PDF - CARL - ABRC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Special Collections in ARL Libraries March 2009 stewardship obligations for digital materials. Archivists, curators, and librarians need to be involved in campus planning for local cyber-infrastructure capabilities. Two points need to be made here. First, indexing and or responsibility for access may no longer fall so strongly to libraries and archives. At some level, new scholarly practices may involve giving copies of sizeable digital corpora to interested scholars who will then perform various kinds of computing on them, some of it to get access, some to rank, some to summarize or interpret, some to do inference across multiple collections. These new points of access may be more specialized, variable, and situational than what the library or archive can be expected to offer. They may also be experimental, or requiring of subsequent scholarly interpretation. A second point to be made about access to digital materials is that sometimes, the best or only thing that the library or archive can do is to use some clearly insufficient technology, and then wait and re-run the technology later when it improves. This may be the case with some image or recorded speech collections, where significant effort and money is being expended to advance the state of the art, and what can be done in ten years computationally to provide access to the collection is likely to be much better than what can be done today. A major theme that emerges during digital curation is the need for partnerships and collaborations – those that involve transferring responsibility for activities that repositories have managed for traditional analog materials. Defining requirements, identifying partners with the capabilities and capacity to meet those requirements, and routine monitoring of their performance need to become an integral part of strategies for managing digital materials in special collections. An example of these new types of partnerships/collaborations is the outsourcing of indexing of various corpora to Google and others. Recommendations: (with some talking points on digitization privacy/institutional liability concerns) 13. New definitions need to be created for determining the scope of digital special collections, so that stakeholders can understand the nature of special collections professionals’ responsibilities. These include a responsibility for harvesting and preserving endangered web sites, wikis and other dynamic information resources. 14. There is also a pressing need for training programs that will help administrators as well as special collections professionals to understand their responsibilities in this environment. Digital awareness is a responsibility that library managements need to address most especially in dealing with special collections. 15. Digitization makes visible materials that may be “public” but not broadly shared, such as legal records, which remain “practically obscure” in paper form thus providing some measure of privacy protection. With digitization, the access/privacy balance is shifted and can result in unintended consequences that may raise liability concerns for the institution. Institutions may end up facing requests to redact or take down content that has been put online. 41 There is a need for those in charge of special collections to understand and have ready access to a clear institutional policy and procedure for responding to such requests, that ensures actions are taken in light of the most current legal decision in this field. 41 Consider, for example, the recent Vanginderen case at Cornell University, where an alumnus sued the university for breach of privacy because their digitized version of the student newspaper contained an unfavorable story about him. Page 28 www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf
Special Collections in ARL Libraries March 2009 16. The imperative to collaborate becomes far more apparent in the digital environment. Special collections librarians and archivists should both welcome and seek out collaborations, with museums and galleries, with scholars creating electronic databases, with lawyers, with information technologists, and with the creators and custodians of digital repositories (who will not necessarily be the libraries themselves, as the needs for electronic preservation diversify and grow). 17. There is an ongoing need for case studies that can illustrate possible approaches to early intervention with digital records creators, institutional collaborations, and partnerships with information technology specialists. www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf Page 29
Page 1 and 2:
Meeting oof the CARL Scholarly S Co
Page 3 and 4:
Meeting of the CARL Committee on Sc
Page 5 and 6:
For the matter of print preservatio
Page 7 and 8:
as the first step in developing a s
Page 9 and 10: Minutes of the CARL Scholarly Commu
Page 11 and 12: DART Europe (ETDs partnership betwe
Page 13 and 14: Document 3 strategic interest in op
Page 15 and 16: Document 3 memberships have one vot
Page 17 and 18: (ICM) Document 3 Partners Ligue des
Page 19 and 20: and increased content achieved thro
Page 21 and 22: Document 6 Outline - Synergies Busi
Page 23 and 24: Outline - Synergies Business and Su
Page 33 and 34: Special Collections in ARL Librarie
Page 35 and 36: Contents Special Collections in ARL
Page 37 and 38: Preface Special Collections in ARL
Page 39: ARL Working Group on Special Collec
Page 47: Recommendations: Special Collection
Page 59: Special Collections in ARL Librarie
Page 65 and 66: Appendices Recommendations I. Colle
Page 69 and 70: identify and acquire culturally sig
Page 71 and 72: Collaborative Print Repositories: A
Page 73 and 74: willingness to consider the goals o
Page 75 and 76: OCUL digital collection development
Page 77 and 78: might happen. There are still many
Page 79 and 80: Document 10 2010 Open Access Engage
Page 81 and 82: CARL Brief for Open Access Engageme
Page 83 and 84: scholarship through hybrid scholarl
Page 85 and 86: and a vital service, and (3) publis
Page 87 and 88: importance of experimenting with mo
Page 89 and 90: At its January 2010 meeting, the Si
Page 91 and 92: Recommendation: The Canadian Associ
Page 93 and 94: Meetings (resulting from letters) M
Page 95 and 96: In attendance: SCHOLARLY JOURNALS S
Page 97 and 98: context of world trends towards ope
Page 99 and 100: 2010 Congress in Montreal CARL Spon
Page 101 and 102: and determine whether it could be t
Page 103 and 104: Total 2010 budget of Scholarly Comm
Page 105 and 106: December 2009 Questionnaire RE: Int
Page 107 and 108: Concordia Librarians staffed welcom
Page 109 and 110: generally better Tuesday to Thursda
Page 111 and 112:
UWO Western Libraries at The Univer
Page 113 and 114:
A Review of Emerging Models in Cana
Page 115 and 116:
Toronto, and University of Calgary.
Page 117 and 118:
Case Studies The remainder of this
Page 119 and 120:
The journals single revenue source
Page 121 and 122:
want to be “Main Sponsors”. •
Page 123 and 124:
improving access to research result
Page 125 and 126:
• Provide the server space to hos
Page 127 and 128:
processing with respect to both eBo
Page 129 and 130:
criticized for failing to exploit t
Page 131 and 132:
Funding for the Press comes from bl
Page 133 and 134:
experience dealing with the epub/xm
Page 135 and 136:
Working with Kirtas Technologies, t
Page 137 and 138:
collection. Contributors are encour
Page 139 and 140:
The content is updated daily. Once
Page 141 and 142:
References Antonius, Daniel and Ada
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix 1: More examples of journa
Page 145 and 146:
services are available to the McMas
Page 147:
University of Western Ontario Libra
show all

PDF - CARL - ABRC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?