[This past academic year, John Palfrey, Professor of Law, Vice Dean, Library and Information Resources, Faculty Co-Director, Berkman Center For Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, was intrigued by an idea that I’ve been kicking around for several years and invited me to come to Harvard to work on it.
With the support of an incredibly talented staff in my home library, I felt comfortable taking a semester off. And so, I am visiting, as an Academic Fellow at Harvard Law School Library’s Innovation Lab for the 2011 fall semester.]
Designing a Solution to a Problem
The project that I’ve been asked to explore has to do with the inherent challenges of conducting case law research using full text online databases. The working title of the project is “Leading Case Service” and is designed to make online case law research more productive and more efficient. There are three factors that make online case law research very difficult.
First is the size of the database. It is estimated that there are approximately ten million published cases in the American legal system. The size of the database alone poses very serious difficulties for designers of search engines and indexing systems, both digital and analog.
The size of the corpus of case law in the American legal system isn’t merely the result of our society’s litigious nature. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, the publication of cases was done very judiciously. Most cases were published in selective case reporters that only published leading cases. In fact, the most influential American case reporter in the nineteenth century was the predecessor to what we know today as American Law Reports, or ALR, and it only published cases of some particular significance, either because the opinion made a ruling on a novel aspect of the law or clarified an issue that had been dealt with by many courts with varying outcomes. In the late nineteenth century, the West Publishing Company entered the case law publishing market and effectively turned cases into a commodity. The method by which West published cases was virtually indiscriminate because it published any and all cases submitted to it by the courts. Its business model was founded on the premise that the more cases it could publish, the better; the more cases it could publish, the more volumes it could sell.
As the volume of cases it published grew, West developed an elaborate subject indexing system to help researchers. We know the indexing system as the Key Number System, and the index as the West Digest System. Today, the index alone numbers several thousand volumes! Coupled with Shepard’s citations, the digest and case-verification systems helped researchers identify both cases that were useful and those that were “still good law,” in the sense that they hadn’t been specifically overruled by another court. This system was extremely accurate, thorough, and objective but still left the researcher with a serious problem of having to wade through a substantial mass of material. The comprehensiveness of the West National Reporter System, its Digests and Shepard’s meant that the cases discovered on any one particular topic could number in the thousands.
The enormous volume of case law poses difficulties for researchers for another reason. Important research in the field of information science that explains that, due to the vagaries of language and other empirical laws of linguistics, full text database searching is by definition inefficient, even in databases filled with documents of a professional nature and highly specialized vocabulary, such as law. Studies have shown that the best a full text search engine is capable of retrieving amounts of only about twenty percent of the relevant documents on a topic. With 10 million published cases, even a 20% efficiency yields far more cases than any person can reasonably be expected to read.
Second, full text databases are objective search tools. This makes full text case law databases very difficult places for researchers to go to find answers about the law. For instance, let’s say you want to know what the law is on the rights of grandparents to intervene in custody proceedings in dissolution cases. A search for cases on this topic, if done with absolute precision, may yield dozens, if not hundreds, of cases, not what you really want or need. In this instance, a more useful approach would be to consult secondary sources, such as handbooks or treatises, that not only discuss the leading cases in the field but also summarize and analyze what these cases mean to the practitioner. Full text case law databases themselves are only part of what researchers need to complete their research.
Third, in order for online databases to be efficiently used, each document, as well as its sections, parts, words, letters, etc., should be indexed and tagged with what’s known in the computing world as meta-data. Indexing on this scale is massive and extremely complex but can make the development of search engines designed to work with these huge databases much more efficient. This is why Westlaw’s and Lexis’s search engines are so useful. Each company runs the full text of each case contained in their databases through extensive indexing and tagging. Part of this process eliminates repetitive words that have no legal meaning, such as articles, conjunctions, etc. Further, the content of the cases is divided into sections, such as majority and minority opinions, jurisdictions, etc., that dramatically helps narrow the search results. Indexing and tagging on this scale is a very costly venture, leaving only Lexis and Westlaw dominating the field. The process also is so complex that each company’s processes are highly guarded trade secrets. The Lexis and Westlaw case law databases are comprised entirely of public domain materials, but they still are extremely expensive to use. Each company cites the high cost of thorough indexing, tagging and sorting as a rationale to charge high prices for access.
A Solution to a Problem
The “Leading Case Service” may be a means of leveling the playing field for newcomers to the online database market, or for existing services that offer access to case law for free. The theory behind the project is that among the ten million cases in the American legal system, there is a relatively small percentage of cases that are considered more significant and interesting than the rest. If these cases can be identified and a search tool developed to exploit them, it may make searching case law more efficient by helping researchers focus on the most important cases first, before moving into the vast body of case law to find newer cases, cases with variant facts or those more specific to a specific jurisdiction.
The first step is to determine if there is such a thing as a group of “leading cases” and, if there is, to figure out how to find them and use them. The theory at present is that this group of cases can be found in the body of secondary materials. Initially, I thought that we could find leading cases in footnotes and body of treatises, presuming that treatise writers would discuss or cite to only the most important cases in their fields. To gather this group of leading cases, we could “mine” treatises and discover the cases cited in them. However, there are significant challenges to mining treatises for the cases the authors have cited, not the least of which is that treatises are published in many different formats and by enough publishers to make it difficult to use a single system to acquire the desired information. I’ve been convinced to put this step on hold; at least for the moment.
Our thinking at present is that we may have better luck focusing our efforts on cases cited in law review articles. There are two reasons that we think that law review articles may be better sources with which to discover this body of leading cases. First, we presume that the writers of law review articles as experts in their fields, are vigilant in identifying important cases in those fields and that overall, these scholars will discuss all the important cases in American law. I realize that this is a strong presumption, but over the last century, virtually all significant developments in law have been discussed and debated at length in law reviews and law journals. It follows, then, that the cases cited by the writers should be the ones most important or significant for one reason or another and can be identified as “leading cases,” those that researchers should read or at least be aware of when researching case law in that field.
A second advantage of using law review articles to identify leading cases is that the body of scholarship is continually expanding. If my theory is correct and we can discover this body of case law, we may be able to create an automated process that will continually add to the corpus of leading cases.
Questions
There are many questions to be answered. The most interesting question, and the one that I’ll be spending my time exploring initially is, exactly how many cases are cited by law review articles?
We know that there are around ten million cases published in total, but we don’t know what percentage of those cases found their way into the footnotes and text of law review articles. We are very close to obtaining the tools to answer this question conclusively. Hunches about the percentage of cases discussed in law reviews ranges from 5% to less than 1%, between 100,000 and 500,000 cases. If this is true, then full text case law database searching should be greatly improved by the mere fact that the researcher would be searching in a database of two or three hundred thousand cases instead of ten million!
Assuming that our initial tests reveal that there is, indeed, a body of leading cases that we can identify, many interesting possibilities emerge. The cases themselves may be ranked based upon the numbers of law reviews or journals that have cited them. (This is sort of a twist on Shepard’s service for law review articles. Instead of Shepardizing articles to find cases that cite to the articles, we’re looking for cases cited in the articles themselves.) Other information that may help rank the value of the cases includes the standing of the journal itself in which the article is published, or the reputation, publishing record or school of residence of the author.
Even if we are successful in identifying this corpus of leading cases, we have yet to determine how they should be used. The options are to create a separate database or to use meta-data to tag, or identify the cases so that search engines will be able identify the leading cases from among the rest of the millions of cases in the corpus of American law. Depending on the tags used, the researcher can use this information to sort search results in interesting and valuable ways. For example, a researcher desiring to know what is the law in an area novel to him, could begin with a full text case law database and immediately identify the most important cases in the field. After perusing these cases, links and metadata could then be used to immediately find articles, blogs and other pertinent online materials.
The goal of the project is to create a new way of using online digital legal materials. New technologies have allowed us to think of combining information in ways that were unheard of, even unthinkable, before today. “Leading Case Service” is essentially a ‘mash-up’ of online case law databases and online databases of law review articles. To this mash-up, colleagues have suggested that we may be able to add blogs, digital commons, wire-services, websites, legal periodical indexes and possibly treatises. The use of this information is not merely academic. It may also prove to be a way to power new search engines or discover new ways that various parts of the conceptual, scholarly world of the law influence each other.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Friday, October 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
A New Form of Cheeseburger: Modern Technology & the Development of the Next Generation of Secondary Materials
[With due thanks to Jason Wilson's brilliant post, "Secondary Materials are Like Cheeseburgers," I propose below, a concept of how law librarians, law review editors, scholars and bloggers can cooperate and build a better (well, new!) cheeseburger. These are random thoughts. I welcome feedback. RL]
The recipe:
Take Web 2.0 + Digital Commons + Durham Statement; Combine them, process until well-done and place between slices of WWW, Web 2.0 and app-technology.
The Next Generation of Secondary Materials
It is generally understood that secondary materials serve two very important purposes (beyond earning money for publishers and money and prestige for authors): First, a secondary resource, such as a treatise, practice material, looseleaf or scholarly article, provides users with clear statements of the meaning and application of the legal principles or concepts that are reflected in court opinions, statutory and administrative materials. They are essentially syntheses of rules and ideas expressed in these disparate resources, which are created and published by necessarily disparate entities for necessarily disparate audiences with necessarily disparate interests.
Second, they provide important indexing of these disparate resources through citation and analysis of the various materials. For example, if you are interested in finding the most significant cases that explain the difference between civil and criminal contempt, one need only read the relevant chapter of Wright and Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure, because it is there that recognized experts in the field not only express their opinions as to those differences, but they also provide citations to the authorities that support their conclusions and analysis. Indeed, there may well be more cases available on the topic, but we trust that the ones cited by the authors of this treatise are the most important and most significant.
As publishers grapple with a variety pressures from shareholders and corporate boards as well as with changes in the technology and practical aspects of publishing, they have tended to respond with practices and policies that have actually served to run contrary to their underlying function which is to offer research tools to lawyers, students, practitioners and lay people who come to them for answers to pressing legal questions. Instead of, as once was the case, of serving the legal community by offering helpful tools and distributing them as widely as possible, they are narrowing their distribution to customers who can and must pay.
It is my opinion that several recent advances in “technology” generally can provide us with a new mode of secondary materials that may be as useful as traditional secondary materials, but that may be available for free for all.
The New Mode of Secondary Legal Materials
OK, here's the idea. What we're seeking is modern indexing to help the researcher focus on the most important cases - and, if possible clear commentary about what the cases mean.
Law review articles and blogs can give us a glimpse of which cases are important by examining which cases are written about and mentioned in articles and blogs. It is possible that wire services, too, can help identify which cases are important by analyzing the frequency with which cases are reported and commented upon. (There are significant problems with using data on cases reported in commercial media sources, but the problems can be accommodated for in various ways.)
The proliferation of digital law reviews in digital commons and services like SSRN, as well as articles and commentary on blogs can provide the substance for building a free database that consists of analysis of primary materials and commentary on policies and procedures.
Given the disparate forms of materials that are readily available on the web already, it is my opinion that new technology can be developed that can efficiently mine them to give researchers valuable information as they conduct research on any topic. Essentially, this new form of research tool would aggregate material from many sources, index them and offer searching and sorting in forms and of the most benefit to researchers.
In order for such as project to be successful, several foundational things should happen:
1. Law reviews should adopt the practice of asking authors to not only supply abstracts of articles, but should tag them with an approved list of subjects headings. They should also agree to tag digital articles with metadata that accurately reflects author and copyright information.
2. An approved list of metadata tags could also be circulated among bloggers and periodicals that produce digital editions.
3. Articles should be mined for citation data, including references to cases, courts, judges, scholars, etc.
4. Search results should be able to be ranked based on a variety of factors, including reputation and productivity of the authors and citation frequency.
5. Full text of cases should be indexed by computer and archived in a secure location. Search results should be available either as full text or as citation lists.
Fantasy or Possibility?
Is it possible to build a research tool that aggregates and searches information from such disparate sources? What’s more, what will such a service look like, and will it actually be valuable to researchers?
It is clear that collectively, blogs, law reviews, digital commons and various websites that report and comment upon legal matters cover a substantial portion of the most important cases of the day. A systematic method of crawling and indexing this content should provide researchers with a viable starting point for researching any current legal topic.
With Google Scholar and efforts on the part of law reviews and digital commons to build retrospective collections of secondary materials, the potential exists to build a rich, publicly accessible free resource.
Looking forward, legal scholars and other experts may endeavor to regularly comment upon breaking cases and other developments, thus providing a continuing source of present commentary about modern legal matters.
Modern developments in AJAX and HTML5, as well as new functionality of apps on iOS and Android platforms and their respective hardware platforms have the potential for the development of entirely new research tools. Unlike the present generation of online databases that are essentially flat text files built from print treatises, these new tools can give people access to a new concept of secondary materials in ways that would have been hard to imagine just a few years ago.
We’ve often heard of the difficulty of building a better mouse trap. Is it possible to build a better cheeseburger?
Perhaps.
The recipe:
Take Web 2.0 + Digital Commons + Durham Statement; Combine them, process until well-done and place between slices of WWW, Web 2.0 and app-technology.
The Next Generation of Secondary Materials
It is generally understood that secondary materials serve two very important purposes (beyond earning money for publishers and money and prestige for authors): First, a secondary resource, such as a treatise, practice material, looseleaf or scholarly article, provides users with clear statements of the meaning and application of the legal principles or concepts that are reflected in court opinions, statutory and administrative materials. They are essentially syntheses of rules and ideas expressed in these disparate resources, which are created and published by necessarily disparate entities for necessarily disparate audiences with necessarily disparate interests.
Second, they provide important indexing of these disparate resources through citation and analysis of the various materials. For example, if you are interested in finding the most significant cases that explain the difference between civil and criminal contempt, one need only read the relevant chapter of Wright and Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure, because it is there that recognized experts in the field not only express their opinions as to those differences, but they also provide citations to the authorities that support their conclusions and analysis. Indeed, there may well be more cases available on the topic, but we trust that the ones cited by the authors of this treatise are the most important and most significant.
As publishers grapple with a variety pressures from shareholders and corporate boards as well as with changes in the technology and practical aspects of publishing, they have tended to respond with practices and policies that have actually served to run contrary to their underlying function which is to offer research tools to lawyers, students, practitioners and lay people who come to them for answers to pressing legal questions. Instead of, as once was the case, of serving the legal community by offering helpful tools and distributing them as widely as possible, they are narrowing their distribution to customers who can and must pay.
It is my opinion that several recent advances in “technology” generally can provide us with a new mode of secondary materials that may be as useful as traditional secondary materials, but that may be available for free for all.
The New Mode of Secondary Legal Materials
OK, here's the idea. What we're seeking is modern indexing to help the researcher focus on the most important cases - and, if possible clear commentary about what the cases mean.
Law review articles and blogs can give us a glimpse of which cases are important by examining which cases are written about and mentioned in articles and blogs. It is possible that wire services, too, can help identify which cases are important by analyzing the frequency with which cases are reported and commented upon. (There are significant problems with using data on cases reported in commercial media sources, but the problems can be accommodated for in various ways.)
The proliferation of digital law reviews in digital commons and services like SSRN, as well as articles and commentary on blogs can provide the substance for building a free database that consists of analysis of primary materials and commentary on policies and procedures.
Given the disparate forms of materials that are readily available on the web already, it is my opinion that new technology can be developed that can efficiently mine them to give researchers valuable information as they conduct research on any topic. Essentially, this new form of research tool would aggregate material from many sources, index them and offer searching and sorting in forms and of the most benefit to researchers.
In order for such as project to be successful, several foundational things should happen:
1. Law reviews should adopt the practice of asking authors to not only supply abstracts of articles, but should tag them with an approved list of subjects headings. They should also agree to tag digital articles with metadata that accurately reflects author and copyright information.
2. An approved list of metadata tags could also be circulated among bloggers and periodicals that produce digital editions.
3. Articles should be mined for citation data, including references to cases, courts, judges, scholars, etc.
4. Search results should be able to be ranked based on a variety of factors, including reputation and productivity of the authors and citation frequency.
5. Full text of cases should be indexed by computer and archived in a secure location. Search results should be available either as full text or as citation lists.
Fantasy or Possibility?
Is it possible to build a research tool that aggregates and searches information from such disparate sources? What’s more, what will such a service look like, and will it actually be valuable to researchers?
It is clear that collectively, blogs, law reviews, digital commons and various websites that report and comment upon legal matters cover a substantial portion of the most important cases of the day. A systematic method of crawling and indexing this content should provide researchers with a viable starting point for researching any current legal topic.
With Google Scholar and efforts on the part of law reviews and digital commons to build retrospective collections of secondary materials, the potential exists to build a rich, publicly accessible free resource.
Looking forward, legal scholars and other experts may endeavor to regularly comment upon breaking cases and other developments, thus providing a continuing source of present commentary about modern legal matters.
Modern developments in AJAX and HTML5, as well as new functionality of apps on iOS and Android platforms and their respective hardware platforms have the potential for the development of entirely new research tools. Unlike the present generation of online databases that are essentially flat text files built from print treatises, these new tools can give people access to a new concept of secondary materials in ways that would have been hard to imagine just a few years ago.
We’ve often heard of the difficulty of building a better mouse trap. Is it possible to build a better cheeseburger?
Perhaps.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Hitting the Wall, Technologically Speaking
Note, this is a draft of a column to be published in Legal Information Alert. RL]
Well, ok. It happened. I hit the technology wall.
It didn’t hurt or anything, but it was kind of stunning, and it made me laugh. In the back of my mind, however, there’s now an ache, a melancholy low-keyed, distant panic is now resting there. Waiting. You’re gonna hit it, too. So be prepared.
Here’s the thing. Yesterday I got official word that I had just won a professional award for “distinguished” service to a special interest section (SIS) of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). It caught me completely off-guard because, while I’ve been a member for years, the last time I held an office in it was 1989. (It looks like it’s true, if you stick around long enough, eventually people notice....) The special interest section is called, Computer Services SIS. When I was president of the section, it was called the Automation and Scientific Development SIS, and the section’s newsletter, which I also edited, was called The Automatome. The title of the section and the newsletter each provide an interesting perspective of the state of technology back in the day. In fact, at my last meeting as chair of the section, I proposed that the section should no longer exist. My rationale was that since technology was becoming so prevalent in our professional lives, it was analogous to having a special interest section on paper!
The experience got me thinking nostalgically about the ‘old days,’ and I thought that it would be fun to bring copies of the old newsletter to the meeting and share some of the quaint observations it contained. For example, I remember writing a review of a new 20 megabyte hard drive and describing how it would change the world. I know there are other gems contained in those old issues. I’ve never been shy about commenting on technological developments and predicting the future, so I thought that it would be fun to resurrect The Automatome and have a laugh.
And then I hit the wall. I have a few paper copies of The Automatome in a trunk in my basement, but I don’t know if I have a complete set, and I don’t know what is their condition. Not to worry, I have them in electronic format, of course. In 3.5 inch floppy disks! Formatted in who knows what number Mac OS?! It could be system 4 for all I know. And who knows what version of Word for Mac I was using? (These are rhetorical questions, obviously, because, at this point, only I know the answers to these questions. But, simply looking at the discs won’t necessarily tell me how they’re formatted or what software I used. Perhaps I was still using MacWrite....) But in order to actually use the files to do anything, I’d need to boot up my old Mac, which hasn’t been turned on in nearly twenty years and see what happens.
But let’s suppose that I was able to fire up the old Mac Plus, load the software and open the documents; all of which is possible, I should add. Then what am I supposed to do with it? As far as I can remember, in those days, I was using Compuserve for email and haven’t kept up my account; so emailing a copy of the documents to myself wouldn’t work. The computer didn’t (doesn’t) have any USB ports or any way that I could use to transfer the documents from the computer to another kind of present day storage media.
I could try to print the documents. I still have the original Image Writer that I used for years. It was a cool, state of the art dot-matrix, Postscript printer. I’m sure that I don’t have any print cartridges, and I’m not sure where I could get one. I could try to use a new printer, but I am pretty sure HP doesn’t make a printer driver that for an old Mac OS computer.
See what I mean? I hit the wall. The best I can hope for at this point is to fire up the old Mac Plus and take photos of the screen! I suppose I could lug the computer around and fire it up when I wanted to show people the issues of the old newsletter. As a practical matter, many people don’t realize that one of the original accessories for the Mac was a canvas case that actually had a should strap and a pouch for an external disk drive; in short, the original Mac Plus, all 20/25 pounds of it was conceived of as a portable computer. Hauling the Mac around to show my friends and colleagues vintage computer newsletters on a vintage computer, has a certain elegance to it, doesn’t it?
In short, it’s a wall that we’ll all hit more than once, going forward. In fact, I’m sure that it’s happening with many documents, some of them even more important that old copies of Automatome. Is this a sort of personal morality play for law librarians, to be on guard against saving documents in formats that potentially may become obsolete?
Perhaps. In any case, be forewarned that taking any present format for granted may lead you into a narrow alley with no exits....
Well, ok. It happened. I hit the technology wall.
It didn’t hurt or anything, but it was kind of stunning, and it made me laugh. In the back of my mind, however, there’s now an ache, a melancholy low-keyed, distant panic is now resting there. Waiting. You’re gonna hit it, too. So be prepared.
Here’s the thing. Yesterday I got official word that I had just won a professional award for “distinguished” service to a special interest section (SIS) of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). It caught me completely off-guard because, while I’ve been a member for years, the last time I held an office in it was 1989. (It looks like it’s true, if you stick around long enough, eventually people notice....) The special interest section is called, Computer Services SIS. When I was president of the section, it was called the Automation and Scientific Development SIS, and the section’s newsletter, which I also edited, was called The Automatome. The title of the section and the newsletter each provide an interesting perspective of the state of technology back in the day. In fact, at my last meeting as chair of the section, I proposed that the section should no longer exist. My rationale was that since technology was becoming so prevalent in our professional lives, it was analogous to having a special interest section on paper!
The experience got me thinking nostalgically about the ‘old days,’ and I thought that it would be fun to bring copies of the old newsletter to the meeting and share some of the quaint observations it contained. For example, I remember writing a review of a new 20 megabyte hard drive and describing how it would change the world. I know there are other gems contained in those old issues. I’ve never been shy about commenting on technological developments and predicting the future, so I thought that it would be fun to resurrect The Automatome and have a laugh.
And then I hit the wall. I have a few paper copies of The Automatome in a trunk in my basement, but I don’t know if I have a complete set, and I don’t know what is their condition. Not to worry, I have them in electronic format, of course. In 3.5 inch floppy disks! Formatted in who knows what number Mac OS?! It could be system 4 for all I know. And who knows what version of Word for Mac I was using? (These are rhetorical questions, obviously, because, at this point, only I know the answers to these questions. But, simply looking at the discs won’t necessarily tell me how they’re formatted or what software I used. Perhaps I was still using MacWrite....) But in order to actually use the files to do anything, I’d need to boot up my old Mac, which hasn’t been turned on in nearly twenty years and see what happens.
But let’s suppose that I was able to fire up the old Mac Plus, load the software and open the documents; all of which is possible, I should add. Then what am I supposed to do with it? As far as I can remember, in those days, I was using Compuserve for email and haven’t kept up my account; so emailing a copy of the documents to myself wouldn’t work. The computer didn’t (doesn’t) have any USB ports or any way that I could use to transfer the documents from the computer to another kind of present day storage media.
I could try to print the documents. I still have the original Image Writer that I used for years. It was a cool, state of the art dot-matrix, Postscript printer. I’m sure that I don’t have any print cartridges, and I’m not sure where I could get one. I could try to use a new printer, but I am pretty sure HP doesn’t make a printer driver that for an old Mac OS computer.
See what I mean? I hit the wall. The best I can hope for at this point is to fire up the old Mac Plus and take photos of the screen! I suppose I could lug the computer around and fire it up when I wanted to show people the issues of the old newsletter. As a practical matter, many people don’t realize that one of the original accessories for the Mac was a canvas case that actually had a should strap and a pouch for an external disk drive; in short, the original Mac Plus, all 20/25 pounds of it was conceived of as a portable computer. Hauling the Mac around to show my friends and colleagues vintage computer newsletters on a vintage computer, has a certain elegance to it, doesn’t it?
In short, it’s a wall that we’ll all hit more than once, going forward. In fact, I’m sure that it’s happening with many documents, some of them even more important that old copies of Automatome. Is this a sort of personal morality play for law librarians, to be on guard against saving documents in formats that potentially may become obsolete?
Perhaps. In any case, be forewarned that taking any present format for granted may lead you into a narrow alley with no exits....
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Why I'm Signing the Durham Statement
[I wrote this the day after hosting a podcast with Professors Richard Danner and John Palfrey, authors and architects of the Durham Statement. The podcast can be found on iTunes, here. The transcript of the chat room can be found here. RL]
[In a curious irony, when I logged onto the website to "sign" the statement, I got a 404 error.... Uh, I guess the gods do have a sense of humor! RL]
OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to sign the Durham Statement. But with an asterisk. Here's why.
I fully support all the goals and objectives of 'the open access' movement. I believe that it is critical that as more legal materials are born digital, librarians should be working with content creators (governments, authors, academics, publishers, bloggers, etc.) to be sure that digital information is produced and preserved in systematic, efficient and stable formats. There's a need for that format to be simple, objective and thorough so that software and hardware developers can easily develop applications and search engines that make the material not just accessible, but usable, useful. And, perhaps most important, the formats must be open so that they can be used by developers (of search engines, readers, aggregators, or who knows what kind of tool) for any platform, while at the same time remaining strictly controlled and loyal to established standards. Standards must take into account not only the data itself but its metadata and as well as format.
The desire for an end of print materials is not what's driving the growth in the availability of digital legal information. What's driving its growth are technological developments. Better html, java and Ajax web development tools have made web pages more hospitable for users and developers, and, as a result, more useful for finding, accessing and using information and documents retrieved. Better processing power, bandwidth and storage capacities have made the development and distribution of databases practical, both on the server and user sides. Looking back at history, consumers of legal information have never simply stopped using one format to await the arrival of the next. Any new format must prove itself before it will become the new standard. The same will occur as legal materials transition from print to digital formats. (The question of whether this transition will be total or partial, or somewhere in between - my choice - is beyond the scope of this essay.)
There's also a practical reason for my reservation about the "end of print" declaration in the Statement. By declaring 'the end of print' as an end in itself, I am afraid that it gives too much encouragement to publishers and information creators to put the cart before the horse, and cease printing material before reliable online alternative formats are fully developed. This could lead to disaster in two ways. First, they may move too quickly and develop online tools using new, unproven technologies that may end up making access to the material more difficult than before without refinements and upgrades. And then there's the danger that all early adopters risk: adopting formats that don't survive in the marketplace and may be lost forever.
This is why I object to the language in the Durham Statement that calls for "an end of print publication" of law reviews. In my mind the call is unnecessary, even vacuous. If the printing of law reviews is doomed, it will happen only when there are acceptable substitutes. And not a second sooner.
I'm signing the Statement with the above reservations, and whole-heartedly support it's underlying goals and objectives, (I support AALL, NCCUSL, LIPA and Law.gov, too), the call for the development of rigorous standards for materials that are born digital. I also like the idea that legal scholarship be included in the open access movement. There's great potential to create a fascinating, organic living encyclopedia of legal scholarship.
[In a curious irony, when I logged onto the website to "sign" the statement, I got a 404 error.... Uh, I guess the gods do have a sense of humor! RL]
OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to sign the Durham Statement. But with an asterisk. Here's why.
I fully support all the goals and objectives of 'the open access' movement. I believe that it is critical that as more legal materials are born digital, librarians should be working with content creators (governments, authors, academics, publishers, bloggers, etc.) to be sure that digital information is produced and preserved in systematic, efficient and stable formats. There's a need for that format to be simple, objective and thorough so that software and hardware developers can easily develop applications and search engines that make the material not just accessible, but usable, useful. And, perhaps most important, the formats must be open so that they can be used by developers (of search engines, readers, aggregators, or who knows what kind of tool) for any platform, while at the same time remaining strictly controlled and loyal to established standards. Standards must take into account not only the data itself but its metadata and as well as format.
The desire for an end of print materials is not what's driving the growth in the availability of digital legal information. What's driving its growth are technological developments. Better html, java and Ajax web development tools have made web pages more hospitable for users and developers, and, as a result, more useful for finding, accessing and using information and documents retrieved. Better processing power, bandwidth and storage capacities have made the development and distribution of databases practical, both on the server and user sides. Looking back at history, consumers of legal information have never simply stopped using one format to await the arrival of the next. Any new format must prove itself before it will become the new standard. The same will occur as legal materials transition from print to digital formats. (The question of whether this transition will be total or partial, or somewhere in between - my choice - is beyond the scope of this essay.)
There's also a practical reason for my reservation about the "end of print" declaration in the Statement. By declaring 'the end of print' as an end in itself, I am afraid that it gives too much encouragement to publishers and information creators to put the cart before the horse, and cease printing material before reliable online alternative formats are fully developed. This could lead to disaster in two ways. First, they may move too quickly and develop online tools using new, unproven technologies that may end up making access to the material more difficult than before without refinements and upgrades. And then there's the danger that all early adopters risk: adopting formats that don't survive in the marketplace and may be lost forever.
This is why I object to the language in the Durham Statement that calls for "an end of print publication" of law reviews. In my mind the call is unnecessary, even vacuous. If the printing of law reviews is doomed, it will happen only when there are acceptable substitutes. And not a second sooner.
I'm signing the Statement with the above reservations, and whole-heartedly support it's underlying goals and objectives, (I support AALL, NCCUSL, LIPA and Law.gov, too), the call for the development of rigorous standards for materials that are born digital. I also like the idea that legal scholarship be included in the open access movement. There's great potential to create a fascinating, organic living encyclopedia of legal scholarship.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Using Social Media in Law Libraries
This month on "The Law Librarian," on BlogTalkRadio, we discussed using and uses of social media tools in law libraries. We had a lively discussion about the use of "socnets" (social networks) for a variety of purposes: marketing, general information, announcements, etc. But we also eventually got around to discussing the use of these tools for gathering information and, even preserving it. Clearly, we are at the very cusp in the development of these tools, and it appears that they are swiftly becoming a new currency for library services and communication.
Click here for a transcript of the chat room of the show. Click here if you want to take the short survey about uses of "socnets" in law libraries.
Click here for a transcript of the chat room of the show. Click here if you want to take the short survey about uses of "socnets" in law libraries.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Is Twitter Killing Newspapers?
John C Dvorak keeps marveling at the reactions of newspapers to declining readership: they lay off writers and reporters! It does seem like a weird response to a marketing problem. If people are not reading newspapers as much as they were, making the product better would seem to be the best response.
Here's a thought: I think that people are relying on more immediate services like RSS feeds, Twitter and radio and television for news. Newspapers are useless for this purpose. If newspapers want more readers, they need to provide more than news, and more than Twitter can give them: local perspectives and meaningful content. Publishing more fiction, perhaps, or more practical news about local issues. Newspapers should have opinions and should entertain, inform and be forums for local discussion. Heck, they should even have their own Twitter and Momentile feeds.
Here's a thought: I think that people are relying on more immediate services like RSS feeds, Twitter and radio and television for news. Newspapers are useless for this purpose. If newspapers want more readers, they need to provide more than news, and more than Twitter can give them: local perspectives and meaningful content. Publishing more fiction, perhaps, or more practical news about local issues. Newspapers should have opinions and should entertain, inform and be forums for local discussion. Heck, they should even have their own Twitter and Momentile feeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
