[CODE4LIB] PDF: Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition
This June is the twenty-first anniversary of PACS-L, an early mailing list. PACS-L facilitated the establishment in August 1989 of The Public-Access Computer Systems Review (PACS Review), one of the first open access journals published on the Internet. In turn, a PACS Review experiment resulted in the establishment of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography in October 1996, which led to the establishment of Digital Scholarship in April 2005. See A Look Back at 21 Years as an Open Access Publisher for details. http://digital-scholarship.org/cwb/21/21years.htm To commemorate these events, Digital Scholarship has released a free PDF version of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition. http://www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/annual/sepb2008.pdf -- Best Regards, Charles Charles W. Bailey, Jr. Publisher, Digital Scholarship http://digital-scholarship.org/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Facebook JSON results and the privacy problem
Hmm, interesting. Facebook is on the way out, anyway. The question is what social network, if any, will replace it. On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Ranti Junus ranti.ju...@gmail.com wrote: For example: http://graph.facebook.com/search?q=whatever ranti. -- Bulk mail. Postage paid.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Visualization of the Metadata Universe
Jenn, It's really beautiful. Like a good map or timetable, you can pore over it for hours. I want a big copy for the office. Can you explain it to me a little? For example, what does it mean to say that XML or MPEG-21 has a much stronger connection to the library community—as defined by uptake, intent and appropriateness—than MARC and LCSH? That seems literally backwards. One can perhaps argue appropriateness in various ways, but MARC and LCSH are ubiquitous and intended for libraries in a way the others are not. I also suggest changing scholarly texts to texts. There are lots of texts which aren't really scholarly texts that libraries—even academic libraries—care about, aren't there? Also, while putting them together has virtues, might there be cause to separate book-texts and article-texts? They certainly differ considerably when it comes to the update and appropriateness of various standards. Tim
