PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
Discovery and access
Interim Report
Release: Final version 1.0
Date: 27 December 2009
Author: Margaret Williams
Owner: Julie Rae
This document was revised on these dates:
Revision Date |
Version |
Notes |
March 8, 2009 |
Draft 1.0 |
Original first draft |
March 15, 2009 |
Draft 1.1 |
Revised based on feedback |
March 17, 2009 |
Draft 1.2 |
Revised based on feedback |
March 20, 2009 |
Final 1.0 |
Revised based on feedback |
This document has been distributed to:
Name |
Title |
Julie Rae |
Global Accessible Library Project Lead |
Deborah Mould |
Project Team Chair, Collection and Sharing |
Margaret Williams |
Project Team Chair, Discovery and Access |
Hye Ju Kim |
Project Team Member, Discovery and Access |
Jon Hardisty |
Project Team Member, Discovery and Access |
Marcus Westlind |
Project Team Member, Discovery and Access |
Minna von Zansen |
Project Team Member, Discovery and Access |
Tony Iezzi |
Project Team Member, Discovery and Access |
Executive Summary
Purpose of Document
Background
Current Situation
Vision Statement
Options
Recommended Approach
Work Plan
Estimated Costs.
Appendix A
Selected Bibliography
This interim report proposes a vision statement, phase 1 work plan, and estimated costs for the Global Library Discovery and Access project team.
In the report the project team attempts to illustrate the many layers of challenge and choice that people with print disabilities face when trying to find and access library material in alternative formats. Three major challenges are discussed: the lack of an integrated source of information, legal restrictions, and the “digital divide”.
The vision statement reflects what the project team considers necessary to overcome these challenges:
The Global Accessible Library will be an integrated source of information that makes it possible for people with print disabilities around the world to find and access the full range of library material in alternative formats available to them.
The project team considered four options that might lead to achieving this vision:
Option 1 is preferred, but options 2 and 3 are also recommended given the time it will take to implement option 1 fully. Option 3, however, should not detract from work on the first two options. Option 4 has been rejected by the project team.
The work plan proposed for phase 1 involves developing draft business requirements and confirming those requirements with potential member libraries. Libraries will be surveyed for technical readiness and level of interest in participating in the first iteration of the Global Accessible Library. Potential partners in technology and standards will be consulted on basic feasibility and cost ranges.
The purpose of this document is to propose a vision statement, phase 1 work plan and estimated costs for the Discovery and Access project team, for consideration by the Global Accessible Library (GAL) project steering committee.
Discovery and Access is one of four key project teams identified in the GAL Project Plan. The purpose of the project team is to explore and recommend preferred approaches to current end-user discovery and access challenges; desired capabilities; options to get from where we are to where we want to be; and recommendations including costs. The work of the project team will have the following outcomes:
At its first meeting in Amsterdam on November 4-5, 2008, the project team was assigned the task of establishing a vision statement and work plan. Since November the project team has met by teleconference five times and communicated via the Global Accessible Library project wiki. Members have identified and reviewed key documents and consulted with colleagues on several broad work areas:
This document is based on this preliminary research.
In the analog world the primary way for a person with a print disability to access library material in alternative formats was to register with a specialized library service in their country that would select items of interest and deliver them to the person’s home. Access to material held in other libraries in other countries was by interlibrary loan, a process that could take months.
This service model is still in place in the digital world, but there are new possibilities too. Many libraries serving people with print disabilities (in the developing world at least) have invested in digitizing their collections and building systems that allow patrons to select their own reading material and access it instantly online.
Despite this great leap forward, the range of library material in alternative formats that is available to people with print disabilities is still limited for the most part to the holdings of the specialized library service in their country. The need to overcome this limitation, however, is growing.
For example, in multicultural regions, libraries are under pressure to respond to the increasing demand for material in many languages. One cost-effective solution would be to provide access to the collections of libraries in countries where those languages are prevalent. Opening up access to other collections would also help to reduce the duplication of effort that takes place when libraries around the world produce the same work. For people with print disabilities, less duplication will lead to a greater range of material being available.
To overcome this limitation we need to understand the reasons behind it. There are three major reasons: there is no easy way for people to find out what library material is available in alternative formats in other countries; there are legal restrictions related to copyright; and there is the digital divide that separates the “haves” from the “have not’s” in terms of social and technological infrastructure and skills development.
Description: The end-user is depicted at the centre of several circles. Each circle represents a series of challenges or choices that the end-user must take into account before he or she can access library material in alternative formats. The layers include:
The diagram may appear to be overwhelming; for the end-user in this situation, it is!
Currently, people with print disabilities are largely unaware of the range of library material that is available in alternative formats around the world. If the specialized library service in their country does not have the work and cannot arrange for interlibrary loan, most people look no further.
People with access to technology and skills who choose to explore other options must identify and search multiple library catalogues, peer-to-peer sharing sites such as Bookshare, repositories of public domain material such as Gutenberg, and retail sites such as Audible or Amazon. It is a daunting task for any individual; if you rely on a screen reader and can’t skim a site quickly for content of interest, it is nearly impossible.
Being able to find a work in alternative format does not necessarily lead to access. People with print disabilities – and the libraries serving them – must understand and apply a complex set of legal terms and conditions before access can happen.
Over 50 countries have an exception in their copyright legislation that permits the production of alternative formats. It is not clear that the alternative format of a work produced under a legislative exception in one country may be used in another without applying for permission to the rights holder(s). In addition, the language of exceptions varies from country to country regarding which formats can be produced and who is eligible to use the material (e.g., people with vision loss only; people with vision loss or physical disabilities; people with all types of print disabilities).
Some libraries in countries with similar exceptions have decided to assume the risk of exchanging material and place the onus on the importing library to ensure that it is used in accordance with the laws of its country. A few libraries offer direct service to patrons internationally, but only for physical items.
Library material in alternative formats can also be subject to licensing agreements between the library and the rights holder. In some countries, libraries must apply to publishers for licences on a title by title basis. In countries with exceptions, libraries might also have agreements with copyright licensing agencies and individual publishers. These agreements can restrict eligible use, formats allowed, number of copies and further distribution. The library may also need to implement technical protection measures, report back to the rights holder on usage, and pay compensation.
Bookshare in the United States has been particularly successful in securing licences from publishers that allow global online access to copyrighted material in alternative formats.
Digital Rights Management (DRM) refers broadly to any strategy or tool that is used to control who can access digital content and how they can use it. DRM might be as simple as putting a copyright notice on a document, or it might go much farther and encrypt a document so that you must input a special code (or key) to read it, and only on a designated machine. Encryption is an example of a Technological Protection Measure (TPM), which is a kind of DRM, but the terms are often used interchangeably.
The level of DRM applied depends on many factors, including copyright, distribution rights, business models and the inherent value or sensitivity of the information.
Two DRM models are probably most relevant to the Global Accessible Library project: the “DRM Pyramid” of the American Association of Publishers and Bookshare’s “Seven Point Digital Rights Management Plan”. See Appendix A for a summary of these models.
According to a recent DAISY Consortium Board survey, member libraries offering online services apply three or four levels of protection:
Some libraries have implemented or are considering implementing watermarks. Bookshare has implemented encryption, fingerprinting, and account monitoring. At the far end of the scale, the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) in the United States and the LG DTB Library in Korea have tied usage to dedicated devices.
Legal entitlement to use a work in alternative format is also not enough to guarantee access. Technological barriers can pose a further challenge.
Connectivity and bandwidth are the first barriers. The very premise of the Global Accessible Library as it is currently scoped is that the end-user resides in a region with some level of connectivity to the Internet, wired or wireless. However, by the end of 2007, according to the International Telecommunications Union, less than one out of five people living in the developing world were online, compared to over 60 percent of people in the developed world.
Fixed broadband is still an issue in the developed world, at 10-15 percent in Europe and the Americas; it is less than half a percent in Africa. The ability of end-users to stream or download files effectively requires broadband.
Over the past ten years, growth in mobile access has outstripped other types of access in both developed and developing countries with the effect that 97 percent of people in the developed world and 45 percent of people in the developing world have a mobile phone. Still, the rollout of mobile broadband is concentrated in the developed world, and about 20 percent of the world’s population is not covered by a mobile cellular network.
Falling prices and the spread of 3G (wide-area high-bandwidth) networks is expected to change this picture over the coming years.
Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database
Description: A bar graph represents the penetration of four types of information and communications technologies on different continents and worldwide: fixed telephone lines, mobile subscribers, Internet users, and broadband subscribers. The graph illustrates that mobile subscribers are predominant in all places. By the end of 2007, the world had:
3.3 billion mobile cellular subscribers
1.3 billion fixed telephone lines
1.5 billion Internet users
336 million broadband subscribers.
Data table:
|
Fixed telephone lines |
Mobile subscribers |
Internet users |
Broadband |
Africa |
3 |
27 |
5 |
0.2 |
Americas |
33 |
72 |
41 |
10 |
Asia |
16 |
37 |
17 |
3 |
Europe |
41 |
110 |
42 |
14 |
Oceania |
36 |
78 |
45 |
17 |
World |
19 |
49 |
22 |
5 |
Reading devices that can play alternative formats are becoming increasingly available. Text-to-speech, braille translation, and magnification software is now available for mobile phones and PDAs from a range of mainstream manufacturers. Mobile DAISY Player by Code Factory is an example of software available for use on several models of mobile phones. Specialized devices such as braille and speech PDAs and note takers (e.g., BrailleNote PK) and media players (e.g., VictorReader Stream, Plextor PTX) are also becoming increasingly geared to support real-time streaming, downloading and portability of digital content.
The affordability of these devices will be a significant factor for the GAL. The cost of the device, adaptive software and a data plan will simply be out of reach for many people with print disabilities in developing countries. The latest specialized media players are starting to come down in price (a VictorReader Stream is currently about $100 more expensive than a higher-end Apple iPod), but people with print disabilities are often on lower incomes and cannot afford them. In some countries, libraries have been able to distribute players freely or for a reasonable service fee, while in others end-users must purchase the players themselves or wait for donations or government subsidies. In a recent study, some younger users expressed that they would prefer to be able to use cheaper (and trendier) mainstream devices.
Some libraries have asked end-users to adopt designated devices in order to facilitate player rollout and support and control access to content. A player that supports digital rights management can, for example, be used to validate that the machine is owned by an authorized user and unlock encrypted files. A device that is set up to play content from one library may not automatically be able to play content from another library. Examples of this service model include the LG DTB Library in Korea and NLS in the United States. A recent example in the mainstream world is Amazon, which has decided to permit rights holders to disable the text-to-speech function of the Kindle 2. (The Kindle 2 is not accessible for other reasons, but text-to-speech capability was a step in the right direction.)
While out of scope of the GAL project, the ability of people with print disabilities to acquire adequate technology skills also presents a challenge. In particular, many older adults who are new to technology will not be able to benefit from the GAL without intensive training or an intermediary.
The Global Accessible Library will be an integrated source of information that makes it possible for people with print disabilities around the world to find and access the full range of library material in alternative formats available to them.
More specifically, the Global Accessible Library will:
The project team considered four main options:
This option is the project team’s preferred option.
Over the long term, develop a virtual integrated digital library system that would allow libraries to leverage shared technologies while maintaining local independence.
The system would not need to be implemented all at once, and could be achieved in phases depending on the readiness of member libraries and other restrictions such as copyright. An initial small-scale implementation would be advisable to test technical feasibility and user expectations.
The system would need to have three layers:
An end-user would be able to search and browse the holdings of member libraries two ways: through a single, integrated catalogue interface or through the catalogues of individual member libraries.
Federated search or union catalogue
A federated search application that uses the Z39.50 protocol or another standard (e.g., OCLC’s ZPortal) would most likely be the base technology for this layer. A union catalogue application (e.g., OCLC’s WorldCat) is another possibility.
The project team has reviewed the pros and cons of each type of application, federated search and union catalogue. In principle, a federated search is preferable because it allows libraries to share live catalogue data that is always current and can contain both common data elements among libraries and customized elements for each library. The traditional union catalogue requires libraries to transfer catalogue records to a centralized database periodically. The database becomes out of date the moment that the records are transferred and it only includes common data elements among libraries. Revealweb, a past union catalogue project in the UK, demonstrated the difficulty in maintaining a regular transfer schedule.
A union catalogue, however, might be a very good solution for libraries that have not yet put their catalogues online. It might be cost effective for these libraries to contribute records to a union catalogue rather than each library maintaining a separate system. The union catalogue could then feed into a federated search with libraries that have their own systems. (A similar centralized approach could be taken for storing content for libraries that are just starting to digitize collections. Overdrive’s ContentReserve and OCLC’s CONTENTdm are just two examples of digital collection management applications.)
Federated search or union catalogue, data mapping would need to be done for each library. Standard MARC fields such as Author and Title would be relatively easy to handle. However, the method for handling the many variations of alternative formats still needs to be decided. How to represent rights data in catalogue records is also undetermined. The process is labour-intensive, and it is not reasonable to expect libraries to undertake it without additional resources, expertise and international coordination. A partnership with an organization that has a track record for handling large-scale, international and multilingual data (e.g., OCLC) is crucial to ensuring it is done properly and cost-efficiently.
User requirements
Further research will determine the user requirements for this layer. However, the project team has compiled an initial list to build on, based on its review of the literature. Some required items are: universal design, multilingualism, timeliness, Google-like simple and advanced search options, and mobile browsing. Other options include: personal customization and Web 2.0 features such as user reviews.
It would also be important to establish connecting links between the Global Accessible Library, mainstream spaces such as public services (e.g., schools, libraries), social media (e.g., community forums, Facebook groups), and commercial spaces (e.g., Google Books). Effective linking strategies might include:
A widely used proxy server such as OCLC’s EZProxy or the open source software Shibboleth, which uses an authentication protocol such as SIP or NCIP, would be the base technology for this layer. The protocol would authenticate the end-user’s username, password and other information (e.g., country) and authorize access to material according to the business rules set by each member library to meet legal obligations and borrowing policies.
The DAISY Online Specification might present new possibilities. Version 1 will permit the end-user to download DAISY files from an online service to a compatible device. Version 2, however, might also enable member libraries to exchange content between servers in real time.
The following scenario and diagram describe just one way that an end-user might benefit from option 1.
Marco loves the social media site Facebook. He’s part of a group called Adaptive Technology Geeks. He checks it every morning on his accessible cell phone while he’s on the bus on his way to work. A friend has mentioned a new book by Marco’s favourite science fiction author. Marco wants to know if it’s available in DAISY yet. He types the title of the book into the Global Accessible Library search box on his Facebook group’s page. He is taken to a Global Accessible Library landing page where he is prompted to select which country he lives in, which language(s) he reads, and which format(s) he uses. Marco enters “UK”, “Italian”, “English”, and “DAISY”. He is presented with a list of search results. Although Marco doesn’t know it, the search results have been integrated from the catalogues of Global Accessible Library members around the world. He finds the book he wants in English, available as DAISY online. Marco selects the “Borrow” button. The system prompts him to select the Global Accessible Library member in his country where he is registered for service, followed by his username and password for that library. Behind the scenes, Marco’s login information and request for content is authenticated by his member library, which is in the UK. His member library sends the request to another member library in Australia, where the DAISY files are stored. The member library in Australia receives the request, validates it, and allows the library in the UK to access the content. Marco’s member library delivers the content to his cell phone, which is equipped with DAISY playback software. All Marco knows is that the book appears on his cell phone and he can start listening to the first chapter on the bus before he arrives at work.
The next step in researching this option would be to create a series of use case scenarios, user requirements, and a conceptual model (or models) that would meet those requirements.
DAISY Consortium, January 2009, “Board members’ survey of copyright laws in organizations’ countries,” unpublished document.
All figures in this section are from the ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database, available online, <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/>
Special attention would need to be paid to building a strategy to support potential member libraries and end-users in developing countries. In Africa, the South African Library for the Blind (SALB) is a leader in Africa and would need to be consulted for further direction. The Library of Alexandria (Tahar Hussein Library for the Blind), a recent DAISY Consortium member, would also be a logical advisor, given its leadership role in the World Digital Library and the Internet Archive/Open Library. Other organizations such as eIFL-FOSS (Electronic Foundation for Libraries-Free and Open Source Software), the FORCE Foundation (a literacy organization for children and adults with vision loss in the developing world), and SightSavers (Dolphin Pen) might also provide guidance.
How difficult or easy a “virtual integrated digital library system” would be to implement depends a great deal on the success of the World Blind Union and other advocacy organizations’ efforts to clarify and simplify copyright and licensing practices on an international level. A WIPO Stakeholders’ Platform of rights holders and representatives from the visually impaired community was recently convened with the objective of increasing access to alternative formats for people with print disabilities. The Global Accessible Library project sponsors have sent a written letter to WBU outlining key points that need to be agreed upon: the legal regime of exceptions, licences and best practices; the definition of print disability; criteria for “trusted intermediaries”; what level of DRM is acceptable.
There are several possible partners that might already have technology or standards in place to support the underlying system or parts of it, and provide vital connecting links from mainstream and community spaces. Consultation would be required once the project team confirms the business requirements with potential member libraries. Some of initiatives identified include:
The project team sees this option as short-term, first step to building option 1.
Option 1 is complex and will take a long time to implement fully. Short-term benefits would be gained from developing the search and discovery layer from option 1 as a stand-alone tool to begin with. Although it would not allow end-users to access content, this option would provide an easier way for them to find information about the full range of library material in alternative formats available. It would assist both end-users and member libraries in identifying possible sources of interlibrary loan and it would help libraries to avoid duplication when selecting titles for production.
Details for this option are the same as the “search and discovery layer” for option 1.
The project team sees merit in this option but is concerned that it might delay implementation of options 1 and 2.
Develop an online guide to libraries serving people with print disabilities as an initial “hook” into our services until we are able to federate searching and authorize access to selected material. It’s also important to remember that option 1 will only be technically possible for a shortlist of libraries, mostly in developed countries, in the near future. Even for those libraries, copyright and licensing barriers need to be overcome before online access to material can really be opened up. The efforts at WIPO on this issue are encouraging, but it will take years (decades) for a resolution to take effect worldwide.
A guide could, therefore, have both short-term and long-term benefits. It might also assist us in collecting and maintaining critical information for options 1 and 2 about member libraries (e.g., contact information, eligibility criteria, countries served (rights), languages, and formats). This information will be required for search and discovery and controlling access to content.
It’s important to note that IFLA already maintains a directory of libraries for the blind and would be a logical partner in developing this option. The problem with the IFLA directory is that its presentation is not user friendly. For example, the only way to find a library is to search for its name (if you know it) or review a list of search results by country. End-users and librarians must review every entry for languages and formats available and how they can obtain items (e.g., borrow, purchase, ILL). As the use case scenario below will illustrate, the end-user needs to be able to define these criteria upfront. There is also an important distinction to be made between the location of a library and the areas that a library serves. The ability to review service eligibility criteria (e.g., type of print disability) and how to register (e.g., send scanned proof of disability) would help the end-user decide if it is appropriate to contact a particular library.
The following scenario illustrates just one way that an end-user might benefit from such a guide:
Lila, a person with a print disability in Canada, is on the CNIB Digital Library website. Lila can’t find the book she wants and wants to know if she can get it from another library. She doesn’t call CNIB because she knows that international interlibrary loan can take months. She would prefer to get it directly from the other library if they will serve her. Lila follows a link from CNIB to the guide to libraries serving people with print disabilities. The guide prompts Lila to select which country she lives in, which language(s) she reads, and which alternative format(s) she uses. Lila selects “Canada”, “French”, “DAISY”, and “braille”. Based on Lila’s input, the directory displays a list of libraries from which she might receive service. They include libraries in Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland. The listing for each library includes eligibility criteria (e.g., type of print disability) and how to register for service (e.g., send e-mail with scanned proof of disability). There is also a link to the online catalogue of the library, if one exists. Lila learns that she is eligible for service at a library in Switzerland. She searches the online catalogue and finds the book she wants. Lila registers for service and receives the book in French braille (a format that CNIB doesn’t even have!).
The guide could be even more effective for the end-user if it were to include non-library services such as trusted peer-to-peer sharing sites (e.g., Bookshare), public domain sites (e.g., Gutenberg), and well-known fee-based sites (e.g., Audible). A filter option for “free” or “fee” could be provided. Basic information about alternative formats could also be useful for newcomers to the concept of alternative formats.
Just as for options 1 and 2, there would need to be connecting links between the guide and mainstream and community spaces. For example, an end-user might use Google Accessible Search to look for “DAISY books”. The metadata keywords in the guide would be optimized so that it would be returned in the first five results.
There are four sources that might serve as starting points for the guide:
http://ifla.jsrpd.jp/
The directory is currently maintained by the Japanese Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (JSRPD). Misako Nomura of JSRPD recently reported to IFLA-LPD that 263 organizations are listed and that in response to a request for updates, she had received eight written letters and 24 online submissions.
http://www.oclc.org/registry/
WorldCat Registry is a Web-based directory for libraries and library consortia. This application might be an alternative to the current format of the directory maintained by IFLA. If Global Accessible Library information about materials were to appear in WorldCat, there could be opportunities to link the registry and catalogue information to each other. The presentation of WorldCat Registry would need to be enhanced to meet the needs described above in the use case scenario.
www.airs.org
AIRS has established an international standard for community services directories, which could be adapted quite easily for our purposes. The taxonomy used by the standard already has broad terms for alternative formats (e.g., Braille Materials/Collections). Narrower terms could be developed with our guidance. It might also be cost-effective to contract out the task of collecting and maintaining the data to an AIRS-accredited, non-profit organization that is “in the business” of doing this. The information would be fully updated (an automated process by email) at least once a year, with the option for libraries to submit updates at any time. A low-cost hosted directory application is available.
CNIB’s guide to popular sources of online audio, text, braille and video, both fee-based and free, is an example of how the guide might educate end-users about the range of sources available to them:
http://webcluster.cnib.ca/Public/Help_content.aspx?Help_Topic=e_delivery.
Humanware, vendor of the VictorReader Stream, also recently launched “Find content for your Stream,” which links its customers to online sources: http://www.humanware.com/en-canada/support/find_content_for_stream.
This option has been rejected by the project team.
Increase access to public domain material by allowing users to access material in alternative formats that is already legally available to them through a single repository.
This option would require member libraries to identify public domain material in their holdings and contribute it to an existing shared repository such as Bookshare, the Internet Archive/Open Library, etc.
The value of this option is questionable given the amount of public domain material already available through mainstream electronic text and audio projects such as Gutenberg. Some value may be added by providing end-users with the option to download DAISY or electronic braille files. What people with print disabilities really want is access to more current, copyright-protected material. It might be a mistake to devote efforts to this option at the cost of not moving forward to build the foundation for the longer term plan. The public domain holdings of member libraries will ultimately become available through option 1.
Presented with the above challenges and options, the Discovery and Access project team recommends proceeding with:
Option 1, to develop a virtual integrated digital library system, and because option 1 will take time to implement fully,
Option 2, to develop the search and discovery layer from option 1 as a stand-alone in the short term.
Option 3, to build an online guide to libraries (and potentially other services) serving people with print disabilities, provided that it could be implemented in such a way as to facilitate options 1 and 2, not delay them.
The next step in researching options 1, 2 and 3 would be to create a series of use case scenarios, user requirements, and a conceptual model (or models) that would meet those requirements.
The resulting business requirements document would be tested with potential member libraries and other advisors using (primarily) an accessible online survey tool. Members would be asked to confirm that the requirements respond to their needs and the needs of their end-users.
The survey would also be used to determine the technical readiness and level of interest of potential member libraries to participate in the first iteration of the Global Accessible Library. Questions would be asked about library systems, cataloguing standards, compatibility with federated search and authentication protocols, countries served, languages of service and content, alternative formats provided, and end-user devices.
A consultant with expertise in survey design would be required to assist the project team. Survey methodology and design would be coordinated with the Collections project team.
After refining the requirements based on the survey results, the project team would share it with potential technology and standards partners to confirm basic feasibility and obtain cost ranges.
The major risks associated with the recommended approach are:
Tasks |
Start Date |
End |
Duration |
Status |
|
April 6 |
April 10 |
1 week |
Not started |
|
April 13 |
May 22 |
6 weeks |
Not started |
|
June 1 |
July 3 |
6 weeks |
Not started |
|
July 6 |
Jul 31 |
4 weeks |
Not started |
|
Aug 3 |
Sep 11 |
6 weeks |
Not started |
|
Sep 14 |
Oct 2 |
3 weeks |
Not started |
Item |
Description |
Calculation |
Amount |
SurveyGizmo |
Accessible online survey application |
$20/mo + tax for 6 mos |
$150 |
Library consultant with survey expertise |
Advise on participant selection, survey design, and write analysis report |
$100/hr for 70 hrs |
$7,000 |
Admin support |
Implement survey and collate results |
$35/hr for 35 hrs |
$1,225 |
Conference calls |
Consultation with libraries, advisors, and technology partners |
|
$500 |
Total |
|
|
$8,875 |
The Association of American Publishers’ DRM Pyramid outlines seven levels of protection.
Bookshare’s “Seven Point Digital Rights Management Plan” includes:
Bae, Kyung-Jae. 2006. “A study of Developing the Ubiquitous Library for the Improvement of Information Accessibility of the Blind,”
Journal of Korean Society for library and Information Science, vol. 6, pp. 273-290.
Brazier, Helen and David Owen, editors. Spring 2007. “Library and information services for visually impaired people,” Library Trends, vol. 55, no 4.
Charara, Houeida K., 2007, Introduction to ZPORTAL, (PowerPoint presentation) viewed 27 February 2009, <www.lau.edu.lb/libraries/Introduction_to_ZPortalNov.2007.ppt>
Charbonneau, Deborah H, editor. 2008. Global Information Inequalities: Bridging the Information Gap. Oxford: Chandos.
Dahl Rathje, Bente and George Kerscher. 2 March 2009. (Letter to Chris Friend, World Blind Union Right to Read Campaign on the work of the WIPO Stakeholders’ Platform).
Dahl Rathje, Bente et al. 2005. “Designing and Building Integrated Digital Library Systems – Guidelines,” IFLA Libraries for the Blind Section, viewed February 2009, <http://www.ifla.org/VII/s31/pub/Profrep90.pdf>
DAISY Consortium. November 2007. “Board of Directors’ Position Statement on Digital Rights Management (DRM),” viewed 2 March 2009,
<http://www.daisy.org/publications/docs/positionpapers/ position_paper_protecting_content.html>
DAISY Consortium. January 2009. “Board members’ survey of copyright laws in organizations’ countries,” unpublished document.
DAISY Consortium. March 2007. “Specification for DAISY Protected Digital Talking Book,” viewed 2 March 2009, <http://www.daisy.org/projects/pdtb/>
eIFL. “eIFL FOSS: Free and open source software.” Viewed January 2009, <http://www.eifl.net/cps/sections/services/eifl-foss>
eIS Architecture, 2004 (last updated), British Library SRU Gateway Software, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://herbie.bl.uk:9080/>
Evergreen. Frequently asked questions about Evergreen. Viewed January 2009, <http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_faq_1>
Friend, Chris. October 2007. “Assistive technology and AltFormat developments in Africa.” Paper presented to IFLA Libraries for the Blind section, viewed January 2009, <http://www.altformat.org/index.asp?page=news&iid=30&id=111&title=Assistive+Technology+and+AltFormat+Developments+in+Africa>
Gatenby, Janifer. 2000. Internet, Interoperability and Standards Filling the Gaps, National Information Standards Organization (NISO), viewed 27 February 2009, <http://www.niso.org/publications/white_papers/wp-gatenby/>
Gatenby, Janifer. 2006. Resource Delivery Focus OCLC PICA (conference PowerPoint presentation), viewed 27 February 2009, <www.oclc.org/news/events/presentations/2006/Nordic_ILL200610_OCLCPICA_JLG.ppt>
Godwin, Michael. 2006. “Digital rights management: A guide for librarians,” Office for Information Technology (OITP) Technology Policy Brief, American Library Association, viewed 30 November 2008, <http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/digitalrights/DRMfinal.pdf>
Guillermo, Esteve and Angel Machin. May 2007. “Devices to access Internet in developing countries.” Paper presented at the International World Wide Web Conference. Viewed January 2009, <http://www2007.org/workshops/paper_106.pdf>
IFLA Libraries for the Blind Section. June 2008. “Global Accessible Library Membership Survey,” unpublished document.
Ingate Systems. SIP the next big step of internet usage (PDF file) viewed 27 February 2009, <www.ingate.com/files/White_paper_SIP.pdf>
International Telecommunication Union. ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database, available online, <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/>
Jabber. 2006. SIP, RTP and XMPP in the emerging real-time internet (PDF file), viewed 27 February 2009, <www.carahsoft.com/resources/Jabber/Jabber_Inc_SIP_RTP_XMPP_White_Paper.pdf>
Jain, Ravi. December 2006. “The mobile web in developing countries.” Paper presented at the W3C Workshop on the Mobile Web in Developing Countries. Viewed January 2009, <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/MWI-EC/PC/rj-mobileweb-developingcountries.pdf>
Kerscher, George and Jim Fruchterman. [No date] “The Soundproof Book: Exploration of Rights conflict and Access to Commercial EBooks for People with Disabilities,” viewed 2 March 2009,
<http://www.daisy.org/publications/docs/soundproof/sound_proof_book.html>
Ko, Seong-Soon. 2005. “Research on the Information Service of the Ubiquitous Library Age,” Journal of Korean Society for library and Information Science, vol. 3, pp.127-145.
Koha Development Team and Liblime. 2008. Koha: The first Open Source ILS. Viewed January 2009, <http://www.koha.org/about-koha/>
Kyung-Jae, Bae, et al. 2007. ‘The Ubiquitous Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped – a case study of the LG Sangnam Library, Korea’, IFLA Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 210-219.
Lee, Kyung-Min. 2005. “A study on the Case Analysis of Digital Materials in Children Library,” Journal of Korean Society for library and Information Science, vol. 12, pp. 349-364.
Lee, Nanee. 2007. “Building a Collaborative Sci- Tech Digital Library,” Journal of Korean Society for library and Information Science, vol. 6, pp. 219-236.
Lee, Soo-Sang. 2006. “A study on the Methods of Integrated Search in Digital Libraries Environment,” Journal of Korean Society for library and Information Science, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 127-144.
Lee, Soo-Sang. 2005. “A Study on the Developmental Aspects of Digital Library in Korea,” Journal of Korean Society for library and Information Science, vol. 3, pp. 131-150.
Lionoski, Alexis, Walczyk, Tine, 2008, ‘Federated Search 101’, netConnect Library Journal.com, 15 July 2008, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6571320.html>
Mann, David. 26 January 2006. “Digital rights management and people with sight loss,” European Blind Union, viewed 8 March 2009, <http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=170 >
Mi, Jia and Cathy Weng. March 2008. “Revitalizing the Library OPAC: Interface, Searching, and Display Challenges,” Information Technology and Libraries. Vol. 27, no.1.
National Library of Australia, Directory of Z39.50 Targets in Australia, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://www.nla.gov.au/libraries/z3950/index.html>
National Library of Australia, List of Z39.50 Targets in Australia, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/libraries?action=ListTargets>
Network Development & MARC Standards Office Library of Congress, 2006, Z39.50 Software, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/resources/software.html>
OCLC, 2008, ZPORTAL Federated Search Portal, viewed February 2009, <http://www.oclc.org/zportal/default.htm>
Owen, Victoria. 2004. “Towards the ideal: Steps to improved access,” World Library and Information Congress: 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, viewed 8 February 2009, <http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla70/papers/121e-Owen.pdf>
Rightscom. May 2007. “Funding and governance of library and information services for visually impaired people: international case studies,” report prepared for IFLA Libraries for the Blind Section, viewed February 2009, <http://www.ifla.org/VII/s31/pub/FGpart1.htm#contref64>
Rowland, William. 2008. “Library Services for Blind People: an African perspective.” IFLA Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 84-89.
Sadler, Bess. 2007. “Open source ILS and library-in-a-box.” (Conference presentation), viewed January 2009, < http://odyssey2007.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/beth-sadler-open-source-ils-and-library-in-a-box/>
Sadler, Bess. 25 April 2007. “Bess Sadler talks with Talis about eIFL and library-in-a-box.” Panlibus blog (podcast), viewed January 2009, < http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/archives/2007/04/bess_sadler_tal.php>
Schneider, Karen G. 2006. “How OPACs suck.” Parts 1-3. ALA TechSource blog. Viewed March 2009, < http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html>
Seok-su, Cha. 2003 “The present status of information service usage by the blind and plans to strengthen information access,” a masters thesis of Dongguk graduate school.
State Library of Ohio, MORE Technology Technology (How do they make it do that?), viewed 27 February 2009, <http://library.ohio.gov/IT/MORE/Tech>
State Library of Ohio, Ohio Libraries Share: MORE, Statewide Resource Sharing, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://library.ohio.gov/it/MORE>
Sullivan, Judith. February 2007. “Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired,” Study prepared for the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, SSCR/15/7, World Intellectual Property Organization, viewed 8 February 2009, <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_15/sccr_15_7.html>
UKOLN, Z-directory UK Z39.50 directory, viewed 27 February 2009, <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/distributed-systems/zdir/>
World Intellectual Property Organization. [No date] “Contracting parties: Berne Convention,” viewed 8 February 2009, <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15>
Yang, Young Ju. 2006 “Designing a Digital Library for the visual impaired,” a master’s thesis of Yonsei graduate school.