OK, folks, it's time for a comment from the peanut gallery. (Having had my
1st cuppa, I am brave.)
Last night I pulled the first 3 issues of JOLA (yeah, I go back that far)
from my shelf and took a look. Back in the late '60s, JOLA was reproducing
images of Hollerith cards, tractor-feed print
On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Dinberg Donna wrote:
Last night I pulled the first 3 issues of JOLA (yeah, I go back
that far)
from my shelf and took a look. Back in the late '60s, JOLA was
reproducing
images of Hollerith cards, tractor-feed print dumps, flowcharts, and
formulae to illustrate
Well, since I brought up the idea at code4libcon, I'm in favor of it
:-). I'm not sure how the best way to handle the review process would
be, but I do know that tradition blind peer review would:
a) Be a lot of work
b) Slow down the process (which is a problem with a journal such as
ITAL)
I'm glad for Donna Dinberg's post, as it crystallizes my overnight
thinking about code4lib and its currently-vaporware journal. This message
may turn long and discursive, for which I apologize in advance.
Code4lib started out as and in many ways still *is* a core group of
library tech people, a
Hello,
I'm Ben Brophy. I'm a UI designer/developer at MIT, working on a
federated search tool for slide libraries, and about 85% of the way
through library school. I am an unrepentant lurker on this list.
I think the journal idea is excellent. Some one asked who would read
this journal, and I
One potential model for a code4lib journal (or at least how we coded it
good part of it) is the that of the methods journal found in the life
sciences.
Good examples include Nature Methods
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/index.html and Biotechniques
http://www.biotechniques.com/
Ed Sperr
Digital
Dorothea states elegantly what I implied (I guess I needed two cuppas):
Donna's post suggests a criminally underserved population,
one I think code4lib could profitably target along with its
developer core: the accidental library tech.
there is NOTHING out there for us. Code4lib
Responding to Mark Jordan:
but I don't think that audience should be the people you
describe above (who a colleague of mine calls analogue
librarians). If there are any accidental techs (or potential
accidental techs) who aren't already hanging out on venues
like what code4lib already is
If the delivery method is purely electronic, and it's a given that the
intended audience would have tools to be alerted of new articles, why
bother with a formal schedule?
-Ross.
Because that's how things get written, reviewed, and published. It's not for
Them, it's for You. Just my 2 cents
Ross unleashed:
Why does it have to follow /any/ traditional publishing model?
I sort of like the idea that maybe 3 articles come out in a week, then
nothing for a week or two, then another article comes out, and then one
comes out every day for a 13 day span.
If the delivery method is
Jeremy Frumkin said the following on 2/22/2006 11:44 AM:
Ross unleashed:
Why does it have to follow /any/ traditional publishing model?
I sort of like the idea that maybe 3 articles come out in a week, then
nothing for a week or two, then another article comes out, and then one
comes out
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:44:08AM -0800, Jeremy Frumkin wrote:
Ross unleashed:
Why does it have to follow /any/ traditional publishing model?
I sort of like the idea that maybe 3 articles come out in a week, then
nothing for a week or two, then another article comes out, and then one
I agree with Ed Corrado that the purpose of the peer-review process is
to improve the articles, not to give thumbs-up or thumbs-down. How about
making the review process consist of submitting an article into a wiki
(with proper discussion page etc.) and letting it simmer there for a
while before
Sounds like a 'journal - portal - knowledge base' type-o-thing
Whatever it will be, I KNOW it will be Bit-e-full!
Beata
Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Dinberg Donna wrote:
Last night I pulled the first 3 issues of JOLA (yeah, I go back
that far)
from my shelf and
A few thoughts, followed by a summary of the discussion so far.
Ed Corrado noted some problems with peer review in an earlier message,
and I think those problems outweigh the gains of peer review -- which
ultimately amount to a little more respectability, mainly for those
seeking tenure. In that
On 2/23/06, Ryan Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.textualize.com/
Again I'm unsure if we would be looking at mostly small snippets and
functions or full fledged classes/libraries.
Thanks for pointing this out; looks good.
Now with any of this, it not so much the actual libraries and
Wow, lots of great ideas coming in on this. I wonder if fleshing out a
test case would be useful for the class of materials that might have
trouble finding a home in standard publications. For example, Roy's
MODS-MPEG DIDL shootout. Let's say that Roy put a digitized book on the
code4lib server
17 matches
Mail list logo
