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

Re: Science Online model


I agree that Science Online is a different issue altogether. However, I
still believe it to be an entirely inappropriate model for universities,
or indeed for any library with any degree of networked access.  If we
attempted to manage workstation ip access for every electronic version of
a print journal (with or without value added links), we'd go crazy.  
Limited concurrent users, yes, but by single workstation ip---horrors! As
a model, it is trading exorbitant (my opinion) site access cost for a
management nightmare by workstation. This is not a model libraries (imo)
could live with if other vendors decided to emulate it. Don't you think
it's reasonable to look for something between full site and per physical

Carole Richter
Electronic Resourcees Coordinator
University of Notre Dame Libraries


At 08:55 PM 11/26/1998 EST, MSPINELL wrote:
>     I'm not sure how Science Online got into this debate, but perhaps a
>couple of reminders are in order:
>     1) we have a site-wide subscription option which is not restricted to
>the library, a single building, or indeed even strictly to the campus;
>2) our workstation model, at $25 per workstation, can hardly be said to be
>comparable to any single-user model at $5,000! You may think our
>workstation model is 'inappropriate' FOR YOUR INSTITUTION, and indeed, I
>would agree with you. However, Science serves a much broader audience than
>the typical scientific journal, including a few thousand high schools,
>public libraries, small corporations, and small 2- and 4-year colleges.  
>This is the segment of our market that the workstation model is aimed at,
>although others are free to choose this 'economy' model, as Princeton has.  
>A few of the targeted market for our workstations have even written us to
>thank us effusively for providing such a rich resource at such a low
>There is no significant income stream for us from this part of the market,
>but they are part of our mission. For them, the workstation model is
>entirely appropriate, and we expect to retain this option for the
>foreseeable future.
>Mike Spinella
>Subject: RE: American Society for Microbiology
>Author:  Carole Richter <Carole.J.Richter.8@nd.edu> at Internet 
>Date:    11/24/98 7:10 PM
>     I've been extremely disappointed to see that Gale databases are
>priced in much the same way...a *single user* license (which for access to
>the full text Literature series is $5,000+, so not cheap) provides access
>not to a single institution-wide concurrent user, but to one user within
>one building. Only at additional user levels (double in cost for 2 users)
>is remote access by ip authentication possible.
>The 'inappropriate model' idea is something that I hope we can support,
>especially through professional organizations and contacts. If we each
>continue to make exceptions when we are particularly anxious to 'have' one
>resource, such as Science Online for example, we make it more difficult to
>influence vendors to accept a reasonable model of access.
>Carole Richter
>Electronic Resourcees Coordinator
>University of Notre Dame Libraries