Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Project MUSE to add Tolkien Studies

Expand Messages
  • Croft, Janet B.
    Those of you with access to the full-text database Project MUSE will be happy to learn that Tolkien Studies will be added to their database in 2005! Janet
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Those of you with access to the full-text database Project MUSE will be
      happy to learn that Tolkien Studies will be added to their database in
      2005!

      Janet Brennan Croft
      Head of Access Services
      University of Oklahoma Libraries
      Bizzell 104NW
      Norman OK 73019
      405-325-1918
      Fax 405-325-7618
      jbcroft@...
      http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/
      http://libraries.ou.edu/
      ----------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------------
      "We're becoming nicely overextended. Some people regard that as
      progress."
      Aral Vorkosigan in Shards of Honor by Lois McMaster Bujold.
    • Larry Swain
      Oh Thank God! Finally!! I ve been so frustrated trying to get info on TS in the electronic databases, much less online text or abstracts. None of the
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh Thank God! Finally!! I've been so frustrated trying to get info on TS in the electronic databases, much less online text or abstracts. None of the libraries in the area subscribe yet, in spite of requests from me, and well, the subscription price is steep (I plan to talk to Pat about that, not that it'll change anything.) It costs more than any single society membership which also come with journals just as thick and well done as this journal is. I think the only thing that costs me more are journals from England in my field, which I also get frustrated by. OK RANT MODE off, this is indeed great news, Janet, thanks for sharing it.

        Larry Swain
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Croft, Janet B." <jbcroft@...>
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [mythsoc] Project MUSE to add Tolkien Studies
        Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:08:30 -0600

        >
        >
        > Those of you with access to the full-text database Project MUSE will be
        > happy to learn that Tolkien Studies will be added to their database in
        > 2005!
        >
        > Janet Brennan Croft
        > Head of Access Services
        > University of Oklahoma Libraries
        > Bizzell 104NW
        > Norman OK 73019
        > 405-325-1918
        > Fax 405-325-7618
        > jbcroft@...
        > http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/
        > http://libraries.ou.edu/
        > ----------------------------------------
        > --------------------------------------------
        > "We're becoming nicely overextended. Some people regard that as
        > progress."
        > Aral Vorkosigan in Shards of Honor by Lois McMaster Bujold.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >

        --
        _____________________________________________________________
        Web-based SMS services available at http://www.operamail.com
        From your mailbox to local or overseas cell phones.

        Powered by Outblaze
      • Croft, Janet B.
        I don t know exactly when this will happen -- it was announced today on the LibLicense list. Their website says it will take effect with the publication of the
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't know exactly when this will happen -- it was announced today on
          the LibLicense list. Their website says it will take effect with the
          publication of the next volume, which I think will be around April? And
          I also don't know if they will retroactively include the first volume.

          Well, still in geeky librarian mode, I was frustrated recently to find
          that the Arts and Humanities Citation Index only indexed Mythlore up
          through 1986. Not much help when you want to do a citation analysis on
          anything published in Mythlore!


          Janet

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Larry Swain [mailto:theswain@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 8:40 AM
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Project MUSE to add Tolkien Studies


          Oh Thank God! Finally!! I've been so frustrated trying to get info on
          TS in the electronic databases, much less online text or abstracts.
          None of the libraries in the area subscribe yet, in spite of requests
          from me, and well, the subscription price is steep (I plan to talk to
          Pat about that, not that it'll change anything.) It costs more than any
          single society membership which also come with journals just as thick
          and well done as this journal is. I think the only thing that costs me
          more are journals from England in my field, which I also get frustrated
          by. OK RANT MODE off, this is indeed great news, Janet, thanks for
          sharing it.

          Larry Swain
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Croft, Janet B." <jbcroft@...>
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [mythsoc] Project MUSE to add Tolkien Studies
          Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:08:30 -0600

          >
          >
          > Those of you with access to the full-text database Project MUSE will
          > be happy to learn that Tolkien Studies will be added to their database

          > in 2005!
          >
          > Janet Brennan Croft
          > Head of Access Services
          > University of Oklahoma Libraries
          > Bizzell 104NW
          > Norman OK 73019
          > 405-325-1918
          > Fax 405-325-7618
          > jbcroft@...
          > http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/
          > http://libraries.ou.edu/
          > ----------------------------------------
          > --------------------------------------------
          > "We're becoming nicely overextended. Some people regard that as
          > progress."
          > Aral Vorkosigan in Shards of Honor by Lois McMaster Bujold.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org Yahoo! Groups
          > Links
          >
          >
          >
          >

          --
          _____________________________________________________________
          Web-based SMS services available at http://www.operamail.com
          From your mailbox to local or overseas cell phones.

          Powered by Outblaze


          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
          Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
          Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/DtIolB/TM
          --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

          The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org Yahoo! Groups
          Links
        • David Bratman
          ... I remember discovering about five years ago that, though the MLA claims to index Mythlore, there are huge holes in their coverage. Checking some other
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 08:55 AM 12/15/2004 -0600, Janet wrote:

            >Well, still in geeky librarian mode, I was frustrated recently to find
            >that the Arts and Humanities Citation Index only indexed Mythlore up
            >through 1986. Not much help when you want to do a citation analysis on
            >anything published in Mythlore!

            I remember discovering about five years ago that, though the MLA claims to
            index Mythlore, there are huge holes in their coverage. Checking some
            other journals I found huge holes in their coverage too.

            Of course even if it had complete coverage, you couldn't use MLA to do a
            citation analysis. But the point is, I think scholars place way too much
            faith in the accuracy and claimed coverage standards of indexes. I used
            to, too, until I discovered this.

            This is one of the two reasons that the recent announcement that Google is
            going to digitize millions of library books makes me as nervous as it does
            happy. Already, most students think everything they need to know is on the
            web (more precisely: the Google index of the open web if they're doing
            research on their own initiative; whatever proprietary index their
            instructor points them at, if they're being sent). The more past library
            resources get on the web, the more accurate such an assumption will appear
            to be. But will it? Can we trust Google's statements that everything they
            say is there actually is, and that it's there accurately?

            The other reason I'm nervous is that the database with the entire world's
            past historical knowledge will be owned by a commercial firm. This can't
            be a good thing.

            David Bratman
          • Beth Russell
            ... From: David Bratman [mailto:dbratman@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:43 AM To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Project
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              -----Original Message-----
              From: David Bratman [mailto:dbratman@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:43 AM
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Project MUSE to add Tolkien Studies


              At 08:55 AM 12/15/2004 -0600, Janet wrote:

              >The more past library
              >resources get on the web, the more accurate such an assumption will
              appear
              >to be. But will it? Can we trust Google's statements that everything
              they
              >say is there actually is, and that it's there accurately?

              >The other reason I'm nervous is that the database with the entire
              world's
              >past historical knowledge will be owned by a commercial firm. This
              can't
              >be a good thing.

              >David Bratman

              Absolutely. But I don't see what might deflect the course that is
              already set. I fear we are looking at a major disjunction in the
              history of ideas. Anything not electronically stored will be lost.
              Because why should the taxpayers support big expensive buildings to keep
              paper records when everything anybody will ever need is available
              through Google and its successors? Think what would happen in a hostile
              corporate take-over when the acquirer wanted to dispose of unprofitable
              material!

              And think what would happen if a politically motivated person was able
              to hack in and change a text? With no book to refer to, who would know?

              And there is the little matter what happens when the plug is pulled out
              of the wall.

              Library geeks to the barricades!

              Beth



              The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • David Bratman
              ... That would be a lot worse without Google s big project, and is part of what makes me happy about it as well as nervous. Already, print material is lost to
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:55 AM 12/15/2004 -0600, Beth Russell wrote:

                >I fear we are looking at a major disjunction in the
                >history of ideas. Anything not electronically stored will be lost.

                That would be a lot worse without Google's big project, and is part of what
                makes me happy about it as well as nervous. Already, print material is
                lost to those who won't use it. And the more investment is in the
                digitized database, the more likely it will be maintained. It's the
                web-only records that will be lost if they're not copied and stored.
                (Example: symphony orchestra websites tend to be disinclined to keep
                available archival copies of their past season schedules.)


                >Because why should the taxpayers support big expensive buildings to keep
                >paper records when everything anybody will ever need is available
                >through Google and its successors? Think what would happen in a hostile
                >corporate take-over when the acquirer wanted to dispose of unprofitable
                >material!

                That was the second reason I'm nervous. The Google people are saying all
                the right things, but it's a publicly-owned company and they have no
                ability to bind their successors.


                >And there is the little matter what happens when the plug is pulled out
                >of the wall.

                I once wrote an article discussing how best to keep data safe for a period
                of centuries. The answer was: print it out on acid-free paper, bind it
                within protective covers, and keep it in a constant-temperature building.
                In other words, a book in a library.

                David Bratman
              • Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
                And if you want electronic there is http://www.gutenberg.org/ The Gutenberg Project. All items are public domain, but the editions they put out are copyright
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  And if you want electronic there is http://www.gutenberg.org/ The
                  Gutenberg Project. All items are public domain, but the editions they
                  put out are copyright to protect the work they've done getting them in a
                  computer usable format.

                  And there is also
                  http://www.archive.org/texts/collection.php?collection=opensource Which
                  not only has books but lots of other on intermet stuff. One can spend
                  waay too much time there.

                  Hey, sometimes my PDA is the easiest way to carry a book!

                  Mythically yours,
                  Lisa
                • ChessQu654@aol.com
                  Hi all! I m not familiar with Project Muse. Can you explain? Also, I would like to join a smial in the New Year. Is anyone involved in the New York
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi all!

                    I'm not familiar with Project Muse. Can you explain?

                    Also, I would like to join a smial in the New Year. Is anyone involved in the
                    New York Metropolitan area? I am in Morristown, NJ, about 45 minutes form
                    Manhattan.

                    Thanks,
                    Christine

                    " The impossible just takes a little longer."
                    ~ Author Unknown ~



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... Well, no, they will own A database with etc. Nothing is stopping anyone else from making their own (at least for works in the public domain). And at least
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Dec 15, 2004, at 10:43 AM, David Bratman wrote:

                      > The other reason I'm nervous is that the database with the entire
                      > world's past historical knowledge will be owned by a commercial firm.

                      Well, no, they will own A database with etc. Nothing is stopping anyone
                      else from making their own (at least for works in the public domain).
                      And at least Google is willing to spend the vast amount of time, money,
                      and storage resources necessary to compile one such database, on the
                      theory that it will be profitable to do so. Has anybody without
                      nefarious profit motives managed to do it?

                      > This can't be a good thing.

                      Sure it can: we'll all be able to search the database, and for free if
                      Google's current model holds.


                      --
                      =============================================
                      Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                      ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                      Ars longa, vita brevis.
                      The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                      "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                      a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      ... Er... you know, private citizens DO sometimes buy books. Some of us quite a lot of them. ... Well, nothing is stopping politically motivated persons from
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Beth Russell wrote:

                        > Anything not electronically stored will be lost. Because why should
                        > the taxpayers support big expensive buildings to keep paper records
                        > when everything anybody will ever need is available through Google and
                        > its successors?

                        Er... you know, private citizens DO sometimes buy books. Some of us
                        quite a lot of them.

                        > And think what would happen if a politically motivated person was able
                        > to hack in and change a text? With no book to refer to, who would
                        > know?

                        Well, nothing is stopping politically motivated persons from issuing
                        their own versions of (at least public-domain) texts (in book form)
                        now. So what's different? At least with electronic versions you can
                        maintain pristine backups, and hope to detect and control
                        intrusions/alterations; with books, there's no way to control what
                        someone will do with a text.

                        > And there is the little matter what happens when the plug is pulled
                        > out of the wall.

                        That's what offsite, redundant backup sets are for.


                        --
                        =============================================
                        Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                        ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                        Ars longa, vita brevis.
                        The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                        "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                        a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                      • David Bratman
                        ... How about the fact that the profits will already have been siphoned off by Google? In the private enterprise system, that s a pretty dampening
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 08:42 PM 12/15/2004 -0500, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                          >Well, no, they will own A database with etc. Nothing is stopping anyone
                          >else from making their own (at least for works in the public domain).

                          How about the fact that the profits will already have been siphoned off by
                          Google? In the private enterprise system, that's a pretty dampening
                          circumstance.


                          >And at least Google is willing to spend the vast amount of time, money,
                          >and storage resources necessary to compile one such database, on the
                          >theory that it will be profitable to do so. Has anybody without
                          >nefarious profit motives managed to do it?

                          The federal government could do it, if we hadn't had 25 years of being
                          constantly told that the federal government can't do anything. This would
                          be the same federal government that found the wherewithal for the far more
                          expensive project of sending a man to the moon, founding an enormous
                          bureaucracy which pays certain people's salaries.

                          This massive project was accomplished with the considerable involvement of
                          the expertise of private technology contractors. In the case of the
                          library project, Google could be the private technology contractor. They'd
                          do the work and get their fee, but the public would own this indispensable
                          iteration of the public domain. Everybody could be happy.


                          >> This can't be a good thing.
                          >
                          >Sure it can: we'll all be able to search the database, and for free if
                          >Google's current model holds.

                          The necessity of adding that last phrase is a large part of what I'm
                          nervous about. Nor is there any guarantee that the database will continue
                          to be available at all. Google could be bought out at some future time.
                          If the buyer behaves anything like, say, Oracle or Comcast, it will display
                          no sense of obligation to maintain its purchasee's products.

                          Actually, Google's model, as I understand it, is to finance searches with a
                          lot of ad delivery. If you think ad delivery is generally acceptable to
                          users, read up a little on the latest new thing in Internet software:
                          adware blockers.


                          >Er... you know, private citizens DO sometimes buy books. Some of us
                          >quite a lot of them.

                          I've seen some pretty huge private collections. I've also seen real
                          libraries. I know the difference between a bucket and a drop in the
                          bucket. I also know how many of these private libraries are cataloged on
                          the bibliographic utilities and available for average users to access. Not
                          many.


                          >Well, nothing is stopping politically motivated persons from issuing
                          >their own versions of (at least public-domain) texts (in book form)
                          >now.

                          That's true enough. I keep warning people not to rely on random public-web
                          transcripts of texts.


                          >So what's different? At least with electronic versions you can
                          >maintain pristine backups, and hope to detect and control
                          >intrusions/alterations

                          Who this "you" is, and how this will be paid for and maintained over a long
                          period of time, is the concern.


                          >with books, there's no way to control what
                          >someone will do with a text.

                          They can rip pages out. It's a lot harder to actually alter the text of a
                          printed book.

                          David Bratman
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          ... But you were bemoaning the fact that it is being done by a commercial outfit. Presumably, you would prefer it be done by a non-commercial outfit; i.e., one
                          Message 12 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Dec 15, 2004, at 9:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:

                            > At 08:42 PM 12/15/2004 -0500, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                            >
                            >> Well, no, they will own A database with etc. Nothing is stopping
                            >> anyone
                            >> else from making their own (at least for works in the public domain).
                            >
                            > How about the fact that the profits will already have been siphoned
                            > off by
                            > Google? In the private enterprise system, that's a pretty dampening
                            > circumstance.

                            But you were bemoaning the fact that it is being done by a commercial
                            outfit. Presumably, you would prefer it be done by a non-commercial
                            outfit; i.e., one for whom there is no profit motive. So how would the
                            fact that some other outfit makes a profit (even all available profits,
                            though I fail to see how that could be the case -- there's always room
                            for innovation and improvement, not to mention niche markets), have any
                            bearing on those who would wish to do it for non-profit, altruistic
                            reasons?

                            > The federal government could do it

                            And they still could, regardless of what Google does. Indeed, anyone
                            could if they are willing to invest the necessary resources, no matter
                            what Google does. The federal government COULD do lots of things; that
                            doesn't mean that it SHOULD do all those things, especially when doing
                            so would squash a private enterprise (and one that in no way inhibits
                            other, non-profit entities from doing the same thing, to boot).

                            > an enormous bureaucracy which pays certain people's salaries.

                            So, because I work for NASA, I should be in favor of every conceivable
                            government program? Hm.

                            > This massive project was accomplished with the considerable
                            > involvement of
                            > the expertise of private technology contractors. In the case of the
                            > library project, Google could be the private technology contractor.
                            > They'd
                            > do the work and get their fee, but the public would own this
                            > indispensable
                            > iteration of the public domain. Everybody could be happy.

                            Why should anyone NOT be happy with Google doing it on their own? They
                            do not and cannot have a monopoly on such an endeavor; anyone else is
                            free to do it, profit or non-profit; and if they can do it better
                            and/or cheaper than Google, they will likely succeed.

                            >>> This can't be a good thing.
                            >>
                            >> Sure it can: we'll all be able to search the database, and for free if
                            >> Google's current model holds.
                            >
                            > The necessity of adding that last phrase is a large part of what I'm
                            > nervous about. Nor is there any guarantee that the database will
                            > continue
                            > to be available at all. Google could be bought out at some future
                            > time.
                            > If the buyer behaves anything like, say, Oracle or Comcast, it will
                            > display
                            > no sense of obligation to maintain its purchasee's products.

                            So what? Again, it's not as though Google's database will prohibit
                            anyone else from compiling such databases. I just don't follow your
                            logic here: you seem to be saying that a commercially-compiled database
                            will prohibit non-profits from making their own, because the
                            non-profits will be denied profit by the presence of
                            commercially-compiled database -- profit that by definition they don't
                            care about. This seems self-contradictory to me. Help me out if I'm
                            wrong.

                            (Besides which, as I understand it, Google has already said that
                            they'll provide a copy of their database to each participating library,
                            clear and free, to do with as the library sees fit; so in effect they
                            are putting their work into the public domain -- so long as the
                            libraries themselves don't try to profit from the databases by charging
                            for access -- despite having paid all the costs for creating it.)

                            > Actually, Google's model, as I understand it, is to finance searches
                            > with a
                            > lot of ad delivery. If you think ad delivery is generally acceptable
                            > to
                            > users, read up a little on the latest new thing in Internet software:
                            > adware blockers.

                            And yet commercial television has somehow survived for more than 60
                            years, and commercial radio for even longer. People are very used to
                            this model: either free with ads, or ad-free with a fee. And somehow
                            civilization has managed not to collapse.

                            >> Er... you know, private citizens DO sometimes buy books. Some of us
                            >> quite a lot of them.
                            >
                            > I've seen some pretty huge private collections. I've also seen real
                            > libraries. I know the difference between a bucket and a drop in the
                            > bucket. I also know how many of these private libraries are cataloged
                            > on
                            > the bibliographic utilities and available for average users to access.
                            > Not
                            > many.

                            But my point was that it's not as though libraries are the sole
                            preservationists of all human knowledge. (To be sure, libraries hold
                            the only surviving copy of many original items; but even there, there
                            are many facsimile editions of much of same in private hands.) If, for
                            example, the original print of "Citizen Kane" disappeared, as well as
                            every print, tape, or DVD of the same in every library in the world, it
                            is not as though the movie would be lost to mankind. There are many
                            thousands of copies of the movie in private hands, and no doubt even
                            some prints. And that level of redundancy of "backups" was made
                            possible by commerce, not by the government or libraries.

                            >> So what's different? At least with electronic versions you can
                            >> maintain pristine backups, and hope to detect and control
                            >> intrusions/alterations
                            >
                            > Who this "you" is, and how this will be paid for and maintained over a
                            > long
                            > period of time, is the concern.

                            Again, you seem to believe that there can only be one "you", which I
                            have yet to see demonstrated, and have argued against.

                            >> with books, there's no way to control what someone will do with a
                            >> text.
                            >
                            > They can rip pages out. It's a lot harder to actually alter the text
                            > of a
                            > printed book.

                            Anyone at any time could, for example, issue their own (printed)
                            edition of Shakespeare's works, with whatever alterations it pleased
                            them to make, and there is not a single thing anyone could do to stop
                            them, nor could such an edition be recalled once released. At least
                            with electronic texts in a central database, if the text does get
                            corrupted, it can easily be restored, and its integrity guaranteed;
                            something impossible to do with printed texts. As you say, it's a lot
                            harder to actually alter the text of a printed book.

                            --
                            =============================================
                            Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                            ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                            Ars longa, vita brevis.
                            The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                            "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                            a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                          • Croft, Janet B.
                            Project MUSE is a database to which many academic libraries subscribe. It has the full text of articles from about 250 scholarly journals, and can be searched
                            Message 13 of 16 , Dec 16, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Project MUSE is a database to which many academic libraries subscribe.
                              It has the full text of articles from about 250 scholarly journals, and
                              can be searched in several different ways. Its strong subject areas are
                              humanities, social sciences, and mathematics. Some journals go back to
                              1993, and the journal publishers are generally scholarly societies or
                              university presses. It was started by Johns Hopkins and includes many of
                              their journals. You can take a look around at http://muse.jhu.edu/, but
                              you can't do a search unless you belong to an institution which
                              subscribes.


                              Janet Brennan Croft
                              Head of Access Services
                              University of Oklahoma Libraries
                              Bizzell 104NW
                              Norman OK 73019
                              405-325-1918
                              Fax 405-325-7618
                              jbcroft@...
                              http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/
                              http://libraries.ou.edu/
                              ----------------------------------------
                              --------------------------------------------
                              "We're becoming nicely overextended. Some people regard that as
                              progress."
                              Aral Vorkosigan in Shards of Honor by Lois McMaster Bujold.

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: ChessQu654@... [mailto:ChessQu654@...]
                              Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 7:39 PM
                              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Project MUSE to add Tolkien Studies


                              Hi all!

                              I'm not familiar with Project Muse. Can you explain?

                              Also, I would like to join a smial in the New Year. Is anyone involved
                              in the New York Metropolitan area? I am in Morristown, NJ, about 45
                              minutes form Manhattan.

                              Thanks,
                              Christine

                              " The impossible just takes a little longer."
                              ~ Author Unknown ~



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                              ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                              Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                              Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                              http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/DtIolB/TM
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                              The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org Yahoo! Groups
                              Links
                            • ecrowews
                              Oh frabjous day! Happy New Year to me! At last, a real perk for me from my sadly underfunded employer. We do have this database. Edith ... will be ... database
                              Message 14 of 16 , Dec 18, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Oh frabjous day! Happy New Year to me! At last, a real perk for me
                                from my sadly underfunded employer. We do have this database.

                                Edith

                                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Croft, Janet B." <jbcroft@o...>
                                wrote:
                                > Those of you with access to the full-text database Project MUSE
                                will be
                                > happy to learn that Tolkien Studies will be added to their
                                database in
                                > 2005!
                                >
                                > Janet Brennan Croft
                              • Rachel
                                Muck and Mystery blog has a good entry on this very subject: http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000121.html ... domain). ... siphoned ... dampening ...
                                Message 15 of 16 , Dec 19, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Muck and Mystery blog has a good entry on this very subject:
                                  http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000121.html

                                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > On Dec 15, 2004, at 9:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > At 08:42 PM 12/15/2004 -0500, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >> Well, no, they will own A database with etc. Nothing is stopping
                                  > >> anyone
                                  > >> else from making their own (at least for works in the public
                                  domain).
                                  > >
                                  > > How about the fact that the profits will already have been
                                  siphoned
                                  > > off by
                                  > > Google? In the private enterprise system, that's a pretty
                                  dampening
                                  > > circumstance.
                                  >
                                  > But you were bemoaning the fact that it is being done by a
                                  commercial
                                  > outfit. Presumably, you would prefer it be done by a non-commercial
                                  > outfit; i.e., one for whom there is no profit motive. So how would
                                  the
                                  > fact that some other outfit makes a profit (even all available
                                  profits,
                                  > though I fail to see how that could be the case -- there's always
                                  room
                                  > for innovation and improvement, not to mention niche markets), have
                                  any
                                  > bearing on those who would wish to do it for non-profit, altruistic
                                  > reasons?
                                  >
                                  > > The federal government could do it
                                  >
                                  > And they still could, regardless of what Google does. Indeed,
                                  anyone
                                  > could if they are willing to invest the necessary resources, no
                                  matter
                                  > what Google does. The federal government COULD do lots of things;
                                  that
                                  > doesn't mean that it SHOULD do all those things, especially when
                                  doing
                                  > so would squash a private enterprise (and one that in no way
                                  inhibits
                                  > other, non-profit entities from doing the same thing, to boot).
                                  >
                                  > > an enormous bureaucracy which pays certain people's salaries.
                                  >
                                  > So, because I work for NASA, I should be in favor of every
                                  conceivable
                                  > government program? Hm.
                                  >
                                  > > This massive project was accomplished with the considerable
                                  > > involvement of
                                  > > the expertise of private technology contractors. In the case of
                                  the
                                  > > library project, Google could be the private technology
                                  contractor.
                                  > > They'd
                                  > > do the work and get their fee, but the public would own this
                                  > > indispensable
                                  > > iteration of the public domain. Everybody could be happy.
                                  >
                                  > Why should anyone NOT be happy with Google doing it on their own?
                                  They
                                  > do not and cannot have a monopoly on such an endeavor; anyone else
                                  is
                                  > free to do it, profit or non-profit; and if they can do it better
                                  > and/or cheaper than Google, they will likely succeed.
                                  >
                                  > >>> This can't be a good thing.
                                  > >>
                                  > >> Sure it can: we'll all be able to search the database, and for
                                  free if
                                  > >> Google's current model holds.
                                  > >
                                  > > The necessity of adding that last phrase is a large part of what
                                  I'm
                                  > > nervous about. Nor is there any guarantee that the database will
                                  > > continue
                                  > > to be available at all. Google could be bought out at some
                                  future
                                  > > time.
                                  > > If the buyer behaves anything like, say, Oracle or Comcast, it
                                  will
                                  > > display
                                  > > no sense of obligation to maintain its purchasee's products.
                                  >
                                  > So what? Again, it's not as though Google's database will prohibit
                                  > anyone else from compiling such databases. I just don't follow your
                                  > logic here: you seem to be saying that a commercially-compiled
                                  database
                                  > will prohibit non-profits from making their own, because the
                                  > non-profits will be denied profit by the presence of
                                  > commercially-compiled database -- profit that by definition they
                                  don't
                                  > care about. This seems self-contradictory to me. Help me out if I'm
                                  > wrong.
                                  >
                                  > (Besides which, as I understand it, Google has already said that
                                  > they'll provide a copy of their database to each participating
                                  library,
                                  > clear and free, to do with as the library sees fit; so in effect
                                  they
                                  > are putting their work into the public domain -- so long as the
                                  > libraries themselves don't try to profit from the databases by
                                  charging
                                  > for access -- despite having paid all the costs for creating it.)
                                  >
                                  > > Actually, Google's model, as I understand it, is to finance
                                  searches
                                  > > with a
                                  > > lot of ad delivery. If you think ad delivery is generally
                                  acceptable
                                  > > to
                                  > > users, read up a little on the latest new thing in Internet
                                  software:
                                  > > adware blockers.
                                  >
                                  > And yet commercial television has somehow survived for more than 60
                                  > years, and commercial radio for even longer. People are very used
                                  to
                                  > this model: either free with ads, or ad-free with a fee. And
                                  somehow
                                  > civilization has managed not to collapse.
                                  >
                                  > >> Er... you know, private citizens DO sometimes buy books. Some of
                                  us
                                  > >> quite a lot of them.
                                  > >
                                  > > I've seen some pretty huge private collections. I've also seen
                                  real
                                  > > libraries. I know the difference between a bucket and a drop in
                                  the
                                  > > bucket. I also know how many of these private libraries are
                                  cataloged
                                  > > on
                                  > > the bibliographic utilities and available for average users to
                                  access.
                                  > > Not
                                  > > many.
                                  >
                                  > But my point was that it's not as though libraries are the sole
                                  > preservationists of all human knowledge. (To be sure, libraries
                                  hold
                                  > the only surviving copy of many original items; but even there,
                                  there
                                  > are many facsimile editions of much of same in private hands.) If,
                                  for
                                  > example, the original print of "Citizen Kane" disappeared, as well
                                  as
                                  > every print, tape, or DVD of the same in every library in the
                                  world, it
                                  > is not as though the movie would be lost to mankind. There are many
                                  > thousands of copies of the movie in private hands, and no doubt
                                  even
                                  > some prints. And that level of redundancy of "backups" was made
                                  > possible by commerce, not by the government or libraries.
                                  >
                                  > >> So what's different? At least with electronic versions you can
                                  > >> maintain pristine backups, and hope to detect and control
                                  > >> intrusions/alterations
                                  > >
                                  > > Who this "you" is, and how this will be paid for and maintained
                                  over a
                                  > > long
                                  > > period of time, is the concern.
                                  >
                                  > Again, you seem to believe that there can only be one "you", which
                                  I
                                  > have yet to see demonstrated, and have argued against.
                                  >
                                  > >> with books, there's no way to control what someone will do with
                                  a
                                  > >> text.
                                  > >
                                  > > They can rip pages out. It's a lot harder to actually alter the
                                  text
                                  > > of a
                                  > > printed book.
                                  >
                                  > Anyone at any time could, for example, issue their own (printed)
                                  > edition of Shakespeare's works, with whatever alterations it
                                  pleased
                                  > them to make, and there is not a single thing anyone could do to
                                  stop
                                  > them, nor could such an edition be recalled once released. At least
                                  > with electronic texts in a central database, if the text does get
                                  > corrupted, it can easily be restored, and its integrity guaranteed;
                                  > something impossible to do with printed texts. As you say, it's a
                                  lot
                                  > harder to actually alter the text of a printed book.
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  > =============================================
                                  > Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@e... http://www.elvish.org
                                  >
                                  > ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                                  > Ars longa, vita brevis.
                                  > The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                                  > "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                                  > a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                                • ChessQu654@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 12/16/04 6:23:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, jbcroft@ou.edu ... So, it s like MedLine or PsychLit, but a different focus? Christine The
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Dec 30, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 12/16/04 6:23:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, jbcroft@...
                                    writes:


                                    > Project MUSE is a database to which many academic libraries subscribe.
                                    > It has the full text of articles from about 250 scholarly journals, and
                                    > can be searched in several different ways. Its strong subject areas are
                                    > humanities, social sciences, and mathematics. Some journals go back to
                                    > 1993, and the journal publishers are generally scholarly societies or
                                    > university presses. It was started by Johns Hopkins and includes many of
                                    > their journals. You can take a look around at http://muse.jhu.edu/, but
                                    > you can't do a search unless you belong to an institution which
                                    > subscribes.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    So, it's like MedLine or PsychLit, but a different focus?

                                    Christine

                                    " The impossible just takes a little longer."
                                    ~ Author Unknown ~



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.