[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ALPSP (Eric H.)

I admit, Eric, that I was most definitely not thinking of examples such as
those you mentioned. They are probably the best solution solution for the
smaller publisher, and I have recommended them to publishers having
difficulties automating.

My apologies to every one of them.

What I had in mind was systems developed by the consultants used by many
of the UK publishers. (Those who have had to cope with the consequent
disruptions in service will know their names. I do not want to embarrass
them further.)

David Goodman
Research Librarian and
Biological Sciences Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-7785

On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Eric Hellman wrote:

> At 9:09 PM -0400 4/27/02, David Goodman wrote:
> >What is expensive is the reliance upon outside consultants and vendors of
> >computer services; this becomes particularly expensive when the provider
> >fails to supply adequate service and must be replaced. This is an
> >indication that the publisher has not made competent plans; that it has
> >invested in obsolete rather the current equipment, and trained staff
> >knowledgeable in obsolete rather than current techniques. (I would say the
> >same of any library that outsourced basic computer functions.)
> I have to argue the opposite.
> Outsourcing technology is really the only chance that smaller publishers
> (not to mention smaller libraries) have to take advantage of the economies
> of scale inherent in electronic publishing (and digital libraries).
> David, can you give me an example of an electronic publishing platform
> developed by "outside consultants and vendors of computer services" that
> compares unfavorably with similar systems developed "inside"?
> Idealibrary?  HighWire? Catchword? BioOne? JSTOR?  Project Muse?
> Eric Hellman