Archive for February, 2007

Wildfire Institutional Repository Software

Posted in Institutional Repositories, OAI-PMH, Open Access, Scholarly Communication on February 28th, 2007

One of the interesting findings of my brief investigation of open access repository software by country was the heavy use of Wildfire in the Netherlands.

Wildfire was created by Henk Druiven, University of Groningen, and it is used by over 70 repositories. It runs on a PHP, MySQL, and Apache platform.

Here is a brief description from In Between.

Wildfire is the software our library uses for our OAI compatible repositories. It is a flexible system for setting up a large number of repositories that at the same time allows them to be aggregated in groups. A group acts like yet another repository with its own harvest address and user interface.

There are several descriptive documents about Wildfire, but most are not in English.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Nontraditional Professionals in Research Libraries

    Posted in ARL Libraries, Libraries on February 27th, 2007

    There is an interesting article by Stanley Wilder in the "Careers" section of the February 23, 2007 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education ("The New Library Professional").

    Using 2005 data, he notes that 23% of the professionals in ARL libraries are in nontraditional positions (e.g., development, human resources, and IT), and 39% of under-35 professionals are in these type of positions. In this under-35 group, 24% of nontraditional professionals earn $54,000 (or more). Forty-seven percent of under-35 computer professionals make $50,000 or more. (Needless to say, traditional librarians have not done as well salary-wise, leading to equity concerns.) The number of professionals who do not have an MLS has skyrocketed by 142% since 1985.

    I wonder if there are significant differences in this trend by ARL library rank, with it being stronger at more larger, more affluent libraries or at libraries in private institutions.

    My own experience during the last 20 years or so at a small public ARL library was that it was a constant struggle to get approval for new computer professional positions; to be able to recruit at salaries that, while not truly competitive, were at least not laughable; to upgrade existing positions so that they more adequately reflected job duties and marketplace values; and to retain staff. This was more difficult for non-MLS professionals than for MLS professionals.

    More than once I, as an Assistant Dean/Director of Systems, had to take direct responsibility for Web support because of lengthy recruitment difficulties, including one two-year stretch where I did 100% of all Web support work in addition to my normal duties (I also ran the branch libraries for one year of that period). As an Assistant Dean for Digital Library Planning and Development, I had no staff and no prospect of getting any.

    At some research libraries, non-MLS professionals may find that they have no career path or a short one. Taking computer professionals as an example, the issue is how far up the hierarchy can non-MLS professionals go before they hit the "must have an accredited MLS" ceiling? Can they become unit heads, department heads, ADs, or Deans/Directors? The answer may vary by library. Another issue is, generous salaries aside, are nontraditional professionals treated as second-class citizens in other ways than advancement (e.g., they may not be given the same level of support for professional travel and activities, especially if MLS librarians have faculty or faculty-like status and are adequately supported in their efforts to move up the academic ranks). Given that 39% of under-35 professionals are in nontraditional jobs, these are important issues to address, especially if Boomer librarians manage to retire en masse as some predict. It would not be a pretty sight to have Boomers heading out the door just as younger nontraditional librarians bump their heads on the MLS ceiling and start considering other career options.

    This is a liminal period for research libraries, and, to a significant degree, nontraditional staff will determine their future success.

    Source: Wilder, Stanley. "The New Library Professional." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 February 2007, C1, C4.

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Open Access Repository Software Use By Country

      Posted in Digital Repositories, Disciplinary Archives, DSpace, E-Prints, EPrints, Fedora, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Scholarly Communication on February 27th, 2007

      Based on data from the OpenDOAR Charts service, here is snapshot of the open access repository software that is in use in the top five countries that offer such repositories.

      The countries are abbreviated in the table header column as follows: US = United States, DK = Germany, UK = United Kingdom, AU = Australia, and NL = Netherlands. The number in parentheses is the reported number of repositories in that country.

      Read the country percentages downward in each column (they do not total to 100% across the rows).

      Excluding "unknown" or "other" systems, the highest in-country percentage is shown in boldface.

      Software/Country US (248) DE (109) UK (93) AU (50) NL (44)
      Bepress 17% 0% 2% 6% 0%
      Cocoon 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
      CONTENTdm 3% 0% 2% 0% 0%
      CWIS 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
      DARE 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
      Digitool 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
      DSpace 18% 4% 22% 14% 14%
      eDoc 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
      ETD-db 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%
      Fedora 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
      Fez 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
      GNU EPrints 19% 8% 46% 22% 0%
      HTML 2% 4% 4% 4% 0%
      iTor 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
      Milees 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
      MyCoRe 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
      OAICat 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
      Open Repository 0% 0% 3% 0% 2%
      OPUS 0% 43% 2% 0% 0%
      Other 6% 7% 2% 2% 0%
      PORT 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
      Unknown 31% 28% 18% 46% 23%
      Wildfire 0% 0% 0% 0% 52%
      Be Sociable, Share!

        Snapshot Data from OpenDOAR Charts

        Posted in Disciplinary Archives, DSpace, E-Prints, EPrints, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Scholarly Communication on February 26th, 2007

        OpenDOAR has introduced OpenDOAR Charts, a nifty new service that allows users to create and view charts that summarize data from its database of open access repositories.

        Here’s what a selection of the default charts show today. Only double-digit percentage results are discussed.

        • Repositories by continent: Europe is the leader with 49% of repositories. North America places second with 33%.
        • Repositories by country: In light of the above, it is interesting that the US leads the pack with 29% of repositories. Germany (13%) and the UK follow (11%).
        • Repository software: After the 28% of unknown software, EPrints takes the number two slot (21%), followed by DSpace (19%).
        • Repository types: By far, institutional repositories are the leader at 79%. Disciplinary repositories follow (13%).
        • Content types: ETDs lead (53%), followed by unpublished reports/working papers (48%), preprints/postprints (37%), conference/workshop papers (35%), books/chapters/sections (31%), multimedia/av (20%), postprints only (17%), bibliographic references (16%), special items (15%), and learning objects (13%).

        This is a great service; however, I’d suggest that University of Nottingham consider licensing it under a Creative Commons license so that snapshot charts could be freely used (at least for noncommercial purposes).

        Be Sociable, Share!

          Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses Released

          Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Scholarly Communication on February 25th, 2007

          The Creative Commons has released version 3.0 of its popular licenses.

          Here’s an excerpt from the press release that explains the changes:

          Separating the “generic” from the US license

          As part of Version 3.0, we have spun off the “generic” license to be the CC US license and created a new generic license, now known as the “unported” license. For more information about this change, see this more detailed explanation.

          Harmonizing the treatment of moral rights & collecting society royalties

          In Version 3.0, we are ensuring that all CC jurisdiction licenses and the CC unported license have consistent, express treatment of the issues of moral rights and collecting society royalties (subject to national differences). For more information about these changes, see this explanation of the moral rights harmonization and this explanation of the collecting society harmonization.

          No Endorsement Language

          That a person may not misuse the attribution requirement of a CC license to improperly assert or imply an association or relationship with the licensor or author, has been implicit in our licenses from the start. We have now decided to make this explicit in both the Legal Code and the Commons Deed to ensure that — as our licenses continue to grow and attract a large number of more prominent artists and companies — there will be no confusion for either the licensor or licensee about this issue. For a more detailed explanation, see here.

          BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Now Included

          The CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses will now include the ability for derivatives to be relicensed under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” which will be listed here. . . . More information about this is provided here.

          Clarifications Negotiated With Debian & MIT

          Finally, Version 3.0 of the licenses include minor clarifications to the language of the licenses to take account of the concerns of Debian (more details here) and MIT (more details here).

          Be Sociable, Share!

            CNI-COPYRIGHT List Moves and Changes Its Name

            Posted in Copyright on February 25th, 2007

            The CNI-COPYRIGHT mailing list is moving and changing its name.

            The list is now called PIJIP-COPYRIGHT, and its e-mail address is

            The list’s new home page is:


            Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at the Washington College of Law, American University is now in charge of the list.

            Be Sociable, Share!

              Census of Institutional Repositories in the United States

              Posted in E-Prints, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Scholarly Communication on February 25th, 2007

              The Council on Library and Information Resources has published the Census of Institutional Repositories in the United States: MIRACLE Project Research Findings, which was written by members of the University of Michigan School of Information’s MIRACLE (Making Institutional Repositories a Collaborative Learning Environment) Project. The report is freely available in digital form.

              Here is an excerpt from the CLIR press release:

              In conducting the census, the authors sought to identify the wide range of practices, policies, and operations in effect at institutions where decision makers are contemplating planning, pilot testing, or implementing an IR; they also sought to learn why some institutions have ruled out IRs entirely.

              The project team sent surveys to library directors at 2,147 institutions, representing all university main libraries and colleges, except for community colleges, in the United States. About 21% participated in the census. More than half of the responding institutions (53%) have done no IR planning. Twenty percent have begun to plan, 16% are actively planning and pilot testing IRs, and 11% have implemented an operational IR.

              While the study confirms a number of previous survey findings on operational IRs—such as the IR’s disproportionate representation at research institutions and the leading role of the library in planning, testing, implementing, and paying for IRs—the census also offers a wealth of new insights. Among them is the striking finding that half of the respondents who had not begun planning an IR intend to do so within 24 months.

              Other institutional repository surveys include the ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit and the DSpace community survey.

              Be Sociable, Share!

                Stanford’s President and the Google Book Search Library Project

                Posted in E-Books, Google and Other Search Engines, Publishing on February 24th, 2007

                The Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy article about the personal finances of John L. Hennessy, president of Stanford University, today ("The Golden Touch of Stanford’s President"). It kicks off by noting that Hennessy made $1 million last November that didn’t come from Stanford.

                The last seven paragraphs are of interest, since they discuss Stanford’s relationship to the Google Book Search Library Project. The Executive Director of the Author’s Guild says that Hennessy’s Google holdings are a "great concern" and there "seems to be both a personal and institutional profit motive here." The Stanford general counsel indicates that Hennessy was not part of discussions about Google Book Search Library Project. Another issue is Google’s $2 million gift to the Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society to promote fair use. Lawrence Lessig denies that the Google gift had any "quid pro quo" implications, and the former Law School Dean indicates that Hennessy had no part in the Google gift.

                Concerns about potential conflict of interest may be fueled by Hennessy’s $11 million gains from sale of Google stock and use of stock options, his current Google stock holdings valued at $2.3 million, and his Google stock options that may be worth $15.8 million if exercised.

                Source: Hechinger, John, and Rebecca Buckman. "The Golden Touch of Stanford’s President." The Wall Street Journal, 24 Febuary 2007, A1, A10.

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 1 of 41234



                  Digital Scholarship

                  Copyright © 2005-2015 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                  Creative Commons License
                  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.