. Evaluation provides the opportunity to gather valuable information about design decisions. However, to be successful the evaluation has to be carefully planned and prepared so developers collect appropriate and reliable data from which to draw relevant conclusions.