For non-profits and other service organizations, ROI includes intangible benefits like "making society better." The non-profit management literature addresses this. So we should assume ROI to include those "less tanglibles."
Jennifer, I would gladly add XC but (and I just checked) there is no documentation that demonstrates that it produces LD. The only documentation that I can find talks about MARC and FRBR, but there is nothing on the record format or serialization. That information has to be public and open before a service can be included in the report. Your ontology needs to be open access on the Web in RDF format. If it is, please give a pointer.
This is a wiki draft, and the editorial work to fix things like case will happen when it is turned into a "real" document. It would be good to know, for things like "web", what people find clearest in terms of case.
I agree with Laura that, if we investigate fully, we may find that we have more in common than it appears on the surface. An advantage to that investigation would be that it would require us to clarify our data goals in new terms; we might learn something from the exercise.
It may be useful, however, to say that there is some valuable information to be gleaned from these private areas, like overall circulation statistics for individual titles. Scrubbing the data of any personally identifiable information adds cost to these projects. Privacy is essential and should not be compromised, but it has an impact on projects.
I'm not sure this is true as stated. I think that the issue is that local development efforts mainly spread through vendor adoption, and that means that a local development must have wide-spread utility to be adopted. The issue isn't so much bottom-up but developments that only are of interest to a niche market that vendors cannot economically support.
I think it would be worthwhile to talk separately about the issue of having iterative standards with proof-of-concept development, and the issue of the time lag imposed by the meeting cycles.
I also think somewhere we should mention the variety of standards fora -- IFLA, national fora, NISO, and the recent awareness of non-library fora, like W3C.
This has been criticized as being not only negative but not really true. Is there another way to say this? I think it is mainly about libraries having trouble being on the leading edge and generally having a hard time changing.
Login
Register
Register
Your account has been created. Check your email for further instructions on how to log in.
Comments by Users