L'Annee Philologique (fwd)

["James J. O'Donnell" <jod@georgetown.edu>]

Ann,

I spoke today with Professor Dee Clayman, the American scholar who works
closely with the French producers of the L'Annee Philologique database,
and I can update the situation and have a question to ask library
licensing experts.  Since there have been various rumors and speculations,
I will take the liberty of repeating some of what liblicense readers may
already know.

For background, L'Annee Philologique is a bibliographical database for
classical studies going back almost to World War I, publishing annual
volumes of increasing bulk that cover a wide range of publishers and
journals.  With offices that specialize in French, German, English,
Italian, and Spanish materials, their coverage is immense and they are and
have been for many years the unmatched standard working tool for
classicists.  If you know a classicist, you know a user of this work.
The not-for-profit society that produces the work is the Societe
Internationale de Bibliographie Classique (SIBEC), with support from
various nations:  NEH supports the American office, CNRS the French, etc.

For about ten years, Professor Clayman has been the leader in building a
retrospective database of APh materials, but with a lag against the
printed publication.  In the last few years, SIBEC has been redoing their
processes to take advantage of information technology, making some
material available online, and now is in a position to fill in the gap
between the lag in the American retrospective conversion and current
published materials with the on-line APh.  This is a great step forward.
Clayman will continue to push the retrospective conversion backwards, so
that eventually all the bound volumes will be contained in one searchable
database.  No classicist will be able to do without access to this
material, and e-access will sharply increase the democratization of access
-- for today, the complete run of the bound volumes is found in libraries
of a certain character and ambition, and scholars not housed in such
institutions -- or even scholars of those institutions working away from
their campus -- have to travel to consult them.

Les Belles Lettres in Paris publishes the bound volumes and the e-version
as well.  This is a new adventure for them, their office and staff are
very francophone, and the American resistance to certain aspects of their
license has been an unwelcome surprise.  All the more unwelcome because of
the fire that destroyed their warehouse and 3,000,000 books recently.
This is tragic for the older materials that will now not be able to be
sold or reprinted and a huge preoccupation for the publishing firm, which
is now wrangling with insurance companies, etc.

There are two licensing issues that I know of.  (1) The restriction of
access by IP address was a surprise to the French, who do not understand
the size and scope of American campuses and networks.  The software is
being rewritten to allow what we would regard as normal access.  This may
result in a slightly higher fee for subscription (to pay for the new
software, inter alia).  I am optimistic that this will not remain a
significant issue.  (2) The jurisdiction question is more puzzling.  I
suspect that the French suspect that our litigious Americans are clamoring
for this only so that we may the more readily and frequently sue them.
They considered an alternate pricing model, but have at the present time
made no decision to change anything about the license offered.

I am at present President Elect of the American Philological Association,
which is not only the primary professional association of higher education
classicists in the US and Canada, but is the sponsoring organization for
Professor Clayman's APh project.  We are considering how to represent the
needs of American scholars most effectively to the two organizations
(SIBEC and Les Belles Lettres) and will be making such representation this
summer.

We could make a better case if we had a particular piece of information,
which may only be available to an approximation, but any assistance would
be most welcome.  How many institutions and how many users are likely to
be disenfranchised from access to APh if the license arrangement does not
change?  I understand that some state universities have a show-stopping
restriction:  some or all?  I know that many other institutions have
policies of varying degrees of strictness that deter or stop signing
licenses such as that which LBL offers.  Is it possible to put any
quantitative measure on that community?

What I am really asking for is rhetorical assistance:  how to make the
case that the number is appreciable in the most effective and honest way?

Please send your replies and comments either to me or to this list (or
both).

James J. O'Donnell
Office of the Provost
Suite 650, Bunn Intercultural Center
Georgetown University
37th and O Streets NW
Washington DC  20057
ph.:  202-687-6400
fax:  202-687-5103
provost@georgetown.edu
http://www.georgetown.edu/main/provost