Lindsay Greene, NYU to make archive software, Washington Square News, September 22, 2004. Excerpt: "NYU's library system has announced plans to develop software for an intercollegiate database that will make archival processing more efficient, a library official said. The system, called 'The Archivists' Toolkit,' will allow universities and other research institutions to compile their archives into a online database, making the scholarship available worldwide....NYU, which is developing the project with assistance from the University of California at San Diego, decided to pursue the project after several researchers expressed an interest in a more accessible archive, Dean of Libraries Carol Mandel said. 'Our archivists were frustrated with the lack of software available, so they got together and kind of said "let's do this,"' she said. The archivists went to the Andrew W. Mellon foundation where they were paired up with the University of California. Both universities received a collaborative, two-year grant for $847,000. The project is expected to last from two to four years, and NYU hopes to renew the grant, Mandel said." (PS: The article doesn't say so, but the toolkit web site makes clear that the software will be both OAI-compliant and open-source. However, I'm still curious about what the project leaders found deficient in the nine existing systems of OAI-compliant, open-source archiving software.)
Posted by Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109603392024520142

An explanation might be that archiving software for eprint archives is not the same as archival software used by archivists for cataloging archival records.

Excerpt from the toolkit's website:

The objective is a digital tool set, primarily database in
character, that will:
• satisfy and integrate key functions in the archival descriptive cycle, including
accessioning, provenance, authority, locating, finding aid construction and
encoding, and, digital surrogate / single item description;
• allow small to medium-sized archives and special collections to ingest metadata
about collections into a centralized repository, along with digital asset
management, accession, reference, and workflow information;
• use a relational database management system with a Web-based user interface
to support all aspects and functions of archival administration and description,
(including components for digital- and media-asset tracking and management);
and
• be deployable in a range of archival repositories from historical societies, college
archives, museum archives, commercial archives, and other archives
specializing in non-textual materials (sound or video archives, for example) on
the one hand, and, on the other, in archives with a single staff member or in
multi-repository consortia such as the Five Colleges, Inc. or the Online Archive of
California.

Update
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1087.html

ACCESS TO ARCHIVES IN CHINA
Until recently, archives in China were
largely confidential, with even the archivists
themselves having restricted access.
However, the archives in Guangzhou,
the capital of South China’s Guangdong
Province, will soon be publicly accessible.
The city is the first to make nearly all official
archives available and is constructing a
new building, hoped to be completed by
late May.
For more information, see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-04/19/content_1427008.htm.

Source:
DigiCULT Info #8, August 2004
http://www.digicult.info/downloads/DC_NL8_lowres_final.pdf

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE!

American Friends of the Anna Amalia Library

The Dutchess Anna Amalia Library in Weimar, Germany is one of the world's great cultural treasures. Founded in 1691, it holds over a million books and significant rare book and manuscript collections, including medieval manuscripts, Martin Luther's Bible, the world's largest collection of Goethe's Faust, and other treasures. It has been named a UNESCO world heritage site.

On September 2, 2004 the library suffered a terrible fire, and over 30,000 irreplaceable books were lost. Another 40,000 books were damaged by smoke and water. German Culture Minister Christina Weiss has said, "The literary memory of Germany has suffered severe damage. A piece of the world's cultural heritage has been lost forever." More information is available at http://www.anna-amalia-bibliothek.de/

At this difficult time it is important for Americans and people of all countries to show their solidarity with the library. An "American Friends of the Anna Amalia Library" has been formed for this purpose. Please be as generous as you can. The complete sum of your gift, which can be sent to the following address, will be forwarded to the Library to for the conservation of damaged books and manuscripts.

American Friends of the Anna Amalia Library
C/o Ronald D. Patkus
Vassar College Box 20
124 Raymond Avenue
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604

If you have any questions, please feel free to send email to patkus@vassar.edu.

Thank you very much for your support!

http://adminstaff.vassar.edu/patkus/Americanfriends.htm

English information about the damages can also be found at:
http://www.anna-amalia-library.com/en/

http://www.dtic.mil/cendi/publications/04-8copyright.html

"The always-useful beSpacific blog has a posting on a new FAQ on copyright produced by CENDI, the interagency working group of senior Scientific and Technical Information managers from 12 U.S. federal agencies.

The FAQ is focused on issues relating to copyright in a government setting, and it is excellent. It includes discussion of when government works are copyrighted, what happens when government works are included in other publications, and the copyright status of work produced by Federal contracts and grants. It also has a very useful copyright glossary, and links to many of the copyright notice and permission pages from different federal agencies. And it doesn't avoid taking opinions. Highly recommended."

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/09/copyright_in_go.html

See also the comments

http://www.utoronto.ca/deeds/research/research.html

"An important new online resource that's recently become available is DEEDS [Michael Gervers, University of Toronto] - a collection of the Latin texts of more than 8000 charters extracted from 170 published cartularies, mainly from the 12th and 13th centuries. The original emphasis was on Essex (the acronym stands for Documents of Essex England Data Set), but the collection also covers other parts of England and Wales. The largest numbers of charters come from Lincoln Cathedral, the Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St John, and the abbeys of Oseney, Cirencester and Eynsham. The collection can be browsed or searched (remember that the text is in Latin when picking keywords!), and for each charter there is normally a link to a scan of the published version (which may include an abstract in English). The interface takes a bit of getting used to - and the server seems to be a little temperamental - but there's a huge amount of information behind it. "

Quoted from
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/updates/update.shtml

OHIOLINK hat put 500+ PDFs of brittle books in its catalog (search electronic AND acme).

Example:
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/ebooks/dmc/OSU/CollectorsGuideToHistoricalDocuments%5FScott%5F562pgs.070.51908301.pdf

Author Scott, Henry T. (Henry Thomas)
Title A Guide to the collector of historical documents, literary manuscripts, and autograph letters, etc. [electronic resource] : with an index of valuable books of reference, where several thousand facsimiles of handwriting may be found for the verification of mss. and autograph letters ; also a new edition of Wright's Court-hand restored ; with an introductory chapter for the use of students and facsimiles of watermarks / by Scott and Samuel Davey
Publish info London : S.J. Davey, 1891
Descript'n xvi, 218 p., 153 p. of plates : front. facsim
Note Assisted by Samuel John Davey
Appendices: Facsimiles of royal personages -- English celebrities -- Wright's Court-hand restored (plates only) -- Facsimiles of watermarks from the collection formed by the late R. Lemon

Cornell Law Review, March 2003 v88 i3 p651(82)

Presidential papers and popular government: the convergence of constitutional and property theory in claims of ownership and control of presidential records. Jonathan Turley.

INTRODUCTION

I. A QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF
PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS FROM PERSONAL TO PUBLIC
PROPERTY
A. The Historical Assertion and Consequences of
Personal Ownership of Presidential Papers
B. The Presidential Records Act and the Assertion of
Public Ownership over Presidential Papers
C. Executive Order 13,233 and the Reassertion of
Unilateral Executive Control over Presidential
Papers
II. THE PROPERTY PARADIGM: LOCKE'S LABOR THEORY AND
THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS
III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARADIGM: EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
AND THE STATUS OF FORMER PRESIDENTS IN THE
ASSERTION AND TRANSFER OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
A. The Executive Privilege and the Constitutional Basis
for Denial of Public Access to Presidential Papers
1. The Curious Constitutional Status of the Former
President
2. The Temporal Dimension to Executive Privilege
3. The Transferability of Executive Privilege to Third
Parties
B. The Convergence of Constitutional and Property
Theories in the Status of Presidential Papers as
"Constitutional Property"
IV. THE PROPERTY PARADIGM RECONSIDERED: THE PUBLIC
CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS
A. The Property Basis for Public Ownership of
Presidential Records
B. The Alternative Rationales for the Retroactive
Application of Public Ownership over Pre-PRA
Presidential Records
1. Direct Public Acquisition
2. Involuntary Acquisition with Compensation
CONCLUSION

This Article addresses the long-standing dispute over the disclosure of presidential papers from historical, constitutional, and philosophical perspectives. Recently, President Bush rekindled this controversy by issuing an executive order that could significantly reduce public access to presidential records. Professor Jonathan Turley uses this controversy to reconsider some of the most fundamental questions of private versus public ownership of presidential papers, and argues that the roots of the ongoing controversy in this area can be found not in constitutional law but in property law. After offering a detailed account of how papers were transferred or bequeathed by presidents as far back as George Washington, Professor Turley argues that historical practice regarding the control of presidential papers reflects a distinctly Lockean and deontological view of property. Although new property concepts took hold in other areas, this view of private ownership remained dominant in the area of presidential papers well into the twentieth century. Professor Turley examines the basis for a proprietary theory of presidential papers under Lockean, Hegelian, and utilitarian perspectives. Ultimately, he concludes that none of these theories offers compelling support for the traditional view of private ownership of these records. After critiquing the Bush order and identifying serious constitutional flaws in its provisions, Professor Turley offers a new conceptual foundation for presidential papers as jus publicum, or inherently public property. As such, he argues, presidential papers currently held by heirs of former presidents should be subject to public protection or even public acquisition.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-04.htm

Excerpt:

More than ever before I'm hearing the complaint that the term "open access" doesn't have a firm, common definition. This is not true, but it could become true if dilution and misuse of the term continue.

The three major public definitions of "open access" are contained in the Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin public statements. Even though these three definitions differ from one another in small ways (which I explored in SOAN for 8/4/03), they agree on the essentials. Let me refer to them collectively, or to their common ground, as the Budapest-Bethesda-Berlin or BBB definition of open access.

Nearly all OA proponents agree on the BBB definition. When I defend the concept of open access against dilution, I'm defending the communal consensus embodied in the BBB definition, not my own private preferences. The three contributing public statements have unparalleled stature and influence within the OA movement. Only outsiders and newcomers might mistake this. And that, I believe, is part of the problem. Our growing success means that our message in one form or another, clear or garbled, is reaching new people who almost certainly do not know the BBB definition or its centrality for our work.

The best-known part of the BBB definition is that OA content must be free of charge for all users with an internet connection. However, the BBB definition doesn't stop at free online access. It adds an extra dimension that isn't as easy to describe, and consequently is often dropped or obscured. This extra dimension gives users permission for all legitimate scholarly uses. It removes what I've called permission barriers, as opposed to price barriers. The Budapest statement puts the extra dimension this way:

> By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

The Bethesda and Berlin statements put it this way: For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users "copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship".

All three tributaries of the mainstream BBB definition agree that OA removes both price and permission barriers. Free online access isn't enough. "Fair use" ("fair dealing" in the UK) isn't enough.

Note that the three component statements of the BBB definition do not agree on exactly which permission barriers must be removed. There's room for variety here. BBB requires removing barriers to copying and redistribution. It doesn't require removing barriers to commercial re-use; authors can go either way on this. Two of the three BBB component definitions require removing barriers to derivative works.

One danger is the dilution of our term. That's why I'm reminding us of the BBB definition and its place in our history. But another danger is the false sharpening of our term. If we thought that the BBB definition settled matters that it doesn't settle, then we could prematurely close avenues of useful exploration, needlessly shrink the big tent of OA, and divisively instigate quarreling about who is providing "true OA" and who isn't.

The BBB definition functions as a usefully firm definition of "open access" even if it leaves room for variation. We should agree that OA removes some permission barriers (e.g. on copying, redistribution, and printing) even if it leaves different OA providers free to adopt different policies on others (e.g. on derivative works and commercial re-use). My personal preference, for example, is to permit derivative works and commercial re-use. But (as I wrote in FOSN for 1/30/02) I want to make this preference genial, or compatible with the opposite preference, so that we can recruit and retain authors on both sides of this question.

Comments:

I do not agree with the conclusion that BBB "doesn't require removing barriers to commercial re-use".

BOAI says: "The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited." In my opinion that clearly allows commercial re-use. I do not see that "for any responsible purpose" in the Berlin declaration (and the Bethesda definition) excludes commercial re-use.

Suber has avoided mentioning the fact hat PLoS has chosen a less restrictive Creative Commons license (attribution, derivative works and commercial re-use allowed).

I would like to reduce BBB to one B: Berlin. Berlin is the broadest (and latest, basing on Budapest and - mainly - Bethesda) consensus of the Open Access community. Berlin clearly allows derivative works. We should not say that policies which forbidd derivative works are'nt "true Open Access" but we can say that they are definitively NOT compatible with the Berlin declaration.

And, by the way, we can definitively say that the Lund criteria for Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org) are NOT compatible with the BBB definition. Most of the listed journals allows only free access (journals with an embargo period are not listed) and have copyright reservations - no permission barriers are removed. I have called this "Open Access LIGHT". The Open Access Community praises the Lund directory (although the EZB is much more better) but will not see the fact that the Lund criteria are exactly in the same way misleading as the diluting publisher's use of "Open Access".

Confusion is growing on the license question, i.e.: which legal licenses are compatible with BBB (or B)? Do we need a Berlin II conference clearing this point or should we allow a free choice by scholars or institutional policies? We can only hope that the derivative works and the commercial re-use will remain the only points conflicts can araise.

I fully agree with the following conclusion Suber's on the dilution of Open Access especially made by publishers:

In evaluating new access policies, we needn't confuse the widening of access with open access. And we needn't confuse policies that stop short of open access with policies that make no progress. We can praise progress and criticize dilution of our term at the same time.

The widespread adoption of digital cameras and DVD recorders with internal hard disk drives has created a need for "eternal storage" to preserve precious digital memories for future generations.

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200408/covst_322708.html

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1389-0166

Free issue 2001 issue 4

Archiving/Architecture
pp. 321-332 Kent Kleinman
/74K
Placing Records Continuum Theory and Practice
pp. 333-359 Sue McKemmish
/211K
Accountability in an Information Age: Opportunities and Risks for Records Management
pp. 361-372 Albert Meijer
/75K
A First Introduction to Archival Science
pp. 373-385 Theo Thomassen
/73K
Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot; Daniel R. Headrick, When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revolution, 1700–1850
pp. 387-391 James M. O'Toole
/36K
International Standard Archival Description ISAD(G)
pp. 393-396 Kate Cumming
/37K
International Standard Archival Description ISAD(G)
pp. 397-402 Paul Scifleet
/51K
Eduardo Núñez Fernández, Organización y gestión de archivos
pp. 403-404 Adán Benavides
/23K
Ramon Alberch i Fugueras, Lurdes Boix Llonch, Nat lia Navarro Sastre, and Susanna Vela Palomares, Archivos y cultura: manual de dinamización
pp. 405-406 Adán Benavides
/22K
List of Contributors
pp. 407-409
/28K
Instructions for Authors
pp. 411-415
/37K
Author Index
pp. 417-417
/16K
Volume Contents
pp. 419-422
/30K