Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

* > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Davis, Jeffrey > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:15 PM > To: CODE4LIB@listserv.nd.edu > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal > > In an > attempt to create

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

rsday, February 23, 2006 5:03 PM To: CODE4LIB@listserv.nd.edu Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal +1 I know there has been a lot of sentiment toward simply hacking on our web site, but as useful as that might be, it is still preaching to the choir. As Peter and others have said, if we want

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

+1 I know there has been a lot of sentiment toward simply hacking on our web site, but as useful as that might be, it is still preaching to the choir. As Peter and others have said, if we want to broaden our reach we will most likely need to produce something that will get much wider notice -- th

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

> One question is certainly, "Who will this journal serve?" The more I think about it, the more I think the main justification for a code4lib journal is to get our stuff noticed more. There are too many enthusiastic Library 2.0 bloggers who spend their time talking about non-library Web 2.0 servic

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Hi folks... been trying to follow this thread... I've been quite busy this week: I think that for libraries to keep pace with our private sector competitors, there needs to be strong alliances made on the technology side. In my opinion, the journal being proposed should focus on encouraging coll

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ross Singer wrote: I think a more important question, however, is "What is it about Code4Lib that attracts you/makes you desire a published output of it?" I believe that Code4Lib serves an otherwise under-served audience: The growing numbers of librarians who are

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Ross++ the less formal, the better. On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ross Singer wrote: I think we're down to some real questions here. One question is certainly, "Who will this journal serve?" (which has already been asked, but I don't know if we've gotten consensus on it). I think a more impo

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I think we're down to some real questions here. One question is certainly, "Who will this journal serve?" (which has already been asked, but I don't know if we've gotten consensus on it). I think a more important question, however, is "What is it about Code4Lib that attracts you/makes you desire

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Just an observation re one of Art's statements: > TPMDP #5: A spin-off "traditional" publication would still be > possible downstream. A lot of people only want to find out > more about the innards of a project after seeing its final > results, so nothing precludes a more neatly packaged version >

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I am probably the only one on this list who has actually started a journal and followed through on it, built an organization, obtained sponsorship, built a technical infrastructure, and produced a few hundred papers. There has never been a sane person who has done that twice. Observations: 1. Sta

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 (

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

> >> -Original Message- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of NCR Lab >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 03:56 PM >> To: CODE4LIB@listserv.nd.edu >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal >> >>

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal > > O.K., I'm jumping into this a little late (I have a day job > {:-) ), so if I missed something in this long series of > posts, use the delete button. > > I am excited about the prospect of a "journal;" enoug

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

O.K., I'm jumping into this a little late (I have a day job {:-) ), so if I missed something in this long series of posts, use the delete button. I am excited about the prospect of a "journal;" enough to be willing to commit time to it. I'm reminded of an eLiteracy conference I went to a few yea

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I've lurked on this list for some time...but I must chime in here for a moment. I think that the following two statements go back to an earlier post by Dorothea Salo today, which really summed it up nicely for me as a lurker who hasn't been very involved in this community: * The core audience f

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

a natural home. -- Jeff Davis Public Services Librarian University of Alberta Libraries [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM screen name: jd4v15 (MSN, AIM, Yahoo) -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Binkley, Peter Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:38 AM To

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 mo

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

A gin-u-wine levity injection: On 2/22/06, Jeremy Frumkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I was at the University of Arizona, we produced the Journal of > Insect > Science (http://insectscience.org) (now at the University of Wisconsin). This model would really -bug- me. I'll be here all w

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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, a

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:14:18AM -0800, K.G. Schneider wrote: > > You also need a production schedule, a team of peer reviewers, publication > guidelines, and editorial policies. This does not have to take forever. > Frankly, in most typical LibraryLand settings it would take two years, maybe >

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I like Ben's suggestion of A List Apart as a model: timely practical articles that can still be read a year later; excellent layout and presentation (and thus, "authority"); active discussion attached to each article, sometimes with additional valuable ideas/info; issues and a schedule (but a bit

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 ev

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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, a

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Publishing articles as they are ready is fine, but as Karen alluded to, the issue paradigm is as much about whipping authors/editor into action and creating an event worthy of notice (a collection of articles becoming available not just one) as it is making a printable/ shippable package. There ar

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

ct: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal 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 c

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 meth

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

> 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 ce

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

K.G. Schneider wrote: You could use blogging software to deliver it, but make sure it has peer review, an ISSN, and a professional appearance. Frankly, my concern (I hear the tape drives whirring faster as I think about this) is that you have rushed out of the gate of a conference with gr

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

> Sorry if I've misinterpreted your argument, but aiming code4lib at the > hard core is an > opportunity that we shouldn't miss. I am more analog than most of you (or at least partially powered by tape-drives, or possibly those great clanking machines from Desk Set) but I fully agree with this. Th

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Wow, there's been so many good posts on this that I am still digesting them, but to answer Mark: >Art, would creating a section at http://code4lib.org/ that was reserved for formal, maybe even >peer-reviewed articles do what you're describing? This sounds like the right approach, and I am a big f

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:41:37AM -0500, Dorothea Salo wrote: > It also means that Muhammad will have to go talk to the mountain. In > librarianship terms, that means conferences (which code4lib has already > pulled off), and a journal or something very like it. For all the violent > "Library 2.0

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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. Code

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 and Biotechniques Ed Sperr Digi

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I like the way DLib handles reviewing (pretty much up to the editor(s)). --Th -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Corrado Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:56 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 t

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 gr

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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)

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 some

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

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 du

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On Feb 22, 2006, at 12:26 AM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:27 PM, Mark Jordan wrote: In other words, http://code4lib.org/ could _be_ the journal but it could be a new type of journal. I'll second this. Now this I like. I had feared the overhead and processes of a traditiona

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:27 PM, Mark Jordan wrote: In other words, http://code4lib.org/ could _be_ the journal but it could be a new type of journal. I'll second this. Four years ago we started /usr/lib/info for roughly this same purpose, and a number of these same people (usual suspects?) were

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Well, as usual, Art rocks on his list, but I have to point out a few of my favorites with some comments. On Feb 21, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Art Rhyno wrote: "Our project was a complete disaster, and this is exactly what we did wrong" This is _so_ needed. Almost every article I see buries the mistak

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 11:00:17PM -0500, Art Rhyno wrote: > > I guess I am looking for more recipe sharing, comments in the margins, and > whiteboarding, I wouldn't want to break or detract from anything that is > working now. All of this happens virtually at some level, but there's > still some i

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Ok, this is my last message tonight I swear. Bill asked for a dozen possible titles, "Ed Summers on being a programming heretic" (actually, pick any 12 programming topics, insert Ed's name in front, and that's an easy dozen) "What's wrong with my CMS, and probably yours too" "Options for label pri

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

>Art, you write more (word count /and/ content) in one blog posting to >LibraryCog than my contributions in two journal articles. Thanks Ross, but I still think of Mark Twain's apology for writing long letters because it was so much harder to make them short :-) Maybe "journal" is a misnomer, sinc

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

On 21 February 2006, Ross Singer wrote: We have a Code4lib planet. We have Ariadne and we have D-Lib (and, as we learned last week, we have ITAL). There are no code snippets in D-Lib. I don'e know Aridne well (I'll remedy that) but at a glance I don't see code there. Library geek code4lib t

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I too think find the idea of a journal intriguing. Without knowing a whole of the discussion, I would hope the journal would be a lot like Ariadne or DLib Magazine. I think successful journals establish a regular format over time. Some of these things include introductory editorials, regular colu

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Art, I think you make a point here that Rob Sanderson (I think) made in the IRC channel today. We have a Code4lib planet. We have Ariadne and we have D-Lib (and, as we learned last week, we have ITAL). Where would the market for this journal be? Who would read it? Would it just be the same p

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

I'd like to second Art's feedback. Where I'd like to see this go is into the very uncharted territory for library mags/journals -- the truly technical rag. I'm not sure I'd be so into the standard "peer review" structure, or if so, only for a select few articles that seemed appropriate. Rather, I

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

This is intriguing, I really like the idea of a publication that would have a high level of technical content, even if only to inspire more folks to consider the IT side of libraries. I would really like to see a low barrier way of capturing the excitement and enthusiasm that came through in the li

Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

Davis, Jeffrey wrote: One of the ideas that came out of last week's conference in Corvallis was for a code4lib journal. Here's a proposal for what such a journal might look like; comments, article submissions, and volunteers are all welcome. I think this is a fine idea. Higher-ups willi

[CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal

One of the ideas that came out of last week's conference in Corvallis was for a code4lib journal. Here's a proposal for what such a journal might look like; comments, article submissions, and volunteers are all welcome. *** WHAT WOULD THE JOURNAL BE ABOUT? The code4lib conference's call for pro