Previous by Date Index by Date
Threaded Index
Next by Date

Previous by Thread Next by Thread

Re: EJournal Aggregation

The issue for me is scalability.  We cannot negotiate every title.  We
need the aggregators to  work with the knowledgeable people (you and
others) and get something that most will agree to.  In the end I hope
that all titles will be aggregatable by all aggregators in the same
way as all titles are handled by all vendors now (nearly all
periodicals can be vended by periodicals vendors).

I also have a gnawing suspicion that we will discover in the digital
world, where we can track usage in a way not now possible, that most of
what is being published is used so seldom that this knowledge will
begin to impact licensing, prices, etc.  

Anthony W. Ferguson
Associate University Librarian
Columbia University Libraries
Tel. 212-854-2270
Fax. 212-222-0331

> Question for Paul and others:
> How aggregated is aggregation when, as Paul Gherman writes of OCLC's
> ejournal service:
> >The publishers establishes whatever license agreement they care to with
> >libraries. [and the aggregator offers the actual access]
> The is the model that others are proposing as well.  Now, on the one hand,
> this pleases me because I emphatically feel we NOT have arrived at the
> point where ejournal (or other e-content) licenses are standard and
> acceptable enough for libraries to allow an intermediary/aggregator to
> consolidate the licensing part of the work for us. Also, these aggregators
> are licensees themselves and are not necessarily in the best position to
> represent customers' interests vis a vis license language.  We (libraries)
> can generally get better use terms for ourselves directly than by taking
> what an aggregator offers. 
> BUT -- surely one of the largest parts of the effort related to accessing
> econtent is the *licensing* negotiations.  The bind is that aggregators
> currently cannot help us with this matter.  Does anyone see any way out of
> this, or are we (as I believe) in a position of negotiating singly and
> directly an increasing number of licenses each month, while waiting a few
> years for some acceptable practices and language to emerge?  At that
> point, the aggregators could add licenses to their arsenal of services for
> libraries.  The objective of this list and the Liblicense project overall
> is to hasten that day; are there other ways?
> Ann Okerson
© 1996, 1997 Yale University Library
Please read our Disclaimer
E-mail us with feedback