RE: Science Online model

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

It's rapildy becomining technically difficult to identify "one"
workstation" in some environments. Many institutions are moving to random
IP assignments, so that what you get when you log on is different than
what you had before. Try telling that to the "access to one address"
publishers...

They tend not to know what you are talking about.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Carole Richter [SMTP:Carole.J.Richter.8@nd.edu]
> Sent:	Monday, November 30, 1998 3:06 PM
> To:	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject:	Re: Science Online model
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 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
> workstation?
> 
> Carole Richter
> Electronic Resourcees Coordinator
> University of Notre Dame Libraries
> (219)631-8405
> richter.8@nd.edu
> 
> _________
> 
> 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
> >price.
> >     
> >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
> >_______