[openbiblio-dev] Open Metadata Handbook
Primavera De Filippi
pdefilippi at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 11:49:11 UTC 2011
Hi Karen, thank you, this is valuable imput. We are currently trying to
better define the goal of the Open Metadata Handbook, which will go through
extensive review in the following weeks. This guide could be source of
great inspiration ! :)
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I've been spending a lot of time on sites dedicated to the semantic web
> and metadata, and came across this metadata guide aimed at the marine
> biology community. While it has a partiuclar focus, I think that some of
> the approaches it takes are quite good, especially in explaining how to
> evaluate a metadata schema:
>
> http://marinemetadata.org/**guides <http://marinemetadata.org/guides>
>
> It may be that the handbook should have some of these characteristics.
>
> kc
>
>
> Quoting Primavera De Filippi <pdefilippi at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Jonathan and Isaac,
>> thanks for the feedback. I have rapidly updated the front page of the
>> metadata handbook to reflect your comments, will go over the whole guide
>> later this week and make sure that it reflects this focus.
>> Please dont hesitate to provide more suggestions or feedback !
>> Thanks,
>> Primavera
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your email Antoine!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Thanks for the explanations. When I read your emails and the draft, my
>>> first
>>> > reaction (a bit caricatured) was "why are they embarked on this?!?". I
>>> find
>>> > in your mail some elements that are crucial for the understanding of
>>> all
>>> > this, which are quite missing in the current draft--or not emphasized
>>> > enough.
>>>
>>> Agreed. There may be some disconnect between the original idea /
>>> intention, and text which is in the draft. We should amend the text in
>>> the Open Metadata Handbook accordingly. This is supposed to be a
>>> fairly straightforward guide to tools and standards that already
>>> exist, not a universal guide to metadata, doing all things for all
>>> people.
>>>
>>> > In particular, I find it really important to focus on the requirements
>>> of
>>> > scenarios like public domain calculation.
>>>
>>> Yes - and for people who are interested in reusing open metadata from
>>> cultural heritage organisations, but who may not know much about how
>>> this is usually structured.
>>>
>>> > Of course you may argue that if you want to promote metadata openly,
>>> which
>>> > is a goal of OKFN, then it's better if it's interoperable. Both at
>>> technical
>>> > and higher levels (ie., machine but also people get a chance to
>>> understand
>>> > it).
>>>
>>> It *would* be nice if all metadata were interoperable, but (having
>>> worked as a librarian for a stint) that feels like a much more long
>>> term aspiration. ;-)
>>>
>>> OKFN's prerogative is to encourage more GLAM institutions to open up
>>> their metadata, not to harmonise all metadata, or to tell GLAM
>>> institutions to change the way they do things.
>>>
>>> > The problem is that without a specific scenario, it seems a bit of ill
>>> > attempt. Chances are high, that would you would end up just
>>> re-inventing
>>> > Dublin Core or other things. (if you start from the bibliographic
>>> domain,
>>> > which is again something I'd highly recommend).
>>>
>>> Indeed. Again - we should amend the scope of the book. To be clear:
>>> this was my idea, but I haven't been involved in drafting it. I'll try
>>> and run through this with Primavera with your comments in mind.
>>>
>>> > Now, if you have a need, which is no longer only "we want open
>>> metadata"
>>> but
>>> > "we want metadata that serves open access to documents", that sounds a
>>> > better starting point. OKFN, as the business owner of that scenario,
>>> becomes
>>> > entitled to make recommendations. And it is then entitled to write some
>>> > stuff about how to match these recommendations with the data as
>>> expressed
>>> > according to the many standards around.
>>> >
>>> > I don't have the feeling that the current draft is written that way.
>>> For
>>> > example:
>>> > "The goal is to produce something that can be given to various GLAM
>>> [...] to
>>> > help them set up a proper metadata model for their works."
>>> > "The purpose of this section is to help GLAM institutions decide what
>>> is
>>> the
>>> > best standard to use for the description of their works."
>>>
>>> Yes. I haven't been involved in drafting, but this wording does need
>>> to be amended!
>>>
>>> > All this reads like you want to teach granny to suck eggs. And that
>>> won't
>>> > help your document be appreciated in a domain which is already quite
>>> > suffering from over-documentation and many standards.
>>>
>>> I can certainly relate to this. Just to reiterate, it is good to have
>>> your input!
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> Dear Antoine,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you so much for all of your feedback, which is really valuable.
>>> >> We'd really like to collaborate with you on this if possible.
>>> >>
>>> >> To briefly explain where the current Open Metadata Handbook is coming
>>> >> from:
>>> >>
>>> >> * We have been working on a set of algorithms to assist people in
>>> >> finding out whether a given work is in the public domain in their
>>> >> jurisdiction [1]. We've been working on this for several years.
>>> >> Europeana Connect has also done work in this area.
>>> >> * In order to do public domain calculation you can either do (i)
>>> >> manual calculation (where people input relevant data to determine
>>> >> status) or (ii) (semi-)automated calculation (where structured data
>>> >> from a variety of sources may be used to provide data to determine
>>> >> status). We are interested in collecting more data from more sources
>>> >> to help with (ii). This is where we are coming from on this project.
>>> >> * The OKF has quite a bit of data (e.g. from BBC, from British
>>> >> Library), and hope that when Europeana data is released under CC0
>>> >> (next June?) then we will be able to use this as well.
>>> >> * The Open Metadata Handbook is intended to be a *very* preliminary
>>> >> go at mapping metadata structures that are used by different
>>> >> institutions, organisations and projects. We want to have a rough and
>>> >> ready document that helps people navigate the huge amount of work that
>>> >> has done in this area - and builds on this rather than attempting to
>>> >> duplicate it. In the medium term this is intended to be driven by
>>> >> practitioners in the GLAM sector who are more knowledgeable than we
>>> >> are about different standards and different technologies.
>>> >> * I fully agree with you that: (i) there is hubris in trying to do a
>>> >> 'universal metadata guide' that is all things to all people, (ii) we
>>> >> would do well to make a guide which is accessible for and useful to
>>> >> non-technical users, as well as non-specialists who are interested in
>>> >> consuming open data, perhaps from a variety of different sources, who
>>> >> know nothing about metadata standards.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hence I suggest that we:
>>> >>
>>> >> * Add a note about who this intended for in a preface to the book
>>> >> * Go through each section with a view to making it easier for
>>> >> non-technical people and non-experts to understand
>>> >>
>>> >> We just had a very successful workshop on legal aspects of open data
>>> >> in London last month [2], and we're planning a follow up event for
>>> >> early next year, perhaps at the V&A. Would you be interested in
>>> >> participating in something about metadata standards?
>>> >>
>>> >> All the best,
>>> >>
>>> >> Jonathan
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] http://publicdomain.okfn.org/**calculators/<http://publicdomain.okfn.org/calculators/>
>>> >> [2]
>>> >>
>>> http://blog.okfn.org/2011/11/**01/open-data-in-cultural-**
>>> heritage-finding-your-way-**through-the-license-labyrinth-**
>>> london-24th-november-2011/<http://blog.okfn.org/2011/11/01/open-data-in-cultural-heritage-finding-your-way-through-the-license-labyrinth-london-24th-november-2011/>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac at few.vu.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear Primavera,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for the answer!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> EuropeanaLibraries will produce in fact produce a deliverable this
>>> month,
>>> >>> on
>>> >>> their own metadata profile. Valentine Charles and Robina Clayphan
>>> (cc'ed)
>>> >>> are involved in this, they will take care of forwarding this to you
>>> then.
>>> >>> Depending on how this can be used in your own report or not, further
>>> >>> collaboration may happen!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I must admit I am still a bit skeptical about the scope of the
>>> Handbook,
>>> >>> however. The idea of providing an overview on various categories of
>>> >>> creative
>>> >>> works is seducing, but this has been tried already. And most often,
>>> the
>>> >>> complexity and great variety of issues at hand results in unpalatable
>>> >>> documents, unless some drastic re-scoping has happened before.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Similarly, if the Handbook is a meant to be a rather non-technical
>>> >>> document,
>>> >>> then you should be careful that all parts are written with this in
>>> mind.
>>> >>> I
>>> >>> have seen bits in the current version, for example on RDF databases,
>>> >>> which
>>> >>> do not really fit that goal.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Antoine
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Hi Antoine,
>>> >>>> thanks for coming back to me, and I hope you enjoyed your holiday ;)
>>> >>>> The europeana-libraries project is a really great initiative, do you
>>> >>>> think
>>> >>>> they would be interested in collaborating with us? and how do you
>>> think
>>> >>>> they
>>> >>>> could contribute to the Open Metadata Handbook ?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> As for your concerns, which I believe are shared amongst others, I
>>> will
>>> >>>> try to provide a short explanation:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The guide is not meant to be a technical / detailled guide on how to
>>> >>>> release open bibliographic metadata, rather, it is meant to be a
>>> simple
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> user-friendly guide that we can hand out to various GLAM
>>> institutions
>>> >>>> who
>>> >>>> have not yet released their metadata in an open and interroperable
>>> >>>> format.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> We do not want to provide detailled instructions, but only a
>>> document
>>> >>>> that
>>> >>>> can guide them into selecting the proper format / standard / or
>>> protocol
>>> >>>> for
>>> >>>> releasing their bibliographic data.
>>> >>>> This is achieved by (a) providing a list of standards with their
>>> >>>> respective advantages and drawbacks, together with a list of
>>> >>>> institutions
>>> >>>> that uses them (who uses what), and (b) a decision tree where
>>> different
>>> >>>> data
>>> >>>> providers can answer simple questions in order to find out what are
>>> >>>> best-practices for them, in terms of exchange format and metadata
>>> >>>> format.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The scope of the Handbook is so broad because we thought it would be
>>> >>>> better to provide a general overview for different categories of
>>> works
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> different types of institutions, rather than a detailled set of
>>> >>>> instructions
>>> >>>> for only one type of work. I'm not sure if you agree with that, I'd
>>> be
>>> >>>> happy
>>> >>>> to hear your opinion..
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Finally, as opposed to the work undertaken by e.g. the DC Library
>>> >>>> application profile, the Open Metadata Handbook is much less
>>> technical
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> is merely an initiative aimed at encouraging GLAM institutions to
>>> >>>> release
>>> >>>> their data in an open and interroperable format, rather than at
>>> >>>> providing
>>> >>>> them with the technical specifications of the proper format to use.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I hope this clarifies your concerns a bit, please let me know what
>>> you
>>> >>>> think about it and how you think you could help us out ! :)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>> Primavera
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Also, I wonder what is the specificity induced by "openness" in this
>>> >>>> work--in other words, why would such metadata spec effort be carried
>>> out
>>> >>>> by
>>> >>>> the Open Biblio group. Especially, what would be the
>>> relation/difference
>>> >>>> with work undertaken as part of say, the Dublin Core Library
>>> application
>>> >>>> profile
>>> >>>> (http://dublincore.org/__**documents/library-application-**
>>> __profile/<http://dublincore.org/__documents/library-application-__profile/>
>>> >>>> <http://dublincore.org/**documents/library-application-**profile/<http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/>>)
>>> ?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac at few.vu.nl
>>> >>>> <mailto:aisaac at few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Dear Primavera,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> First, sorry for the delay, I was on a quite long holiday.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Second, thanks for the ping. In fact I'm suscribed to the
>>> >>>> openbiblio-dev list, so I was already aware of your efforts.
>>> >>>> And if there's room for us, we'll be gladly considering your
>>> >>>> offer(s).
>>> >>>> Especially, there is a Europeana-related project
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> (http://www.europeana-__**libraries.eu/<http://www.europeana-__libraries.eu/>
>>> <
>>> http://www.europeana-**libraries.eu/<http://www.europeana-libraries.eu/>
>>> >)
>>> >>>> that could be in position to make relevant contributions.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> However, I have to admit that I share some of the doubts that
>>> were
>>> >>>> raised on the list recently--a reason why I did not enter the
>>> discussion
>>> >>>> sooner. Especially, what is the aim and scope of that Open Metadata
>>> >>>> Handbook? Addressing the realm of all creative works is a bit
>>> ambitious.
>>> >>>> Finding an agreement on bibliographic data alone can prove difficult
>>> >>>> enough... The introduction of the wiki is quite unclear on this:
>>> >>>> "The goal is to produce something that can be given to various
>>> GLAM
>>> >>>> (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) institutions to help
>>> them
>>> >>>> setting up a proper metadata model for their works. We want to
>>> provide
>>> >>>> them
>>> >>>> a few simple steps that illustrate the best practices (or
>>> second-best
>>> >>>> practices) in terms of bibliographic metadata for each category of
>>> >>>> works."
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Also, I wonder what is the specificity induced by "openness" in
>>> this
>>> >>>> work--in other words, why would such metadata spec effort be carried
>>> out
>>> >>>> by
>>> >>>> the Open Biblio group. Especially, what would be the
>>> relation/difference
>>> >>>> with work undertaken as part of say, the Dublin Core Library
>>> application
>>> >>>> profile
>>> >>>> (http://dublincore.org/__**documents/library-application-**
>>> __profile/<http://dublincore.org/__documents/library-application-__profile/>
>>> >>>> <http://dublincore.org/**documents/library-application-**profile/<http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/>>)
>>> ?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Antoine
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> PS: by the way the links to the Library Linked Data W3C group can
>>> be
>>> >>>> updated on your wiki. It's now published at
>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/__**Incubator/lld/XGR-lld/<http://www.w3.org/2005/__Incubator/lld/XGR-lld/>
>>> >>>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/**Incubator/lld/XGR-lld/<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld/>>
>>> :-)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hi Antoine, Martin, Michel, Daniel, Emanuelle and Herbert
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I write to you on behalf of the Public Domain Working Group
>>> of
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> Open Knowledge Foundation.
>>> >>>> We are currently working on the making of the Open Metadata
>>> >>>> Handbook - http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/_**_Open_Metadata_Handbook<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/__Open_Metadata_Handbook>
>>> >>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/**Open_Metadata_Handbook<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Metadata_Handbook>
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> and we were wondering the following:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> (1) whether you or anyone else you know might be interested
>>> in
>>> >>>> contributing to it, and if so, whether you'd like to join the
>>> >>>> task-force;
>>> >>>> (2) whether you already have some work lying around that you
>>> >>>> think
>>> >>>> might be useful or that could even be integrated directly into the
>>> >>>> guide,
>>> >>>> (3) or whether you have any kind of suggestions, ideas, or
>>> any
>>> >>>> useful comments about it :)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Looking forward to your replies,
>>> >>>> Primavera !
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >>>> From: *Jonathan Gray*<jonathan.gray at okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org**> <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org**>__>>
>>> >>>> Date: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:42 PM
>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [openbiblio-dev] Bibliographic Metadata Guide is
>>> now
>>> >>>> on Wiki !
>>> >>>> To: Primavera De Filippi<primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
>>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
>>> >
>>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at __**okfn.org <http://okfn.org>
>>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Cc: Public Domain discuss list<pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.**org <pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.
>>> __org
>>> >>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.**org <pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>>>,
>>> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >
>>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists._**_okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Great start Primavera.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Due to the breadth of this (not just books, but films,
>>> artworks,
>>> >>>> etc)
>>> >>>> - what about renaming this to the Open Metadata Handbook? I
>>> think
>>> >>>> this
>>> >>>> is what we originally discussed. What do you think?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Also I'd ping Europeana Data Model (EDM) people as soon as
>>> >>>> possible,
>>> >>>> if you haven't done so already. They may have existing work
>>> or
>>> >>>> ideas
>>> >>>> that we might be able to build on, incorporate or at least
>>> allude
>>> >>>> to
>>> >>>> and bear in mind!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The metadata standards section [1] is epic (and scary!). ;-)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> J.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> [1]
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/_**_Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide/**
>>> __Metadata_Standards<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/__Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide/__Metadata_Standards>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> <
>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/**Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide/**
>>> Metadata_Standards<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide/Metadata_Standards>
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Primavera De Filippi
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org<**mailto:primavera.defilippi@**
>>> okfn.org <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>>
>>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at __**okfn.org <http://okfn.org>
>>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Hi all
>>> >>>> > As you might already know, the Public Domain Working
>>> Group
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> the Open
>>> >>>> > Bibliographic Data Working Groupof the Open Knowledge
>>> >>>> Foundationare working
>>> >>>> > on the drafting of a Bibliographic Metadata Guide.
>>> >>>> > The goal is to produce something that can be hand in to
>>> >>>> various
>>> >>>> GLAM
>>> >>>> > institutions to help them setting up a proper metadata
>>> model
>>> >>>> for
>>> >>>> their
>>> >>>> > works.
>>> >>>> > We want to provide them a few simple steps that
>>> illustrates
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> best
>>> >>>> > practices (or second-best practices) in terms of
>>> >>>> bibliographic
>>> >>>> metadata for
>>> >>>> > each category of works.
>>> >>>> > The guide has now been turned into a Wikibook for easier
>>> >>>> editing, the
>>> >>>> > current draft is available here
>>> >>>> >
>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/_**_Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/__Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide>
>>> >>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/**Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide>
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > We would like to involve the whole community in this
>>> project,
>>> >>>> so
>>> >>>> please feel
>>> >>>> > free to contribute it any way you like, and if you know
>>> >>>> someone
>>> >>>> that might
>>> >>>> > be interested in contributing to this guide, please don't
>>> >>>> hesitate to
>>> >>>> > forward the link to them.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Main tasks which are still to be completed are:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > - review& add to the current minimum/complete list of
>>> core
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> metadata
>>> >>>> > elements for literary work + provide a similar
>>> >>>> minimum/complete
>>> >>>> list of core
>>> >>>> > metadata elements for other kinds of works
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > - review/edit the current description of metadata
>>> standards +
>>> >>>> eventually
>>> >>>> > provide some additional information concerning who uses
>>> what
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > - for the last section, produce a decision-tree, where
>>> >>>> different
>>> >>>> data
>>> >>>> > providers can answer simple questions in order to find
>>> out
>>> >>>> what
>>> >>>> are
>>> >>>> > best-practices for them, in terms of exchange format and
>>> >>>> metadata format.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Finally, we are trying to set up a small task-force of
>>> >>>> contributors who
>>> >>>> > would be assigned specific sections or tasks. If you are
>>> >>>> interested in
>>> >>>> > joining the task force, please don't hesitate to contact
>>> me.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Thanks !
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > ______________________________**___________________
>>> >>>> > openbiblio-dev mailing list
>>> >>>> > openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >
>>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists._**_okfn.org
>>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**
>>> __listinfo/openbiblio-dev<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/__listinfo/openbiblio-dev>
>>> >>>> <http://lists.okfn.org/**mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-**dev<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev>
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Jonathan Gray
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Community Coordinator
>>> >>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>> >>>> http://www.okfn.org
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Gray
>>>
>>> Community Coordinator
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>> http://www.okfn.org
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> openbiblio-dev mailing list
>>> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/openbiblio-dev<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openbiblio-dev/attachments/20111219/1098e91c/attachment.html>
More information about the openbiblio-dev
mailing list