http://www.awm.gov.au/diaries/index.asp

Digitised images of selected original war diaries recording the daily activities of Australian Army units, are available for the following conflicts:

* First World War
* Second World War
* Korean War
* South East Asian conflicts

http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/

This memo provides information for the Internet community interested in distributing data or databases under an “open access” structure.

See also
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/12/science-commons-protocol-for-open-data.html

Suber writes:

The protocol "is persuasive. For example, I've been thinking that any open data standard would probably have to require attribution, if only to recruit participating researchers. But the protocol cogently argues that such a requirement would result in "attribution stacking" (e.g. crediting "40,000 data depositors in the event of a query across 40,000 data sets") and violate the "principle of low transaction costs." It's equally cogent in arguing that open data should not limit re-use with "share-alike" and similar contractual restrictions."

Catalogers are wonderful people: we had 2 occasions to confirm this
great opinion.
About "Text block defect description" , we had 29 emails in 2 days,
about dog-ear, dog earings, dog-eared witness,
alszeugnisumschlagendenpapierblattgutgottbereits, temoin, binder's
hangover, binder's dog ear, binder's folded corner, etc...
And the 2 following days (including sunday) again 38 emails about the
correct way to list pages in bibliography and in the The Golden Ass of
Apuleius. Apuleius (and his Golden Ass) certainly would have like this
discussion , becaus he was a very famous and emeritus rhetor and much
more...
We are really delighted to read some magic formulas such:
v-xxxv-27-239
converted into [iv],v-xxxv, [1],
then into [i-iv]v-xxxv [xxxvi], 27-239 [240],
and [4], v-xxxv,[1],27-239
and so on...
Is [1-2] 3-16, [1-2] 3-16 better than [1-2] 3-16 [1-2] 3-16 ?
Are we reading magic formulas ? At least we need some Enigma machine to
decipher the code.
Or probably catalogers are members of an international and dangerous
sect, with some hidden God utturing some uncomprehensible rules and
laws, gurus to clarify the unclear, and practising and non practising
members
God save catalogers!

François Lapèlerie
Université de la Mediterranée
13009 Marseille -- France

Ex: EXLIBRIS list

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/news/libraries/2007/2007-12-13.googlefaq.html

Goole will digitize only PD titles at Columbia U.

Bibliographic records are a key part of our shared cultural heritage. They too should therefore be made available to the public for access and re-use without restriction. Not only will this allow libraries to share records more efficiently and improve quality more rapidly through better, easier feedback, but will also make possible more advanced online sites for book-lovers, easier analysis by social scientists, interesting visualizations and summary statistics by journalists and others, as well as many other possibilities we cannot predict in advance.

Please sign the petition at
http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl?action=show&redirect=OpenBibliographicData

http://timea.rice.edu/

All stuff I have seen in the presentation is PD in the US. Licensing unter CC-BY seems to be "Copyfraud Light". Nevertheless it's quite fair to give attribution to Rice U as source. It would be better to mark PD as PD but given the practice of almost all other US libraries which claim Copyrights on PD materials Rice decision to choose CC-BY and thos allowing commercial use is simply great.

http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2007/12/laxton-open-field-survey-map.html