Re: If electronic is to replace paper

[Michele Newberry <fclmin@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu>]

Thank you Sally for making this distinction.  I have been doing so in
every venue I have been able to use as well.  Preservation does not insure
access in the terms we think of it for electronic content.  Most access
these days is all-pervasive, unlimited use by all our current authorized
users.

This makes it even more critical that whatever organization(s) is/are
preserving the content will also be able to provide the access.  If not
the publisher and not the libraries, then it must be an organization that
has the technical infrastructure to do the continuous upgrades to new
media/technology as well as the infrastructure to provide ongoing access
to all the current and former subscribers.

We're not asking for too much, are we?

  -- Michele Newberry

Michele Newberry
Assistant Director for Library Services
Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA)
2002 NW 13th Street, Suite 320
Gainesville, FL 32609

fclmin@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu
www.fcla.edu

Sally Morris wrote:

> Recent postings about archiving, and who is responsible, make me
> increasingly aware that we tend to confuse 2 very different things when we
> use the term 'archiving':
>
> 1)  long-term (no-one dares say 'permanent' any more!) preservation
>
> 2)  continued access, to material previously paid for, after the cessation
> of the licence
>
> Perhaps we should forswear the use of the term 'archiving' altogether, to
> avoid this confusion!
>
> Preservation is both difficult and expensive.  It therefore makes no
> economic sense for libraries to undertake it individually.  Personally, I
> don't think it's appropriate for publishers to do it either, since they
> are (naturally) driven by commercial imperatives and therefore have little
> incentive to maintain material which no longer has commercially
> significant value.  Large and 'permanent' institutions, such as
> national/deposit libraries, therefore seem a better bet (though someone
> still has to cover the considerable costs!);  some redundancy (at least 2
> copies, preferably more, preserved in different ways) also seems prudent.
>
> Contined access is a matter of licensing.  It certainly seems to be the
> preferred journal licensing model for most libraries, although it is not
> typical of other content licences.  Many publishers (cf the various model
> licences in circulation - there's a listing on the 'Resources' page at
> www.alpsp.org.uk) are accommodating this preference.
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>
> Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-gen@alpsp.org.uk
> ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org.uk