On the Code4Lib IRC channel Thursday afternoon, Roy Tennant, Senior Program Officer at OCLC Programs and Research, said that there is absolutely no connection between the policy change and the Google Book Search settlement.
Beyond the public pronouncements of the Google Books Settlement1 are the documents that form the meat of the agreement. The full text of the proposed settlement agreement is 141 pages plus another 162 pages of appendices. The Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement itself — a summary of the complete settlement — is 38 pages, and is what is reviewed in this post. (The proposed settlement agreement may be covered in a future post.) The Notice of Settlement is chock full of interesting nuggets and hints of even more interesting things in the complete summary agreement. Even the printed version of the summary posted here is about 10 pages long.
George Mason University issued a statement this morning regarding the lawsuit filed against it by the Thomson Scientific division of Reuters. It looks like GMU intends to fight the lawsuit. It has restored the functionality that allowed Zotero to understand the EndNote® citation style file format and announced that it will not renew its site license for
Zotero EndNote. [Bah -- got this wrong initially. Thanks for pointing this out, Ryan.]
Announced today was a settlement between Google and the plaintiffs — the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and individual authors and publishers — in the class action lawsuit about materials scanned for the Google Book Search application through the Google Book Search Library Project. This posting on DLTJ includes a brief summary of the agreement and links to the primary source public announcements and documents. Subsequent postings to DLTJ will include analysis and commentary on the agreement.
Earlier today, Wright State University issued an invitation-to-negotiate1 for a discovery layer on behalf of OhioLINK. This post contains the details specific to the project, and I’m posting it here with the desire to cast a wide net of parties that may be interested in responding. In doing so, please note that this posting is not the official call for proposals, and nothing said here binding on the proposal process. If you are interested in making a proposal for a solution or part of the solution for what we are seeking, please contact Mary Pasquinelli, Sr. Purchasing Agent at Wright State University, and reference ITN 601908 (Room 301 University Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy., Dayton, Ohio 45435, phone 937-775-2411, FAX 937-775-3711, email: email@example.com).
The first production version of the Object Reuse and Exchange from the Open Archives Initiative was published today. In the words of the release announcement, ORE provides “the foundation for applications and services that can visualize, preserve, transfer, summarize, and improve access to the aggregations that people use in their daily Web interaction: including multiple page Web documents, multiple format documents in institutional repositories, scholarly data sets, and online photo and music collections.”
This is a brief update on the EndNote/Zotero lawsuit. The story thus far: The Thomson Scientific division of Reuters, maintainer of the EndNote software, is suing George Mason University over the upcoming release of Zotero, the Firefox plugin for managing citations. More specifically, the complaint filed in Virginia state courts says “GMU reverse engineered or de-compiled the EndNote Software and the proprietary .ens files contained within the EndNote Software in order to determine how to convert the EndNote Software .ens style files into the open source Zotero .csl style files, in direct and material violation of the [sitewide] License Agreement [signed by GMU].” (Note, though, as others have pointed out, Zotero is not converting EndNote Style files to Citation Style Language (CSL) files.1 It is parsing EndNote Style files and using them internally along side style definitions defined using CSL. Or, at least it was until the function was removed from the code.)
Last month, Clay Shirky gave a presentation with the title “It’s Not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure” at the Web 2.0 Expo. 1 Shirky admits up front at the start of the talk that the topic is something new that he is exploring, and as a result the ideas are not fully formed. (I get lost in how the last of his three examples applies to the topic at hand, for instance.) But his viewpoint is a refreshing way to look at the issue of “information overload” from a new perspective, and it is worth looking at even in this raw stage. For starters, he says that we’ve been facing information overload for the past 500 years — since the introduction of the Gutenburg movable type press gave readers more books than they could possibly read. What has changed in the last decade has been how past information “filters” are no longer effective.
Don’t delay — submit your proposal and be part of Ohio’s premier higher education conference, The University System of Ohio’s! Proposals are due by Wednesday, October 15, 2008 for the conference on March 1-3, 2009.
The University System of Ohio’s Learning, Libraries & Technology 2009 Conference will be the tenth anniversary of the conference previously known as the Ohio Digital Commons for Education (ODCE) Conference. This year’s conference will deliver the same great professional development and networking opportunities you’ve come to expect from past conferences. In celebration of the conference’s tenth anniversary, organizers have drastically cut conference fees to: $195 ($95 for students) for two-days or $95 ($55 for students) for a single day. Online registration will be available in December.
Jerome McDonough of the Graduate School of Library & Information Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign presented a paper this summer at the Balisage conference with the title Structural Metadata and the Social Limitation of Interoperability: A Sociotechnical View of XML and Digital Library Standards Development.1 The title is very hard to penetrate, but the contents of the paper lay bare a theory for why we don’t have large, swirling pools of shared digital objects that cross institutional silo boundaries.