VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives
February 1995
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 08:28:46 EST
Reply-To: Ann Okerson <ann@cni.org>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Ann Okerson <ann@cni.org>
Subject: E-Publishing Symposium Proceedings Available
PRESS RELEASE & TABLE OF CONTENTS FOLLOW
For additional information To order please contact:
please contact: ARL Publications
Ann Okerson, Director Phone: 202-296-2296
Office of Scientific and Fax: 202-872-0884
Academic Publishing e-mail: arlhq@cni.org
e-mail: ann@cni.org
SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING ON THE ELECTRONIC NETWORKS
Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium
November 5-7, 1994
The Association of Research Libraries announces the publication of
Filling the Pipeline and Paying the Piper, Proceedings of the Fourth
ARL/AAUP Symposium in the series Scholarly Publishing on the Electronic
Networks. This collection is the most recent volume in the series The
Symposium and the proceedings are co-sponsored by the Association of
American University Presses (AAUP), with support from the American
Physical Society, along with the University of Virginia Library and the
Johns Hopkins University Press.
The first Symposium on scholarly publishing on the electronic networks
was held in the spring of 1992. One publisher commented that the
experience was "like being a deer caught in the headlights of an
onrushing truck." But by the start of the second Symposium, participants
had survived the shock of the new. And by the third, they came forward
with well-formed experiments, prototype projects, and questions about
the ways and means of making the new technology serve the demands of the
scholarly and scientific community. The fourth Symposium has tackled
some tough issues: cost recovery, electronic pricing, and copyright/fair
use.
Presentations range from descriptions of ambitious and tantalizing
electronic scholarly projects that feed our notions of the Virtual
Library to be -- the library that is simultaneously everywhere and
nowhere -- all the way to very pragmatic discussions about what it takes
to support the electronic information creation process. Much progress
has been made toward resolving common economic concerns that arose in
the very first Symposium.
The objective of Symposia has been to promote information-sharing and
discussion among people interested in developing the potential of formal
scholarly electronic publishing, with particular emphasis on
not-for-profit models.
Scholarly Publishing on the Electronic Networks was compiled and edited
by Ann Okerson, Director of ARL's Office of Scientific and Academic
Publishing. It contains full text of all the presentations at the
three-day event.
_____________________________________________________________________
The Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing (OSAP) undertakes
activities to understand and influence the forces affecting the
production, dissemination, and use of scholarly and scientific
information. The Office seeks to promote innovative, alternative ways
of sharing scholarly findings, particularly through evolving electronic
techniques for recording and disseminating academic and research
scholarship. OSAP maintains a continuing educational outreach to the
scholarly community in order to encourage a shared 'information
conscience' among all participants in the scholarly publishing chain:
academics, libraries, and information producers.
Filling the Pipeline and Paying the Piper
Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium
January 1995
ISBN 0-918006-25-1
272 pages, pbk.
$27.00 each (plus $5 Shipping & Handling within USA & Canada)
Limited numbers of copies of the proceedings of the Second and Third
Symposia, are also available for purchase. Washington, DC, March 1993
and 1994. The price is $20 each plus $5 each for Shipping & Handling
within USA & Canada. For additional ordering details, contact ARL
Publications, as above.
oooooooooooo
Table of Contents
FILLING THE PIPELINE AND PAYING THE PIPER
SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING ON THE ELECTRONIC NETWORKS
Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium
______________________________________________________________________
Foreword, by Ann Okerson
PAPERS PRESENTED
A Synopsis of the Symposium
Jinnie Davis (1-14)
KEYNOTE: Is School Out? Is Academic Publishing Out?
Lewis J. Perelman in Conversation (15-25)
Frankenstein Redux: Organization and Cultivation of
Electronic Scholarship
Michael Eleey (27-32)
The Labyrinth: A World Wide Web Disciplinary Server for
Medieval Studies
Deborah Everhart and Martin Irvine (33-38)
COST RECOVERY IN AN ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT: ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES
Scholarly Publishing in the Information Economy
Sandra Braman (39-49)
Pricing Electronic Products
Colin Day (51-56)
Innovation in Cost Recovery
Andrea Keyhani (57-65)
Electronic Journals, Libraries, and University Presses
Jean-Claude Guedon (67-75)
Some FAQs about Usage-Based Pricing
Hal R. Varian and Jeffrey K. MacKie Mason (77-88)
MINI-SESSIONS
Session 1: Using Technical Standards to Accomplish Projects
The Combined AAUP Online Catalog/Bookstore Project: Server Design
Bruce H. Barton (87-88)
The AAUP Online Catalog Project: A Progress Report
Chuck Creesy (89-91)
Campus Publishing in Standardized Electronic Formats -- HTML and TEI
David Seaman (93-102)
Session 2: Publishing Your Entire Journals List Electronically
Project Muse: Tackling 40 Journals
Susan Lewis and Todd Kelley (103-112)
Publishing E-prints, Preprints, and Journals in the Sciences
Bob Kelly (113-118)
Session 3: In The Scholarly Pipeline
Riding the Aftershocks: The Galileo Project
Elizabeth Burr (119-123)
Towards an e-MED: Converting the Middle English Dictionary
into an Electronic Version
Henk Aertsen (125-133)
Session 4: Collaborations That Work -- and How They Do It
Scholarly Communications Project: Publishers and Libraries
Gail McMillan (135-145)
Five Societies: One Journal Project
Keith Seitter (147-152)
Session 5: Finding and Navigating Networked Scholarly Works
Naming the Namable: Names, Versions, and Document Identity in
a Networked Environment
David Levy (153-159)
The Berkeley Finding Aids Project; Standards in Navigation
Daniel V. Pitti (161-166)
Session 6: Reporting Out
Research into the Reward System of Scholarship; Where Does
Scholarly Electronic Publishing Get You?
Julene Butler (167-177)
Scientific Scholarly Publishing: A Draft Proposal
David L. Rodgers (179-181)
PERSPECTIVES ON FAIR USE
Multimedia Patent and Copyright Issues: The Need for Lawmakers
to be Multimedia Literate
Fred T. Hofstetter 183-188)
The U.S. Government's Interest in Copyright and Fair Use
(Executive Summary of the Report of the NII Working Group on
Intellectual Property Rights)
Terri Southwick (189-193)
Will We Need Fair Use in the Twenty-First Century?
Georgia Harper (195-212)
Access to Digital Objects: A Communications Law Perspective
Patrice A. Lyons (213-217)
Virtual Publication and the Fair Use Concept
John Lawrence (219-228)
LAGNIAPPES
Project Scan
University of California Press (229-231)
Electronic Survey; Current Projects of Members of the AAUP (233-245)
Program for the Fourth Symposium
Registrants/Contacts
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 08:53:08 EST
Reply-To: phil-preprints-admin@phil-preprints.L.chiba-u.ac.jp
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: phil-preprints-admin@phil-preprints.L.chiba-u.ac.jp
Subject: News from the IPPE (30 Jan 95)
===============================
News from the IPPE -- 30 Jan 95
===============================
The Coordinators, Administrator, and board members of the International
Philosophical Preprint Exchange extend wishes for a happy new year to
all of our loyal users and contributors. We also extend an open
invitation to those philosophers who have not yet visited any of
the IPPE's multiple locations on the Internet to browse our holdings
(currently approximately 100 philosophical papers, plus abstracts and
tables of contents from a continuously increasing number of journals and
book series), as well as to consider submitting working papers, chapters,
etc.
To access the IPPE, proceed as follows:
By www: Open the URL http://phil-preprints.L.chiba-u.ac.jp/IPPE.html
By gopher: Use Gopher to go to either apa.oxy.edu or kasey.umkc.edu
By ftp: ftp to either Phil-Preprints.L.Chiba-U.ac.jp, or
mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
By email: Mail to phil-preprints-service@Phil-Preprints.L.Chiba-U.ac.jp
To place a paper or comment on the IPPE: see pub/submissions/README.
If you have questions: send mail to Carolyn Burke at the address
<cburke@nexus.yorku.ca>.
-------------
Status Report
------------- The IPPE continues to enjoy a rate of access of
approximately 100 users per day at our main site in Japan. Additional
accesses to the many North American and European sites mirroring the
IPPE collection probably exceed this number.
Our World Wide Web service is now fully operational, and supplements the
previous methods of access via Gopher, ftp, and automated email. Watch
this newsletter for announcements of new services soon to be available on
our WWW service (http://phil-preprints.L.chiba-u.ac.jp/IPPE.html).
-------------------
Call for Volunteers
------------------- The IPPE seeks motivated and enthuiastic volunteers
to assist in the areas of administration, publicity, and technical
support. We especially seek persons able to carry out some or all of
the following tasks:
- liason with the IPPE's international user population of professional
philosophers, graduate students, the editorial staffs of
philosophical journals, and the staffs of other on-line projects
in the humanities and social sciences
- editorial work on the newsletter and publicity materials
- administrative activities (regarding funding, etc.)
- computer support work: UNIX scripting and related activities.
--------------
The IPPE Staff
--------------
Coordinators: Dr. Syun Tutiya (Chiba University) and Dr. Richard Reiner
(visiting in '95 at the Center for Philosophy of Science,
University of Pittsburgh).
Adminstrator: Carolyn L Burke (CMU).
Board members: Dr. George Gale (U of Missouri, Kansas City), Andrew
Burday (McGill University), Istvan Berkeley (U of
Alberta).
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:08:17 EST
Reply-To: Jones Wayne <waj@abs.nlc-bnc.ca>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Jones Wayne <waj@abs.nlc-bnc.ca>
Subject: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
To: Regina, Les, Melissa, Bill
From: Wayne Jones, Head, Serials Section, National Library of Canada;
wayne.jones@nlc-bnc.ca
Here are my own opinions on your multiple versions question. This opinion is
not necessarily identical to that of the NLC, and in fact are only my
thoughts right now: I reserve the right to change my mind!:)
Thanks for soliciting opinion on this important question. ((This message is
cross-posted to EMEDIA, CONSERLST, VPIEJ-L, and SERIALST)) .....
If the multiple versions question had already been solved, not only for
remote-access electronic serials but also for relatively mundane
publications and their versions, then of course there should be only ONE
bibliographic record for all these versions, with "sub-records" within that
bibliographic record for each version. Given that the multiple versions
problem stil exists, though, I think that there should be a separate
bibliographic record for each distinct version of an electronic serial. A
separate version should be judged on two separate criteria: substantial
differences in intellectual content; and/or significant technical or access
differences.
Differences in intellectual content should be handled similarly to the
way they are handled for print etc. materials. Different geographic
editions, different language editions, etc., get different records. An added
consideration for remote access serials is that any issue may not really be
"stable" in the way that print etc. versions are: the editor may revise or
add to or delete from an issue, perhaps from a desire to distinguish between
a "preliminary" edition and a "final" edition, so that, for example, the
vol. 1, no 4 you access one month may not be identical to the vol. 1, no. 4
you access in a later month. Personally, I don't think that this would
constitute separate versions or consequently necessitate separate records.
If some bibliographic institution wanted to maintain the preliminary as well
as the final views of that serial, they could do so in their own archive,
but I don't think there should be separate records.
Significant technical or access differences should also necessitate
separate records. *Significant* ones only, though. For example, if a
remote-access serial existed in Hypertext, ASCII, PostScript, Word, and
WordPerfect versions, I would say -- keeping in mind that my knowledge of
PostScript is somewhere between nil and meagrely informed -- that there are
3 versions (and 3 records) here. One for the HyperText, one for PostScript,
and one for the other ones. I don't think differences in text-formatting are
alone enough to qualify for versions.
w
***
From: Regina Reynolds, Head, US ISSN Center (NSDP)
Les Hawkins, Senior Cataloger, US ISSN Center
Melissa Beck, CONSER Cataloger, UCLA
Bill Anderson, CONSER Specialist, LC
To: CONSRLST
EMEDIA
SERIALST
VPIEJ-L
Re: Multiple versions for remote access serials
Date: Jan. 3, 1994
The authors of this posting are associated with various
institutions in CONSER. We are considering some of the problems
associated with cataloging remote access serials and would like
to generate discussion on the issues described below. We plan
future postings to solicit input on various areas of cataloging
these serials. Please reply to your listserv.
How many catalog records should be created for remote access
serials that appear in multiple electronic versions? What
criteria should be used for deciding when variations in file
content, hardware or software requirements, or intellectual
content necessitate separate records?
In assigning the ISSN, NSDP has considered World Wide Web
versions of a title to be separate bibliographic entities from
plain ASCII versions and has thus created separate records and
assigned separate ISSN. This decision is based on the fact that
World Wide Web documents can link to, or "contain" a variety of
file types, -- sound, image, video -- as part of a given issue.
There are also differences in hardware or software requirements.
What is to be done with other versions that seem to be less
different? How do we treat remote access serials that are
available in different text formatting versions (plain ASCII,
WordPerfect, and Postscript, for example).
How many records are necessary to serve the needs of local vs
shared cataloging environments?
What other suggestions do you have for treating versions of
remote access serials?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:07:03 EST
Reply-To: John Lamp <john.lamp@cs.utas.edu.au>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: John Lamp <john.lamp@cs.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
At 1:08 PM 6/2/95, Jones Wayne wrote:
> Significant technical or access differences should also necessitate
>separate records. *Significant* ones only, though. For example, if a
>remote-access serial existed in Hypertext, ASCII, PostScript, Word, and
>WordPerfect versions, I would say -- keeping in mind that my knowledge of
>PostScript is somewhere between nil and meagrely informed -- that there are
>3 versions (and 3 records) here. One for the HyperText, one for PostScript,
>and one for the other ones. I don't think differences in text-formatting are
>alone enough to qualify for versions.
This is one of those areas where the vocabulary almost fails (probably
because it hasn't been fully invented yet). :-)
I would definitely agree regarding the need for separate records where
there is a change analogous to an edition change. By this, I mean that a
distinction should be made where the material has changed in nature.
ASCII, PostScript, Word, and WordPerfect versions are fully formatted items
designed to be read or printed as a linear document. (Postscript is merely
a text file designed to be interpreted by a postscript interpreter -
usually in a printer, but sometimes an on-screen viewer.) I would use a
single bibliographic record for these, and distinguish between them at the
'holdings' level. That is to extend the holdings types (printed, video,
film strip, etc) to include the nature of the item (ASCII, PostScript,
Word, WordPerfect etc).
A version of the work which had been properly changed into a hypertext
item, that is incorporating hypertext associative links, rather than just
re-formatted as a linear document using html or sgml tags, I would place as
a separate record, as an edition change. The nature of the work is
significantly different and while you could argue that it covered the same
ground as the linear documents, the extra intellectual effort in properly
editing for associative links, I believe is a significant enough change to
warrant recording as a separate edition.
Cheers
John
--
_--_|\ John Lamp, originating in Hobart, Tasmania
/ \ Phone: 002 20 2375 - Fax: 002 20 2913
\_.--._/ email: John.Lamp@cs.utas.edu.au
v <--< http://www.cs.utas.edu.au/Staff/Lamp,John/JL.html
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:07:33 EST
Reply-To: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
In-Reply-To: <2F367A37@its.nlc-bnc.ca>
I read this message on the Emedia list, but at the risk of duplication I
am posting it to all the lists that Wayne Jones posted it to.
You need different bibliographic records if there are significant
differences in the hardware or software needed to view/read/use a
document. For that reason, you would need separate record for the Word
and for the WordPerfect versions -- in each case you either need the
appropriate word-processing program, or a program capable of eading that
format. Further, if you had the same file in WordPerfect version 5.1 and
in WordPerfect version 6, you would need dseparate records for each
version. The formatting codes are different, you can have formats in WP
version 6 that are not available in WP version 5.1, and WP version 5.1
cannot read a WP version 6 document.
It's a pain, I know, having all those bibliographic records for the same
intellectual content. I wish we could use some sort of multiple versions
solution, but a satisfactory multiple versions answer will need
substantial changes to the USMARC bibliographic format -- I don't believe
that you can do everything that people want to do in multiple versions
with the USMARC holdings format.
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
################### Phone: (049) 215 828 (Australia)
##### ## ### +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: (049) 215 833 (Australia)
## +61 49 215 833 (International)
On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Jones Wayne wrote:
> Significant technical or access differences should also necessitate
> separate records. *Significant* ones only, though. For example, if a
> remote-access serial existed in Hypertext, ASCII, PostScript, Word, and
> WordPerfect versions, I would say -- keeping in mind that my knowledge of
> PostScript is somewhere between nil and meagrely informed -- that there are
> 3 versions (and 3 records) here. One for the HyperText, one for PostScript,
> and one for the other ones. I don't think differences in text-formatting are
> alone enough to qualify for versions.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:08:45 EST
Reply-To: Chris Chase-Dunn <chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Chris Chase-Dunn <chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: new Journal of World-Systems Research
The first batch of articles from the _Journal of World-Systems Research_ is
now available from csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/journals/
This is a refereed journal that focusses on studies of the modern
world-system and earlier intersocietal networks. The first batch contains a
thematic section on the past and future of economic and political/military
rivalry among core states.
Here is the table of contents:
JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH
gopher:\\csf.colorado.edu\wsystems\journals\
ISSN 1076-156X
CONTENTS OF FIRST BATCH
Volume 1, 1995
Number 1: David Wilkinson, "From Mesopotamia
through Carroll Quigley to Bill Clinton: world
historical systems, the civilizationist and
the president"
Number 2: Myron J. Frankman, "Catching the bus for
global development: Gerschenkron revisited"
Number 3: Stephen B. Bunker and Paul S. Ciccantell,
"Restructuring markets, reorganizing nature: an
examination of Japanese strategies for access to
raw materials"
Number 4: Christoph Scherrer, "The commitment to a
liberal world market order as a hegemonic practice:
the case of the USA"
THEMATIC SECTION: Hegemonic Rivalry: Past and
Future
Number 5: Volker Bornschier, "Hegemonic decline,
West European unification and the future structure
of the core"
Number 6 : Christopher Chase-Dunn and Bruce
Podobnik, "The next world war: world-system cycles
and trends"
Number 7: George Modelski, "From leadership to
organization: the evolution of global politics"
Number 8: Walter L. Goldfrank, "Beyond cycles of
hegemony: economic, social and military factors"
Number 9 : Gerd Junne, "Global cooperation or
rival trade blocs?"
Number 10: Tieting Su, "Clashes of 'life spaces'
and other logics of hegemonic rivalry"
Number 11: John Borrego, "Models of integration
and development in the Pacific "
Number 12: Albert Bergesen and Roberto Fernandez,
" Who has the most fortune 500 firms?: A network
analysis of global economic competition, 1956-
1989"
Number 13: Brigitte Schulz, "Germany, the United
States and future inter-core conflict"
Number 14: Erich Weede, " Future hegemonic rivalry
between China and the West?"
Number 15: Terry Boswell, "Hegemony and
bifurcation points in world history"
Number 16: Book Reviews: 16:1 Boswell on Wagar;
16.2 Dassbach on Perrucci; 16.3 Hall on Frank and
Gills; 16.4 Joffe on Algaze; 16.5 Dunaway and
Clelland on Gereffi and Korzeniewicz.
Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn
Department of Sociology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA
tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:09:45 EST
Reply-To: Priscilla Caplan <pcaplan@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Priscilla Caplan <pcaplan@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
In an earlier note to these lists, Giles Martin wrote:
>You need different bibliographic records if there are significant
>differences in the hardware or software needed to view/read/use a
>document. For that reason, you would need separate record for the Word
>and for the WordPerfect versions -- in each case you either need the
>appropriate word-processing program, or a program capable of eading that
>format. .....
Because slight changes in format can make a big difference in the
usefullness of electronic documents, and because it is so easy to represent
the same "intellectual entity" in different machine-readable formats, the
"multiple versions" problem is really exacerbated for electronic materials.
For this reason, when the electronic location field 856 was defined in
USMARC, we took great care to define the field such that small variations in
format (such as the difference between different word processing program
output, or simple ascii vs. sgml, or different compressions algorithms used)
could be represented in the 856 alone, and not necessitate separate
bibliographic records. What AACR2 may or may not require is a different
issue. However, in MARC, if the difference between versions is not great
enough to necessitate a different 008, then you should be able to use a
single bibliographic record with multiple 856 fields for each representation
of the document.
This was very deliberately done by those who worked on defining the 856,
with the understanding that the creation of separate bib records for each
variation in format would be a great disservice to the patrons using our
bibliographic systems.
Priscilla Caplan
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:10:16 EST
Reply-To: Amy Plummer <71344.2761@compuserve.com>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Amy Plummer <71344.2761@compuserve.com>
Subject: Free Research Tool Online
To handle the deluge of media requests in 1995, MediaNet has hired more
researchers and added many new sources and experts to its list of recipients.
Featured in this month's issues of American Journalism Review and Folio
magazine, this journalist-owned-and-operated service is a computer-assisted
reporting tool that helps journalists quickly find experts to interview and
information from corporations, consultants, associations and non-profit groups
via e-mail.
To make a request, send in your name, news organization, what you're working on,
your specific request, deadline (very important) and contact info to 71344.2761
@compuserve.com OR uslifeline@aol.com. We'll e-mail your request out the same
evening to our large variety of subscribers who will help you locate the right
source
or statistic if they can. If you want your identity concealed from recipients,
indicate
so on request. No news organizations receive MediaNet and you won't be put on
routine
mailing lists. There is no charge for using this service.
18 Ways to Successfully Use MediaNet
1. Locate an industry expert
2. Find case studies to corroborate a trend
3. Supplement your academic sources with practical, real world opinion
4. Compile statistics
5. Add another point of view to your story
6. Create a "round-up" of organizations doing something out of the ordinary
7. Conduct an informal poll
8. Discover a new source
9. Research an esoteric subject
10. Get organizations' in-house documents you didn't know existed
11. Uncover a scandal
12. Get a fresh perspective on a topic
13. Answer a tough question
14. Stumble upon a businessperson with an uncommon experience
15. Ferret out particular photos, footage or illustrations
16. Prepare background material
17. Learn about an industry that's new to you
18. Check your facts
For more information, contact Amy Plummer at MediaNet, P.O. Box 1087, Carlisle,
PA 17013; voice (717) 243-4285; fax: (717) 243-1810; e-mail:
71344.2761@compuserve.com; America Online: USLifeLine.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:52:07 EST
Reply-To: Mara Chibnik <mc@panix.com>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Mara Chibnik <mc@panix.com>
Subject: Your mail to ccapc@panix.com
There was recently an attempt to post a note about credit repair to VPIEJ-L.
It was successfully posted to the USENET news group, and I apologize that I
have no control over that part of VPIEJ-L. Hopefully this particular
individual will be unable to repeat this action (see below).
James Powell
James Powell ... Library Automation, University Libraries, VPI&SU
1-4986 ... JPOWELL@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
... jpowell@scholar.lib.vt.edu
... Owner of VPIEJ-L, a discussion list for Electronic Journals
Archives: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ gopher://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
ftp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/pub/
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
We have disabled that account. The header configuration
made it appear that your note came from ccapc@panix.com
rather than from you, and also made it uncertain that
our reply would reach you.
Please be assured that Panix does not tolerate such behavior.
Newspostings have been cancelled and, as I mentioned, the
account has been disconnected.
We sympathize with your anger, and hope that you will not
summarily reject material (like this letter) originating
at panix.com.
=====
>To: VPIEJ-L@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
>From: ccapc@cyber.sell.com (Consumer Credit Advocates)
>Subject: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM
>Date: 9 Feb 1995 04:43:31 -0500
>
>If I continue to receive notes like this from your site which are obviously
>mass-postings, I will remove all panix.com addresses from VPIEJ-L. This
>note had nothing to do with the topics of this discussion list.
>Please encourage your customers to practice more responsible business.
>
>James Powell ... Library Automation, University Libraries, VPI&SU
>1-4986 ... JPOWELL@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
> ... jpowell@scholar.lib.vt.edu
> ... Owner of VPIEJ-L, a discussion list for Electronic Journals
>Archives: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ gopher://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
> ftp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/pub/
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>This message was originally submitted by ccapc@CYBER.SELL.COM to the VPIEJ-L
>list at VTVM1. If you simply forward it back to the list, it will be
>distributed with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed.
>If you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will need to
>remove this paragraph before mailing the results to the list. Finally, if you
>need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do
>so by simply replying to this note.
>
>----------------- Message requiring your approval (117 lines) -----------------
>Consumer Credit Advocates, PC
>11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:58:08 EST
Reply-To: IVAR SONNE-MOERCH <ivar.sonne-moerch@dkb.dk>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: IVAR SONNE-MOERCH <ivar.sonne-moerch@dkb.dk>
Organization: Danish Key Board BBS - Copenhagen Denmark - +45 3325 5600
Subject: Cataloguing records
<<on 19950207="" <john.lamp@cs.utas.edu.au="" john="" lamp=""> was temped by Jones
Wayne to state that>>
JL> This is one of those areas where the vocabulary almost fails
JL> (probably because it hasn't been fully invented yet). :-)
JL> I would definitely agree regarding the need for separate records
JL> where there is a change analogous to an edition change. By this, I
JL> mean that a distinction should be made where the material has
JL> changed in nature.
Hello Down or Up There -
Can someone provide a short argument _why_ we should consider doing
much cataloging in, of and around these electronic services and their
supposedly fast changing contents?
I somehow fail to see why they merit much more interest than a lot of
"small print" stuff which was never even cataloged. I mean: let's keep
a list of technical providers and customers to show to the chosen few
who will turn themselves in and fake a professional interest. <ironic :-)="" intended="" twist="">
Let our resources go to what has lived long enough to have reached
print.
Just in case anyone want to flame me I'd like to stress that I mean
what I say fairly seriously - and that electronic stuff make a bad
stake :-)
Greetings From Copenhagen
Have A Nice Day
ivar.sonne-moerch@dkb.dk
(M of A, History - Computer Consultant - Genealogist)
* RM 1.3 02540 * Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out (Sharon Bouchar
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:58:55 EST
Reply-To: Judith Gresham <jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Judith Gresham <jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
In-Reply-To: <199502091513.KAA22232@ipe.cc.vt.edu>
What do you foresee will be the effect of programs such as Envoy and
Acrobat. Do these programs live up to their hype and are they affordable
solutions?
Judith Gresham
San Bernardino Valley College
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:09:15 EST
Reply-To: Wingers@aol.com
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Wingers@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for r...
We have used Adobe Acrobat to provide our 1348 page veterinary reference text
on CD-ROM. So far, Acrobat is proving a wonderful tool to work with from the
electronic publishing standpoint. It was a simple matter of converting my
postscript files to PDF (portable document format). It creates a full text
index, which can be built onto the harddrive of your system, allowing Acrobat
to search all of your Acrobat-authored titles, without having any of them
actually in your drive.
Roy Faircloth
Electronic Publishing Director
Wingers Publishing
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:09:41 EST
Reply-To: weibel@oclc.org
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: weibel@oclc.org
Subject: Page Description Solutions (Acrobat, Envoy)
> What do you foresee will be the effect of programs such as Envoy and
> Acrobat.
Page description languages are the equivalent of electronic paper.
They are important where specification of format is coupled to accuracy
of content (for example, current Web browsers do a lousy job of tables,
so tabular material is generally delivered as a gif on the Web).
Publishers like them because they leave control of look and feel in the
hands of the publishers, and the legitimate concerns about accurate delivery
are easier to manage.
The lack of flexibility (resizing of pages and fonts, for example)
cripples their usefulness at the users end, and for this reason, I think
they will not be a popular delivery vehicle for many users. If the promise
of SoftQuad's SGML viewer, Panorama, is realized, then the display accuracy
issue will be substantially ameliorated, and the page description technology
will be less important.
stu
Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Office of Research
weibel@oclc.org
(614) 764-6081 (v)
(614) 764-2344 (f)
http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:10:36 EST
Reply-To: Eric Berg <eberg@slip.net>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Eric Berg <eberg@slip.net>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
At 08:58 AM 2/10/95 EST, Judith Gresham wrote:
>What do you foresee will be the effect of programs such as Envoy and
>Acrobat. Do these programs live up to their hype and are they affordable
>solutions?
>
I am an Envoy/Acrobat user. We (Ziff-Davis, I am now a former employee)
implemented Envoy in the CD-ROM version of Computer Database plus, a
comprehensive index/database of computer related magazine articles. Via
Envoy's API, we were able to present a very high percentage of the
infographics that appear in the magazines. It greatly enhanced our
text-based product.
I have also implemented Envoy in several other applications such as a phone
list for the SF School District by printing a database report to Envoy and
then saving it with the viewer embedded. It works very well and was
received with smiles and applause.
The impact could be important if anyone knew what to do with it. It has
potential as a helper application for the WWW and there are many other ways
to use it to communicate. It is just one of the ways that information
should be made available. You have more control over the presentation, but
it's a one-shot deal: you can't change it once it's Envoyized. There are
also some serious limitations regarding the conversion of PostScript output
to Envoy, however there are plans in the works for both PDF and PS
importability.
IMHO Envoy and Acrobat have a place in epublishing, htough neither of them
is being marketed properly at this point.
-Eric.
=========================================================================
Eric D. Berg Electronic Publishing Specialist
Internet: eberg@slip.net Compuserve: 71172,43
Tel./FAX: 415/626-2013 San Francisco, California
http://www.slip.net/~eberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Scripting.Automation.HTML.Graphic+Text+Format-Conversions.Envoy.Acrobat.|
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:11:06 EST
Reply-To: weibel@oclc.org
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: weibel@oclc.org
Subject: Cataloguing records
> Can someone provide a short argument _why_ we should consider doing
> much cataloging in, of and around these electronic services and their
> supposedly fast changing contents?
Some network documents change frequently, others do not. I envision a
world with a broad spectrum of metadata record types, ranging from a
handful of elements created by authors, to fully qualified MARC records
constructed by by professional catalogers (and several intermediate
levels).
Records will be promoted from one level to the next according to the
stability of the object, the demand for it, or perceived value.
Undergrauate home pages may never go beyond the first layer. A top-level
page of a leading research institute with links to significant technical
reports will be worthy of cataloging at least at a collection level.
The time when number-of-books is an important figure of merit for a
library is passing. Perhaps its replacement will be the number of
pointers to networked collections that are maintained (and I don't mean
catalogued and forgotten) by an institution?
stu
Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Office of Research
weibel@oclc.org
(614) 764-6081 (v)
(614) 764-2344 (f)
http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:45:45 EST
Reply-To: Judith Gresham <jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Judith Gresham <jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
In-Reply-To: <199502101626.IAA07033@slip-1.slip.net>
Eric, I haven't tried these products yet, obviously. I haven't even
looked at my CD-ROM of 5 years of WordPerfect magazine I got at COMDEX
(I'm forcing myself to finish a project first), which I believe uses
Envoy.
I have, however, reviewed in disgust handouts on disk that had been
ruthlessly converted to ASCII text, hoplessly scrambling data that had
been formatted with the tables function and destroying graphics. Since
Word, WordPerfect, and AmiPro can all read each other to some extent, I
felt this was totally uncalled for. (Over 400 pages!)
Is it easy to "Envoyize" documents? More to the point, can someone dumb
enough to think ASCII text is necessary handle the job of Envoyizing
documents. Does the full version of Envoy allow someone to convert the
document back to its native format, or another word processing format?
Thank you for your time.
Judith Gresham
San Bernardino Valley College
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:46:57 EST
Reply-To: Jean-luc Froidevaux <jlfroidevaux@ping.ch>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Jean-luc Froidevaux <jlfroidevaux@ping.ch>
Subject: electronic catalog on cd-rom !
Dear sir, dear madam
We are a software company in Switzerland and are looking for an adequate
application to publish a software catalogue on cd-rom (with integration of
demo-software)! If you happen to have such a product yourself or could
adapt an excisting one in almost no time or if you know someone else who
does/can please contact me.
The requirements for this product would be the following:
- windows platform
- integration of software-demos (direct link by pointing on a icon)
- Hypertext
- customizable GUI (following our own screendesign)
- fulltext-retrieval (with wildcards)
- browsing by index (al least two levels)
- integration of different files: text, graphics, sound, video, other software
- navigation through catalogue: forward, backward, backtrail, begin, end
- localizable user interface (german, french)
- printing an orderform
optional:
- zoom-function
- bookmarks (by user)
This product can either be based on a authoring system (Toolbook et.al.) or
direct on a programming language.
We should have a demo-version of this product by 20th february 1995!
As we are in a hurry for this rather big project we would be grateful for
your immediate reply to:
jlfroidevaux@ping.ch
in order that we can contact you for further information.
thank you in advance
Jean-luc Froidevaux
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:55:38 EST
Reply-To: Brian Gaines <gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Brian Gaines <gaines@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
> Is it easy to "Envoyize" documents? More to the point, can someone dumb
> enough to think ASCII text is necessary handle the job of Envoyizing
> documents. Does the full version of Envoy allow someone to convert the
> document back to its native format, or another word processing format?
>
Our experience has been that Farallon's Replica is substantially better
than Envoy in its fidelity of encoding, particularly with diagrams. It also
has the advantage that a viewer can be offered free either embedded with,
or note embedded with, the document. The envoy free viewer has to be
embedded and hence is wasteful of space if one is issuing large collections.
The Replica files and viewer are both substantially smaller than Acrobat.
However, there is currently no unix-viewer for Replica.
Replica offers copy and paste in RTF with font, size and style information
retained, so it is easy to get documents into other word processor formats.
I have made a number of multi-platform CD-ROMs with large bodies of documents
in Replica and have found it easy to use and excellent in quality.
No Hands Common ground hasn't been mentioned in the discussion. I have
received documents in this format, and it has had excellent reviews in
Seybold reports. It would be interesting to hear of experience with
Common Ground.
b.
Brian Gaines Knowledge Science Institute, University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
tel: 403-220-5901 fax: 403-284-4707
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:56:08 EST
Reply-To: WILLIAM C ANDERSON <anderso3@mail.loc.gov>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
Comments: RE: CATALOGUING RECORDS FOR RE
From: WILLIAM C ANDERSON <anderso3@mail.loc.gov>
Subject: Re: CATALOGUING RECORDS FOR RE
To: CONSRLST, EMEDIA, VPIEJ-L, SERIALST
From: Bill Anderson
Re: Cataloguing Records for Remote-Access Electronic Serials
Date: February 14th
Many thanks to Wayne Jones for furthering the discussion on
multiple versions of e-serials, and to the others who provided
fruitful comments on what I find to be a complex situation.
I think Wayne makes an excellent point with regards to the
preferred arrangement of *sub-records* for various versions
linked to a single bibliographic record. Also, the two criteria
suggested--substantial difference in content and significant
technological/access differences--is interesting. Mr. Lamp
offered a different criteria: a change analogous to edition
change, or significant change in the **nature** of the material.
The hypertext version is significantly different in nature, in
his view. And Priscilla Caplan has noted that USMARC does allow
for small variations in format to be included on a single record.
In the six weeks since the original posting first appeared I have
investigated a number of e-serials to categorize the various
types as to their access methods and the number of versions in
which they are available. I considered the version question
separate from the access issue since single versions can have
multiple access methods and multiple versions may be found at a
single location. What I discovered from the batch I investigated
is that about half are available in more than one version, and
about a third offer multiple access methods--email, FTP, remote
login (gopher/Web/telnet). The version/access relationship is
quite varied as some Web versions are ASCII and some gopher
versions are formatted (eg., PostScript).
When one actually compares the different versions one can find
content differences, such as graphs and figures included in a
formatted-text version but not found in the plain-text (ASCII)
version. And some ASCII files also have hypertext versions that
include links to graphics or image files. But far more
frequently I did NOT find *substantial differences* between
versions. Even hypertext versions often do not link to files
outside the basic text file but typically take you to the
footnotes and back (and back to the home-page).
Caplan states: *What _AACR2_ may or may not require is a
different issue.* Yes, cataloging is still a rules-driven
operation and standards are fundamental to cooperative programs.
_AACR2_ does have a specific definition for computer file
editions:
**All copies embodying *essentially the same content*
(emphasis supplied) and issued by the same entity.**
Also, the 9.2 Edition Area is rather fully developed and has
virtually no LCRIs associated with it. Several examples for
edition statements use *version.* A reference back to 1.2B
reminds us that in 1.2B3 (as well as in 9.2B2) you see:
**In case of doubt ... take the presence of such words as
edition, issue, or *version* (emphasis supplied) as evidence
that such a statement is an edition statement**
9.2B4 is interesting in that it suggests that the cataloger
distinguish between minor changes in files (e.g., spelling
corrections, output format, display medium) from *significant
differences.* A reference to 9.7B7 indicates that minor changes
can simply be noted. 9.2B3 (optional addition) suggests that
when one finds *significant changes from other editions (e.g.,
changes in the data involving content ... the addition of sound
or graphics ...)* an edition statement may be supplied.
It would seem to me that as the rules now stand the cataloger
would generally interpret a statement of *version* to indicate a
separate edition, but that the cataloger is expected to
differentiate between *significant changes* and *essentially the
same content.*
If the vast majority of e-serial versions do have *essentially
the same content* then perhaps we can generally rely on one
record for different versions. Caplan explained that USMARC does
allow for this quite adequately. On the other hand *significant
differences* are debatable as Jones and Lamp indicated. I would
emphasize *differences in content* rather than *differences in
access/technical means.* I think the rules do not adequately
address differences in navigational means (i.e., hypertext
links). But there does not seem to be a **requirement** in the
rules to create separate records for files that are
differentiated only in the way you navigate within or between
them, or to external documents. The only **requirement** I can
detect involves versions with significant changes or differences
from existing files.
In today's cataloging world of cooperative programs, cataloger's
judgement, and the core standard, I think flexibility is crucial
when dealing with complex bibliographic issues.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:12:51 EST
Reply-To: tlehman@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Tom Lehman <tlehman@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Electronic Abstract Submission
I am interested in successful models / experiences with electronic
submission of journal abstracts (and later, articles) via a web service.
Our take is that it is relatively easy to get various data through a
simple web form (such as author information, subject keywords, and so
forth) but that it becomes quite complex when you try to capture the title
and abstract text. This is primarily due to special characters such as
greek letters and math/chemical symbols, and text formatting such as
italics, bold, underline and so forth.
I am aware of the work by the American Physical Society and the American
Astronomical Society. These use a customized application at the host end,
and requires the submission in LaTeX. AAS reportedly now receives
electronicly more than 90% of the abstracts for its annual meeting. It was
relatively expensive to set up, and works for them in part because their
members already use that particular format. For other associations whose
members are using more common WP applications like Word or WordPerfect, it
would not be a good solution.
Question: Can anyone point to others I should contact to learn more this,
ie, people who have had some success (or failure) trying to do this?
Secondly, assuming it is something that might be of interest to more than
one organization, I would be interested in communicating with other groups
who might like to collaborate on a development project to support
electronic submission.
Thanks in advance.
Tom Lehman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Associates Saint Paul, MN 55105
Email: tlehman@maroon.tc.umn.edu Telephone: (612) 221-0081 221-0315 fax
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:13:05 EST
Reply-To: Eric Berg <eberg@slip.net>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Eric Berg <eberg@slip.net>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
At 12:55 PM 2/14/95 EST, Brian Gaines wrote:
>> Is it easy to "Envoyize" documents? More to the point, can someone dumb
>> enough to think ASCII text is necessary handle the job of Envoyizing
>> documents. Does the full version of Envoy allow someone to convert the
>> document back to its native format, or another word processing format?
>>
>Our experience has been that Farallon's Replica is substantially better
>than Envoy in its fidelity of encoding, particularly with diagrams. It also
>has the advantage that a viewer can be offered free either embedded with,
>or note embedded with, the document. The envoy free viewer has to be
>embedded and hence is wasteful of space if one is issuing large collections.
What do you mean by "fidelity of encoding?" Have you worked with both
bitmaps as well as vector art? This has a decidedly important bearing on
the quality of the image, the size and the ability for the image to be
reproduced faithfully. How is Replica on color matching?
WordPerfect is scheduled to release a free viewer for Envoy soon (yeah,
soon...whatever that means.) A little secret about the embedded viewer --
if you have one document with the embedded viewer, you can actually use that
viewer to view other .EVY docs. The current embeddable Envoy Viewer (and I
think the free viewer) come to a whopping 500+K!! That is certainly a drawback.
>
>The Replica files and viewer are both substantially smaller than Acrobat.
>However, there is currently no unix-viewer for Replica.
>
>Replica offers copy and paste in RTF with font, size and style information
>retained, so it is easy to get documents into other word processor formats.
>
>I have made a number of multi-platform CD-ROMs with large bodies of documents
>in Replica and have found it easy to use and excellent in quality.
>
>No Hands Common ground hasn't been mentioned in the discussion. I have
>received documents in this format, and it has had excellent reviews in
>Seybold reports. It would be interesting to hear of experience with
>Common Ground.
How does Faralon do on licensing fees, etc.? How does Replica handle
PostScript? How well is this solution implemented?
-Eric.
=========================================================================
Eric D. Berg Electronic Publishing Specialist
Internet: eberg@slip.net Compuserve: 71172,43
Tel./FAX: 415/626-2013 San Francisco, California
http://www.slip.net/~eberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Scripting.Automation.HTML.Graphic+Text+Format-Conversions.Envoy.Acrobat.|
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:13:22 EST
Reply-To: Brian Gaines <gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Brian Gaines <gaines@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
> What do you mean by "fidelity of encoding?" Have you worked with both
> bitmaps as well as vector art? This has a decidedly important bearing on
> the quality of the image, the size and the ability for the image to be
> reproduced faithfully. How is Replica on color matching?
>
My worst case test pieces have been very complex mixtures of vector and
bit-maps coming from Aldus Persuasion. Replica encodes these with perfect
faithfulness. Envoy distorts them heavily.
> How does Faralon do on licensing fees, etc.? How does Replica handle
> PostScript?
Farallon viewer is freely distributable and up for ftp with instructions
as to how to use it as a helper for docs distributed through WWW.
Replica files are created from a printer driver that can be used by any
Mac or Windows application. Hence it comes ahead of PostScript generation.
No product, including Acrobat, deals well with existing PostScript files.
Distiller, for example, needs the original fonts that were used in producing
the PostScript. PostScript is not a sensible option for distributing electronic
documents. When one is producing one's own CD, one uses Acrobat, Envoy,
Replica and Common Ground in the same way, through printer drivers that
create portable files BEFORE any PostScript is generated.
> How well is this solution implemented?
Extremely robust, low-in-cost (cf $100) for doc generation, free for
reading. Working demos that can be used to produce documents are up for
ftp at ftp://ftp.farallon.com.
However, Farallon have given no indication of moving the product up-market
with hypertext linking, etc. No Hands Common Ground seems the main contender
for more sophisticated applications going beyond portable document
distribution -- which is why I was interested to hear of experience with it.
b.
Brian Gaines Knowledge Science Institute, University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
tel: 403-220-5901 fax: 403-284-4707
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:26:54 EST
Reply-To: Eric Berg <eberg@slip.net>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Eric Berg <eberg@slip.net>
Subject: Re: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
At 09:13 AM 2/15/95 EST, Brian Gaines wrote:
>> What do you mean by "fidelity of encoding?" Have you worked with both
>> bitmaps as well as vector art? This has a decidedly important bearing on
>> the quality of the image, the size and the ability for the image to be
>> reproduced faithfully. How is Replica on color matching?
>>
>
>My worst case test pieces have been very complex mixtures of vector and
>bit-maps coming from Aldus Persuasion. Replica encodes these with perfect
>faithfulness. Envoy distorts them heavily.
Can you be more specific about the types of distortions, please. Is it a
color problem? Missing objects or additional image artifacts, etc.?
>
>> How does Faralon do on licensing fees, etc.? How does Replica handle
>> PostScript?
>
>Replica files are created from a printer driver that can be used by any
>Mac or Windows application. Hence it comes ahead of PostScript generation.
When I refer to dealing with PostScript, I am talking about both raw PS or
EPS files but even more, the output from PS-centric applications such as
Adobe Illustrator and QuarkXPress. These printer drivers are really virtual
Quickdraw or Windows GDI devices, meaning that they request QuickDraw or GDI
information from the application. This is an important issue when you have
(for instance) Quark documents that need to be converted. Quark does an
abysmal job of sending anything _but_ PS info in it's print stream. That's
why it is a particularly difficult animal to deal with in this arena.
More specifically, does Replica rasterize vector art, for instance? Does it
use Z-Script (Windows) or some other rasterizing or converting technology to
yield it's native format files from PS-oriented output from apps such as
Quark, etc.?
>
>No product, including Acrobat, deals well with existing PostScript files.
>Distiller, for example, needs the original fonts that were used in producing
>the PostScript. PostScript is not a sensible option for distributing electronic
>documents. When one is producing one's own CD, one uses Acrobat, Envoy,
>Replica and Common Ground in the same way, through printer drivers that
>create portable files BEFORE any PostScript is generated.
Again, that's not really true since several apps give only minimal attention
to non-PS devices. Another case in point is Common Ground-- they have
licensed Z-Script from Zenographics in Irvine, Ca. to handle PS output.
>
=========================================================================
Eric D. Berg Electronic Publishing Specialist
Internet: eberg@slip.net Compuserve: 71172,43
Tel./FAX: 415/626-2013 San Francisco, California
http://www.slip.net/~eberg
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 14:32:07 EST
Reply-To: Clare Beghtol <beghtol@fis.utoronto.ca>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Clare Beghtol <beghtol@fis.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Faculty of Information Studies
Subject: Call for Participation
CROSS-POSTED. PLEASE EXCUSE DUPLICATION.
______________________________________________
6th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop - Call for Participation
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
6th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop:
An interdisciplinary meeting
The American Society for Information Science Special Interest Group on
Classification Research (ASIS SIG/CR) invites submissions for the 6th
ASIS Classification Research Workshop, to be held at the 58th Annual
Meeting of ASIS in Chicago, IL. The workshop will take place Sunday,
October 8th, 1995, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ASIS '95 continues through
Thursday, October 12th.
The CR Workshop is designed to be an exchange of ideas among active
researchers with interests in the creation, development, management,
representation, display, comparison, compatibility, theory, and
application of classification schemes. Emphasis will be on semantic
classification, in contrast to statistically based schemes. Topics
include, but are not limited to:
- Warrant for concepts in classification schemes.
- Concept acquisition.
- Basis for semantic classes.
- Automated techniques to assist in creating classification schemes.
- Statistical techniques used for developing explicit semantic classes.
- Relations and their properties.
- Inheritance and subsumption.
- Knowledge representation schemes.
- Classification algorithms.
- Procedural knowledge in classification schemes.
- Reasoning with classification schemes.
- Software for management of classification schemes.
- Interfaces for displaying classification schemes.
- Data structures and programming languages for classification schemes.
- Image classification.
- Comparison and compatibility between classification schemes.
- Applications such as subject analysis, natural language understanding,
information retrieval, expert systems.
- Representation and access on the Internet
The CR Workshop welcomes submissions from various disciplines. Those
interested in participating are invited to submit a short (1-2 page
single-spaced) position paper summarizing substantive work that has been
conducted in the above areas or other areas related to semantic
classification schemes, and a statement briefly outlining the reason for
wanting to participate in the workshop. Submissions may include
background papers as attachments. Participation will be of two kinds:
presenter and regular participant. Those selected as presenters will be
invited to submit expanded versions of their position papers and to speak
to those papers in brief presentations during the workshop. Submitted
position papers will be refereed for acceptance for publication in the
proceedings. Some of the accepted papers will be selected for an
expanded version in the proceedings. Authors of expanded papers will be
invited to speak to their papers in brief presentations during the
workshop. All position papers (both expanded and short papers) will be
published in proceedings to be distributed prior to the workshop. The
workshop's early registration fee is $35.00 for SIG/CR members and/or
participants; $45.00 for ASIS members; $60.00 for non-members. (The
workshop is separate from the ASIS Annual, an additional registration is
required for the Annual Conference).
Previous proceedings are titled "Advances in Classification Research:
proceedings of the ... ASIS SIG/CR Classification Workshop" and are
published by Learned Information, Inc., Medford, NJ.
Submissions should be made by email, or diskette accompanied by paper
copy, or paper copy only (fax or postal), to arrive by April 15, 1995, to:
Ray Schwartz, 530 Jefferson St., #13, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, USA
Work Phone: 212-305-3294; Fax: 212-305-6193;
Home Phone: 201-656-8807; Email: rps4@columbia.edu
URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~rps4/sigcr.html
Email or Postcard confirmations will be sent upon receipt of
submissions. For additional information, email rps4@columbia.edu or
access URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~rps4/sigcr.html
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 14:32:26 EST
Reply-To: Sharp Review <review@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Sharp Review <review@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Call for papers - The Katharine Sharp Review
Please excuse any cross posting, this notice is being widely distributed.
Call For Papers
The Sharp Review
(This information can also be found at http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~review)
Welcome to The Katharine Sharp Review, the peer-reviewed e-journal
devoted to student scholarship and research within the interdisciplinary
scope of library and information science. The review, named in honor of
the founder of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at
the University of Illinois, Katharine Sharp, is now accepting
submissions for its premiere issue, due to be released in Summer 1995.
Purpose
The Katharine Sharp Review exists as a journal to present articles by
student authors who are concerned with topics relevant to library and
information science and can consist of work that has been both prepared for
coursework and through independent study. The purpose of the review
will be to 1) provide an opportunity for other students to examine work that
is being performed by their peers; 2) provide an opportunity for students
to take part in the publishing process through submission of their own
works; and 3) showcase and recognize significant student effort in an
academic journal. Recognizing the breadth that library and information
science encompasses, submissions may cover a wide variety of topics in
the field, and be represented in many forms: research findings and their
application, analysis of policies and practices within the industry,
thematic textual review, to name but a few.
Call for Papers
The Katharine Sharp Review is currently seeking submissions for its premiere
issue to be released in Summer 1995. All submissions should be received by
Friday, May 15, 1995.
Although it is not required for submission, we would appreciate an
abstract (of 150-200 words) or indication of intention to submit.
Submitted articles must be accompanied by an abstract of no more
than 200 words.
Preparation of Manuscripts
I. All manuscripts must be received in machine readable form.
This can be in one of two ways:
As an ASCII text file submitted via e-mail to: sharp-review@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
OR
Contained on a 3.5" computer disk, formatted for IBM or compatible.
We can accept disks produced with a number of various word processing
packages and any files that have been converted to ASCII format. Please
provide the name and version of the word processing package used. Disks
can be mailed to:
Kevin Ward, The Sharp Review
Publications Office
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
501 E. Daniel Street
Champaign, IL 61820-6211
II. Figures, diagrams, and other graphical forms must also be provided in
electronic format. This can be in any of the standard graphic formats
(.gif, .jpg, etc.). If you have any questions regarding this
requirement, please e-mail the Review.
Editorial Guidelines for Authors
III. Use a recognized standard form and style, preferably according to the
Chicago Style Manual (14th Edition).
IV. If submitting in ASCII format, please use underscoring to indicate
italics and asterix to indicate bold face. This will allow for more
accurate formatting upon receipt.
V. Footnotes should be kept to a minimum, if at all.
VI. If citing from a journal that is found in electronic format, please
include its site address (i.e. ftp, gopher, etc.)
VII. Copyright: The Katharine Sharp Review will not hold copyright
permissions for any published article but does reserve the right to grant
reprint permissions to non-profit organizations. The submission of any
article to the Review is done so in agreement with this provision.
Correspondence
All submissions and correspondence regarding The Sharp Review should be
directed to the editor, Kevin Ward. Receipt of all articles will be
acknowledged and authors contacted upon acceptance of their contribution.
Any questions or comments? Please direct them to The Sharp Review
(sharp-review@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu).
For more information regarding the review, please visit our homepage at:
http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~review
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 10:00:06 EST
Reply-To: Micheal Strangelove <mstrange@fonorola.net>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Micheal Strangelove <mstrange@fonorola.net>
Organization: FONOROLA Incorporated
Subject: Translation of Next Book
Please post if appropriate -- michael strangelove
Translation Rights to Strangelove Book
I have licensed the German language edition rights to my next book
and am seeking publishers interested in licensing the translation,
printing/publishing rights for other languages (such as Japanese,
Spanish, French, and Italian).
I am looking for appropriate Internet forums to contact publishers for
this matter. If you know of any such forums, or are interested in
discussing translation rights to my next book, please contact me.
Michael Strangelove
michael@strangelove.com
Reviews of current book at
http://www.phoenix.ca/sie/revs-ht.html
tel: 613.565.0982
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:29:00 EST
Reply-To: "Charles Bailey, University of Houston" <lib3@uhupvm1.uh.edu>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: "Charles Bailey, University of Houston" <lib3@uhupvm1.uh.edu>
Subject: Scholarly Journals Distributed Via the Web
A Web page that provides access to scholarly journals distributed via the
Web is available at http://info.lib.uh.edu/webjour.html.
Best Regards,
Charles
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles W. Bailey, Jr. Voice: (713) 743-9804 |
| Assistant Director For Systems Fax: (713) 743-9811 |
| University Libraries lib3@uhupvm1.uh.edu |
| University of Houston or cbailey@uh.edu |
| Houston, TX 77204-2091 |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Co-Editor, Advances in Library Automation and Networking |
| Editor-in-Chief, The Public-Access Computer Systems Review |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 09:31:21 EST
Reply-To: Dayle Reilly <dayler@crl.com>
Sender: Electronic Journal Publishing List <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: Dayle Reilly <dayler@crl.com>
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Subject: elect. dist. guidelines
I am looking for examples of guidelines by which employees of companies
or research institutions may distribute information, tech reports, etc.
electronically (ie, internet).
If your organization has procedures in place for controlling electronic
publishing by employees or if you know of an organization tackling this
problem, I would appreciate hearing about it. Thank you.
Dayle Reilly
dayler@crl.com
</dayler@crl.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></dayler@crl.com></lib3@uhupvm1.uh.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></lib3@uhupvm1.uh.edu></mstrange@fonorola.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></mstrange@fonorola.net></review@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></review@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu></beghtol@fis.utoronto.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></beghtol@fis.utoronto.ca></eberg@slip.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></eberg@slip.net></gaines@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca></eberg@slip.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></eberg@slip.net></tlehman@maroon.tc.umn.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></anderso3@mail.loc.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></anderso3@mail.loc.gov></gaines@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca></jlfroidevaux@ping.ch></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></jlfroidevaux@ping.ch></jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></eberg@slip.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></eberg@slip.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></jgresha@cello.gina.calstate.edu></ironic></on></ivar.sonne-moerch@dkb.dk></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></ivar.sonne-moerch@dkb.dk></mc@panix.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></mc@panix.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></pcaplan@midway.uchicago.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></pcaplan@midway.uchicago.edu></chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu></ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au></john.lamp@cs.utas.edu.au></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></john.lamp@cs.utas.edu.au></waj@abs.nlc-bnc.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></waj@abs.nlc-bnc.ca></cburke@nexus.yorku.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></ann@cni.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></ann@cni.org>