Steve Hithcock responded to my re-post from the aus-epub list:
> >> We're starting to look into the possibility of "archiving" scholarly
> >> and technical e-journals, rather than just linking to them. The
> >> essential concern is that if the remote web site goes down or we
> >> somehow lose access to the files there, we don't "have" any of the
> >> sources (unlike paper journals--if the publisher goes under, you've
> >> still got the back issues).
>
> WebWhacker and PDF technology notwithstanding, I do hope there aren't many
> librarians considering this approach. While I can understand the
> motivations, which are based on familiar journal patterns established in the
> print age, the dynamics of online information through the Web will be quite
> different. Interactivity, for a start, will be impossible if all you see are
> mirrors of information that are out of date before they have been completely
> downloaded. It is surely futile for every library to consider archiving its
> own copy of all online information journals.
Someone has already mentioned that mirrors should be quite up-to-date,
although mirroring technology would then introduce the other problem
mentioned of being un-sure of the "edition" of a paper. Anyone planning
to make changes to the content of ejournal papers must surely have a very
strong policy on how this is to be done, perhaps parallel to the concept of
new editions of monographs. One of the virtues of publishing should
surely be some sort of "fixing" of the version, compared to the private
copies on personal web sites which may have been updated significantly.
I think Giles Martin's point about re-writing history is extremely
pertinent, too.
It also seems to me that (some?) librarians have to come to terms with
the new meaning of collecting a journal. I've heard some suggest they
will not catalogue anything they do not "have". These are very slippery
concepts, but the concern about what to catalogue and what not is very
real, and needs a lot more debate. I think there was some debate on the
Intercat list, but I suspect not too many would have registered it.
> Our experience with publishing project papers on the Web is that we have
> declined requests to mirror these papers simply because we intend to make
> periodic updates and we didn't want to propagate obsolete versions.
So how do _you_ indicate the different versions, and do you keep the
original available for reference?
--
Chris Rusbridge
Programme Director, Electronic Libraries Programme
The Library, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Phone 01203 524979 Fax 01203 524981
Email [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|