[rfc-i] accessibility for the series, RE: Some questions on the model and the motivations
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 11:37:50 PST 2011
On Jan 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Glenn Kowack wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> One of the ways to promote access is to be sure that your information
>>> (series, journal, book ,etc) is wherever people look. It is not strictly a matter
>>> of making sure that people can find the RFC Series when they explicitly go
>>> looking for it in "the right place". If that were the case, using search engines
>>> would be more than enough. Rather, the point is to be sure that when people
>>> use media in which one would reasonable expect to find the Series, or where
>>> we would like them to find the series, then it should be made available there.
>>> Library catalogs are one such place. How many library searches have been
>>> done over the years that did not find the Series? Up until earlier this year,
>>> the answer was: "all of them". Lots of people use library-oriented systems.
>>> The RFC Series should be readily findable in those. Making RFC available
>>> through libraries would take very little effort on our part would yield a high
>>> return in improved availability.
>> "Library Catalogs"? I think this is looking backward toward printed media, not forwards towards an online world. Library's are trying to be more like the RFC series, that is, an online series. We don't need to do work to make the RFC series more visible in the print world.
>> I might be convinced that there is some work to make the series more visible in the online world, but I see very little value in making it more visible in things like library catalogs. The RFC series had a significant role in creating the online world. It's focus should be there.
> My original point is quite small: if we're going to go to the trouble of getting things like ISSNs (International Standard Serial Numbers), then we should also spend the additional (literally) minutes to get it listed in a catalog somewhere. The world is full of legacy systems of all kinds; many people still use many of them. If they're still very popular, or are, for instance, in use by a sector like academics or others worldwide, then if the costs are tiny (hence we get huge "bang for the buck") we should act. Of course, this may point to something we should have done many years ago since, as you point out, that train is seriously leaving the station.
I think we disagree that there any significant win vs. "we get huge "bang for the buck" ".
> Other than that, I *completely* agree. We need to focus on moving forwards online because that's where the users/readers are.
Thanks, I am glad to hear that. I think this also effects the RSE job requirements, that is we want someone with online publishing experience. I will comment more in a separate email.
More information about the rfc-interest