BHLE_WP2_CoPo
printer friendly
BHL-Europe |
WP1 |
WP2 |
WP3 |
WP4 |
WP5
see also BHL US
Collection Development Discussion main page
Collection Policy
This page shall help clarify the question how we are going to organise the content contribution and prioritisation of content for BHL-Europe.
The goal is to achieve a consensus with and within the content providers.
The results will be included in the Best Practice Guide D2.9!
Best Practice Guide
Workshop
Annual Review in
Meise/Tervuren (Belgium) BHL-E AnnualReview2
Tuesday, 7 June 2011, afternoon, the workshop takes place at the NBGB!!
Agenda Collection Policy_Meise.pdf
Minutes Collection Policy Workshop Meise/NBGB 7.6.2011 Workshop CoPo_minutes.pdf Notes_workshop copo 07062011.doc
Presentation Upload from the Workshop in Meise (here):
Upcoming questions are:
How shall each institution decide what shall be digitised in the wide scope of biodiversity? Conceptual approach?
Practical approach?
Do you have your own guidelines in the case of Collection Policy? How do they look like? Are they of help to BHL-E?
Are there helpful documents which can help content providers to decide what to digitise first?
How is content selection coordinated between the digitising museums in order to avoid duplication? - GRIB?!
How can the GRIB assist in these matters?
Feedback button on the BHL-E searchengine website - for scanning requests, questions and comments,...like BHL searchengine
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/Feedback.aspx
...
Forum for discussions, ideas, helpful documents,....
Answer immediately below to where you want to answer! Leave a bit of space when you have new questions ideas,... .
Example:
- 23.3.2011: What do you think if each content provider digitises according to the place of publication everything from their country? We digitise solely literature which has been published within austrian borders. Any ideas how we shall proceed if there are two content providers in one country? How can they best coordinate their digitisation?
-
Mar 23, 2011 FYI, the BHL-US has a Collections Committee that meets via conference on Mondays at 2pm EST. If you have any questions or would like to join us at any time, please let me know. Our work thus far is documented here
Collection Development. As the BHL-US corpus has amassed a sizable collection, our digitization efforts are now much more targeted. We rely on the feedback from users, collected via our web form
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/Feedback.aspx, to inform the majority of our content selection at this point. We've also put together lists of
priority titles for pre-1923 Botany monographs and serials, and pre-1923-to-present Zoology serials (monographs not yet incorporated). We enter these titles into our feedback system as well. It should be noted that our #1 priority for scanning is to digitize any volumes of a serial run that are missing from a title. Users send us feedback about this need to "gap-fill" all the time. We use our list of priority titles to prioritize titles in BHL for gap-filling as well.
-
May 16, 2011 The BHL-US has decided to produce a brief collection policy for the public
collection development policy and a more detailed policy for internal use only [in progress].
-
Mar 23, 2011 For our collection policy, please also see the
discussions in BHL-US. As an example how such documents look like, please have a look here:
http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:42/NSDL_Collection_Development_Policy.pdf.
- 24.03/2011. At
RMCA we took following approach, when BHL-europe started we asked each of our scientists to tell us which publications that are in our libraries or elsewhere they would like to see online and which they cannot find already on other websites. It resulted in this
list. We also decided to have anyways all our annals and monographs scanned. You can consult the progress table
here. Before having a publication scanned we check if it is not already available on BHL global and some other online literature portals.
Some of these publications are not yet out of copyright, whereas others are. We thus took a pragmatic approach in a first step we provided to BHL-europe and so also to EUROPEANA the publications that are public domain or where copyrights could be cleared. For the remaining publications we do our best efforts to clear the copyrights (find the authors or their heirs and ask their consent). If we could not find them after quite some efforts the strategy is to provide the volumes to BHL-Europe and EUROPEANA with a disclaimer that if a right holder manifest him or herself we would take it down again if this is her or his wish. So as the project went on the priority of what is provided became a combination
- of what is not yet digitised,
- what potential users are interested in
- how much funding/time there is for actual scanning, (ie is their additional funding for mass digitalisation available or not)
- the workload and barriers associated to copyright clearance.
- 24.3.2011: There at least two sides of Collection Policy
- conceptual side: What is significant to be included in BHL-E?
- practical side: I know of very interesting material to be ingested in BHl-E, but at the same time, I am aware that people holding the copyright of those materials are going to impose limitations. The alternative is to go for other interesting material whose owner are willing to contribute to BHL-E without limits. And let the time convince the formers that contributing to BHL-E is the way to be for biodiverstiy bibliography. In conclusion: a pragmatic alternative to keep our compromise with BHL-E; and a lot of "opportunistic" decisions on the move
- Example: Graellsia journal owners set difficulties for ingesting it to BHL-E. Alternative: Iberus, Spanish Malacological Society journal is willing to be added to BHLE. Conclussion: we concentrate in digitizing and ingesting Iberus and will try Graellsia again in a near future
- 18.05.2011 Short explanantion
Conceptual side: After 30 years working on biodiversity and having coauthored with zoologists and botanists (even microbiologists) I think I have a solid (althought not necessarily complete) idea of what kind of literature should hold a portal of biodiversity as BHL-E. For instance, a few months ago I mentioned natural history dictionaries as a proper target for BHLE, as the meaning of biological terms change -sometimes deeply- in time. Preparing recently a paper on some theoretical side of taxonomy, I greatly appreciated that BHL US had digitized D'Orbigny 'DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE' or at least the vol 13 that was the one I was interested. The easy target are publication on species, monographies, corology and the like. What is more difficult to decide is the 'fringe' literature that may be relevant in certain cases to understand an issue related with biodiversity and in many other cases not be relevant at all. I do not think we can provide a general rule for this fringe literature.
I agree with some researcher that mantain that history is more important for scientific enterprise than philosophy. And I feel very happy that my institution, CSIC, embrace Natural Sciences research institutes and Humanities Institutes. So I may have acces to a great variety of bibliography content part of which many people would think are not relevant for biodiversity.
Practical side: The problem derived from being an institution with many research institutes is that is very difficult to get a single united policy about content. For instance, to get an agreement to ingest EOS - an entomological journal- we need to get agreements with: a) the researcher that got the money to scanning the journal; b) the official responsible of a digital portal in the CSIC (there are two of these portals) and c) the head of the departmet to which the digital portal implied belongs. Too many people to talk and convince about the goodness of having that material in BHLE.
However, dealing with scientific societies is easier, just talk with the secretary of the society and he/she will trasmit the society the willinginess of BHLE of holding their journal. We did that with the Spanish Malacological Society and had the permission in a few day (and no headache at all). Iberus -the name of their journal- is already digitized and ingested. We plan to continue this negotiations with other Spanish scientific societies and regional goverment that have a lot of publications related with biodiveristy.
To conclude: we know what would be the ideal but we pursue the pragmatically achievable.
Régine Fabri & Nicole Hanquart 07;04.2011
The policy in the NBGB is the following :
- First we define the specificity of our holdings which is Central African and Belgian botany, we ask the expertise of home searchers to determine the scientific interest of our collections which are the first works (pillars works) on Belgian and Central African botany
- We consult the other Belgian partners and define the fields we each take in charge : botany for NBGB and zoology for RMCA & RBINS.
- We try first to digitize works in public domain or for which JBNP owns the rights.
- In addition, NBGB has also digitized to answer specific requests from the NBGB staff searchers and collaborators, with negociating the rights if necessary.
- At last, we took advantage of privileged contacts with Belgian editors of natural history journals to get the rights to digitize two recent journals
- 11.04.2011: As we digitise literature which has solely been published within austrian borders, negotiations with rightsholders are common. Before we start to negotiate and digitise, we look up BHL, Scan List and other austrian institutions in order to not digitise something twice. What we also do is, that if we get the rights to scan a big journal which runs for example from 1850 until now and maybe not always the biodiversity scope is met we still scan everything as it would make no sense to pick out those articles which fullfill or not fullfill the biodiversity scope requirements.
- 3.5.2011: What about having an alphabetical list of core and supporting themes which serves as an orientation document for easier decision making which literature from which theme should be digitised first? Have a look at the wikipage
BHL+Collections+Diagram from BHL US they have something similar.
Cécile Duteille, MNHN-Paris, 19.07.2011
The MNHN library approach is the following :
First, the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle has been digitising its own scientic publications from the beginning (i. e. 1802) for several reasons as :
- The suitability of the content from a broad biodiversity view : Literature available in the field of natural history which has been published within the french borders.
- The taking account of the IPRs : the MNHN has the authorization to digitise its own scientific journals to the 1990's. As the NBGB, the MNHN focuses on digitising the literature for which the MNHN owns the rights.
The MNHN is also digitising on request from researchers, collaborators and sometimes from partner institutions. In this case, the MNHN keeps on being careful of the IPRs (french public domain, foremost).
Furthermore, the MNHN checks its topics and content selection up with the BnF.
The digitisation efforts depend on funding too.
michaela_hierschlaeger 23.3.2011: What do you think if each content provider digitises according to the place of publication everything from their country? We digitise solely literature which has been published within austrian borders. Any ideas how we shall proceed if there are two content providers in one country? How can they best coordinate their digitisation?
lipscombb Mar 23, 2011 FYI, the BHL-US has a Collections Committee that meets via conference on Mondays at 2pm EST. If you have any questions or would like to join us at any time, please let me know. Our work thus far is documented here Collection Development. As the BHL-US corpus has amassed a sizable collection, our digitization efforts are now much more targeted. We rely on the feedback from users, collected via our web form http://biodiversitylibrary.org/Feedback.aspx, to inform the majority of our content selection at this point. We've also put together lists of priority titles for pre-1923 Botany monographs and serials, and pre-1923-to-present Zoology serials (monographs not yet incorporated). We enter these titles into our feedback system as well. It should be noted that our #1 priority for scanning is to digitize any volumes of a serial run that are missing from a title. Users send us feedback about this need to "gap-fill" all the time. We use our list of priority titles to prioritize titles in BHL for gap-filling as well.
h-scholz Mar 23, 2011 For our collection policy, please also see the discussions in BHL-US. As an example how such documents look like, please have a look here: http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:42/NSDL_Collection_Development_Policy.pdf.
Patricia_Mergen 24.03/2011. At RMCA we took following approach, when BHL-europe started we asked each of our scientists to tell us which publications that are in our libraries or elsewhere they would like to see online and which they cannot find already on other websites. It resulted in this list. We also decided to have anyways all our annals and monographs scanned. You can consult the progress table here. Before having a publication scanned we check if it is not already available on BHL global and some other online literature portals.
antonio_valdecasas 24.3.2011: There at least two sides of Collection Policy