[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A reply to Elsevier [Re: Usage Statistics for Web Editions
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: A reply to Elsevier [Re: Usage Statistics for Web Editions
- From: "James A. Robinson" <jim.robinson@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 20:13:26 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> *Please excuse the cross posting.* Since I don't even know what that other list is for, please excuse my dropping the cross posting when I respond. > The argument that usage statistics is "costly to provide" doesn't make > much sense once the basic infrastructure is in place, especially if > they already have to provide statistics for a subset of fully licensed > titles so that the account is already set up. Most likely you're wrong on this count. From my experience, it is very costly in terms of infrastructure support to generate these kinds of statistics. I would suggest it takes a lot of dedicated resources to generate COUNTER compliant reports, and if one can "drop on the floor" a particular set of logs because the statistics aren't going to be provided, then it may in fact make a significant impact on the resources needed to generate the reports. > "Vendors must supply all the COUNTER-compliant usage reports relevant > to their online product categories at no additional charge to customers > in order to be designated COUNTER-Compliant." You're talking about a draft specification only? I think Elsevier only announced its compliance to the first release: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_00017 I don't see anything in their PR list which announces conformance to the current draft. It would make sense for them to comply with release 2 once it's actually been set in stone, but they haven't said they would. I guess your argument is that they ought to conform to the areas of the draft in which you think it's not a great deal more work for them. That may be so but, even though I have no particular love for Elsevier, I don't think your complaint indicates non-conformance. (I have no idea re the REST of the specification of course). Jim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - James A. Robinson jim.robinson@stanford.edu Stanford University HighWire Press http://highwire.stanford.edu/ 650-723-7294 (W) 650-725-9335 (F)
- Prev by Date: OUP Announces Grove Art Advisory Board
- Next by Date: P.S.: RE: EMBO Journal / Archival access to paid-for content
- Previous by thread: A reply to Elsevier [Re: Usage Statistics for Web Editions
- Next by thread: RE: A reply to Elsevier [Re: Usage Statistics for Web Editions
- Index(es):