Being the huge Britney Spears fan I am, I say "why not?". At this
point, I can't justify it, but I'm gonna' spend some time thinking about it.
For now though, I'll say that's not good enough reason to restrict it. I
like the idea of making the library role invisible in the sense that we're
speaking. The problem is that if the authentication and bureaucratic load
is handled by the library (rather than a separate open source initiative),
it will never be invisible. It would seem that a major reason for having a
project like this will be to serve those unaffiliated. Fitting in with the
existing model is great. If the scope of the project is restricted in
mindset from the beginning, it will be all the easier to keep it that way.
Why don't we just say now something to the effect of "in the testing
stages, this program will be limited to the following....in the future,
it will serve the public at large, as libraries have historically done".
Obviously, I'm just waiting for somebody to write back, "hey, that sounds
great! get to it." I just see no reason to restrict our thinking and limit
the model to the point that it serves only those involved in the project.
Also, it would be a shame to enter into the mentality that all of the
unaffiliated public just want magazine articles. That would be slightly
From: Daniel Lee [SMTP:dlee@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: [oss4lib-docster] Who's the user?
Speaking as a non-techie, what Daniel has outlined here is
pretty much the model that I found so attractive in his vision
as stated in his original oss4lib article. It takes the current
Interlibrary Loan model, puts it together with the trend towards
unmediated user initiated service, and makes the library role
invisible. The institution/library provides the infrastructure and,
with appropriate reporting capabilities, handles the bureacratic
side of copyright management. The faculty and students get
the articles they need with minimal effort and delays.
Authentication is currently far, far from perfect, but probably
adequate to meet campus needs.
Sure this leaves the unafilliated public out of the picture. But I
don't see the aim of the project as providing the Britney
Spears interview from Seventeen.
University of Utah
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Nathan Williams wrote:
> In that priority list, where is the home user accomodated? Or are
> suggesting only building it into an institutional framework?
>I'm pretty biased here but maybe I could be swayed. Imho if we're
>going to do a public prototype that publishers might join in on with
>of us working together in good faith, we've got to enforce some sort
>model of institutional accountability. It seems really likely that we
>make a good case for sharing articles between individuals within an
>institution's boundaries if we are agressively investigating how to
>adequately compensate publishers when we have to reach out to another
>institution to get a copy of something we haven't already bought
>This maps most closely to what I know about how we do things here now
>medical library with heavy focus on research and clinical needs).
>no reason the 'institutional' representation couldn't extend to a
>library and users thereof, of course. But in the context of a given
>institution, anybody who is a valid member of that community (yeah,
>hard to determine often, I know, but we can't solve that perfectly
>right now) should be able to have access whether on the net in the
>in the library, or when dialing in from home or elsewhere if
>So the burden is on the individual to authenticate into an
>community for access. That community is responsible for making
>payments (whether as eaten costs or charged back to users) when
>The individuals are responsible for not abusing the system either
>internally or by redirecting what they receive back out to external
>systems which bypass the payment framework we build.
>Again, I think this maps best into a balance like the one we've
>got. Larry Lessig summarizes well in _Code_ that you've got to decide
>(when reinterpreting laws whose context has changed based on new
>technology) whether you want to enforce old decisions based on the
>boundaries their logic as written or based on the balance the laws
>provided given the social context (not that I'm summarizing his words
>particularly well, tho). I might be wrong and a naive optimist but I
>think if we push toward a model that approximates a balance like the
>we have already, we might have a legally sustainable framework.
>oss4lib-docster mailing list
oss4lib-docster mailing list
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at