Journal of Law, Information and Science
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Journal of Law, Information and Science |
|
EUGENE CLARK[∗]
• We are entering a new age of e-research in the social sciences.
• More than ever before, legal research needs to be less doctrinal, more interdisciplinary and team-based. Increasingly, those teams will involve researchers across jurisdictions and national borders.
• Scholarship is increasingly involved with computation, computer modeling, large scale data collection and analysis.
• Research is increasingly team oriented, multi-disciplinary and international in scope and outreach.
• Traditional paper-based journals are becoming less relevant and storehouses of reusable digital databases are becoming more common.
• Boundaries between private and public are becoming more and more blurred.
• Researchers are more often expected to deposit supporting data so that it can be replicated and verified.
• Census data, network/internet data and other large storehouses of data are becoming more important.
• Social science research must increasingly take into account: knowledge management, recording keeping, records management and geographic information systems.
• In an Information Age where intellectual property is the ‘new gold’, legal issues loom larger than ever and ‘documentation’ of research becomes more important.
• With webcams and other internet technology available to record our every movement and boldly go where researchers have not gone before, privacy and other ethical concerns are also significant.
• Artificial social labs in universities will be replaced by ‘web experimentation’ using huge data sets of ‘real-life’ data taken straight from the net.
• These developments portend a redefinition of how we in the social sciences and law conduct research, with whom and the nature of the research we conduct.
Recent developments in information communications technology (ICT) have had a profound impact on most areas of human activity. It is not surprising, therefore, that the nature of social science research itself, including legal research, is likely to undergo significant change in the years ahead as ICT developments significantly challenge and ultimately change the nature of social science and legal research. In doing so, the research (both new areas and new methodologies) enabled by this new technology will challenge traditional notions of legal research which has until now been predominantly doctrinal, individualized and mono-disciplinary. On a national level, the ability of a country to harness this new technology can be a major source of competitive advantage.[1] This article examines two major reports and forms of international cooperation relevant to the implications of advances in ICT on social science research. These reports conclude that, aided by ICT advances, we are on the cusp of a new era of social science which may lead to greater insights about society and a new generation of social science and legal research. The article then turns specifically to legal scholarship and the implications for it of these developments of e-research in the social sciences.
Our Cultural Commonwealth: The Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for Humanities and Social Sciences[2] (hereafter Our Cultural Commonwealth 2006) provides a useful description and analysis of the growth of e-research. This report is addressed to scholars, legislators, federal agencies and others who are concerned that we give sufficient consideration to cyberinfrastructure just as we do to physical infrastructure, and, for the same reasons—to promote understanding, prosperity, good government and effective organizations.[3]
Our Cultural Commonwealth defines ‘cyberinfrastructure’ as more than the technology or network itself. Cyberinfrastructure is more ‘general than a tool or resource developed for a particular project, range of projects, or even more broadly for a particular discipline’.[4] Rather, it is the complete set of digital cultural heritage resources combined with computer networks, software and other tools that:
[N]ow shape the way scholars discover and make sense of the human record, while also shaping the way those understandings are communicated to students, colleagues and the general public.[5]
The report identifies a number of constraints which impede the maximization of the potential of modern communications to create a new era of social science research. These include:
• the complexity of the digital record,
• its inaccessibility,
• constraints of intellectual property restrictions,
• uncertainties about the structure, forms and economics of the publishing industry,
• inadequate training, outdated policies, and
• lack of leadership.
These and other constraints are discussed in the sections that follow.
Australia and the UK are among those other countries that have similarly examined the role of social sciences research in an electronic environment.
Appointed on 21 April 2005 by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the e-Research Coordinating Committee serves as an expert advisory group and consists of e-Research experts and key stakeholders. The role of Committee members is to develop strategies for improving awareness and engagement of Australian researchers in e-Research, and to act as champions in their spheres of influence.
The objectives of the e-Research Coordinating Committee are to:
• Engage stakeholder groups in the identification of key policy issues and strategic directions in developing a national e-Research agenda;
• Recommend to the Australian Government an overarching strategic policy framework and implementation strategy.
Late last year, the e-Research Coordinating Committee released An e-Research Strategic Framework: Interim Report.[6]
The Australian report acknowledges the tremendous opportunities for research made possible by advances in ICT. It also links Australia’s international competitiveness with its ability to take advantage of these developments. This includes advances in the ability to access information, enhanced computational capabilities and the opportunity of inter-disciplinary work with teams of researchers around the globe—all leading to new opportunities to engage in new forms of research.
The report makes a number of recommendations, including:
1. National coordination of e-research efforts and the creation of a national infrastructure.
2. Enhanced human capacity in terms of developing the skills required to engage in this new form of research.
3. Researchers to access digital data as well as to utilize best practice in data management of the digital data sets developed by e-research.
4. Infrastructure that promotes the easy sharing of digital resources that are in the early stage of development.
5. A recognition that e-research will mandate changes in organizational cultures and structures.
6. Greater take-up of e-research opportunities and the need to pay greater attention to the process of developing capacity and removing impediments to researchers’ taking up these new methodologies.
7. More collaboration at national and international levels.
8. A strategic approach to e-research.
An important component of international e-research is the development of compatible standards. The e-Framework is an initiative by the UK's Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and Australia's Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (the initial e-Framework Partners).[7]
The e-Framework currently has as partners, JISC, DEST, the New Zealand Ministry of Education, and the SURF Foundation (the Netherlands). The e-Framework Partners are able to influence policy and development of educational and research infrastructure at a national level. The primary goal of the e-Framework is to facilitate technical interoperability within and across education and research through improved strategic planning and implementation processes.[8]
The e-Framework supports a service oriented approach to developing and delivering education, research and management information systems. Such an approach seeks to maximize the flexibility and cost effectiveness with which systems can be deployed, both in an institutional context, nationally and internationally.
The e-Framework allows the research and general community to document its requirements and processes in a coherent way, and to use these to derive a set of interoperable network services that conform to appropriate open standards. By documenting requirements, processes, services, protocol bindings and standards in the form of 'reference models' members of the community are better able to collaborate on the development of service components that meet their needs (both within the community and with commercial and other international partners). The e-Framework also functions as a strategic planning tool for the e-Framework partners.
The initiative builds on the e-Learning Framework[9] and the JISC Information Environment[10] as well as other service oriented initiatives in the areas of scholarly information, research support and educational administration.
The e-Framework Partnership intends to operate in accordance with the following guiding principles:
1. The adoption of a service oriented approach to system and process integration
• A service-oriented framework provides significant benefits to stakeholders including policy makers, managers, institutions, suppliers and developers and is a business driven approach for developing ICT infrastructure that encourages innovation by being agile and adaptive.
• A service-oriented framework currently provides the best means of addressing systems integration issues within institutions, between institutions and across the domains within education and research.
• The definition of services is driven by business requirements and processes.
• The factoring of the services is a key to the effectiveness of the framework.
• A high level 'abstract' service definition should not duplicate or overlap another service.
• An abstract service definition is a description of a service that is independent of the language or platform that may be used to implement the service.
• The e-Framework activities will strive for technical excellence and adoption of co-developed good practices.
2. The development, promotion and adoption of Open Standards.
• Open Standards are key to achieving integration between systems, institutions and between domains in the education and research communities.
• Open standards are defined for the e-Framework as those standards that are developed collaboratively through due process, are platform independent, vendor neutral, extensible, reusable, publicly accessible, and not encumbered by royalties.
• In order to achieve impact open standards require international collaboration and consensus.
3. Community involvement in the development of the e-Framework
• Open and transparent processes are essential for the development of the e-Framework.
• Collaboration between technical and domain experts, practitioners, developers and vendors will be essential to the evolution and uptake of the e-Framework approach.
• Capacity and capability need to be developed in communities to enable effective use of the e-Framework.
4. Open collaborative development activities
• In order to support the on-going e-Framework evolution, results will be made publicly available.
• Engagement with communities of use will be essential in the development of the e-Framework.
• Sustained international development of the e-Framework cannot be undertaken by a single organisation and collaboration between organisations is required.
• Where possible and appropriate, Open Intellectual Property licensing approaches (such as open source, creative commons, royalty free patent licences) will be adopted.
5. Flexible and incremental deployment of the e-Framework
• The e-Framework supports and promotes flexible deployment by stakeholder institutions.
• The e-Framework facilitates incremental deployment and change.
• The e-Framework will accommodate both open source and proprietary implementations.
• Institutions will decide whether to use open or closed source implementations in deploying the e-Framework.
Recognizing that research is a core activity of higher education generally, if it also worth noting that on 22 June 2006, IMS Global Learning Consortium and the e-Framework Initiative formed a partnership dedicated to promote service enabled infrastructures in the higher education sector.[11] This partnership is comprised of 60 organizations around the globe dedicated to the facilitation of service oriented approaches in development of infrastructures for the education sector. The principal goal of the Cooperation Agreement is to work together towards a shared vision of service enabled infrastructures for Higher Education. Outputs from the e-Framework will be important to the deliberations of IMS in terms of further standardization initiatives and feedback from IMS industry members will assist in developing and evolving the e-Framework.
A number of implications follow from and are discussed in these reports.
The establishment of a strategic framework for e-research will require leaders to help the organization adapt to information age challenges. Leaders must be engaged, and must keep their staff engaged. Leaders at all levels of the organization must have the requisite skills in project management, change management and knowledge management. The challenge for 21st Century government and business leaders will be to know when to take risks and when to play safe and to have in place policies and procedures so that one can balance entrepreneurial flare with appropriate caution and principles of good governance.
Not only are legal risks uncertain, but e-research agendas may be in conflict with other government goals. In the new environment of e-government there are many challenges and the need to balance these conflicting tensions. For example, the need for systems integration and knowledge management may conflict with privacy protection. E-research also sits within the context of developments in e-government. For the public sector, some of the most challenging issues arise from the fundamental nature of the transformation from a model of industrialized government (centralized, bureaucratized, paper-based, impersonal, rule-based, disconnected and organized into departments) to that of e-government (decentralized, digital, personalized, client-focused, interconnected and organized in new ways). Such a major shift will at certain points give rise to questions of constitutionality, authority, responsibility and definition. Governments can contract out services, but not contract away overall responsibility.
For both the public and private sectors, we are presently witnessing the continuing evolution of notions of governance through which department heads, officers and others must find their way. These developments, too, will have an impact on the evolution of a cyberinfrastructure for e-research in the social sciences. Moreover, in turn, new forms of e-research in the social sciences will help us to evaluate these and other organizational trends and lead us to evolve more effective organizations of the future.
The ultimate success of the implementation of a strategic e-Research framework will be dependent on people with attitudes, skills and an understanding of the benefits that the framework can deliver. Researchers need easy and structured ways of acquiring basic e-Research skills. Researchers also require a researcher/skilled IT interface, to provide them with day-to-day support as well as high level ICT and information management professional support. HR practices are required that encourage and reward researchers who undertake this new and important form of research.
The cyberinfrastructure required to fully capture the benefits of e-research should be seen as a public good.[12] For this reason, government should play a major role in the funding and support of such infrastructure. In this regard, Australia, Canada, the UK and Europe have significantly outperformed the US on the funding of cyberinfrastructure viewed on a per capita basis.[13] In Australia, for example, the Commonwealth Government has committed $A542 million for The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, as part of the Government’s ‘Backing Australia’s Ability: Building Our Future through Science and Innovation program’.[14]
While government should be a major funder of cyberinfrastructure, there should also be public-private partnerships that will help role out the infrastructure in minimum time to the maximum number of people. The trouble in countries, such as the US, is that the private sector has played a disproportionately large role in cyberinfrastructure funding with the result that efforts are often uncoordinated and fragmented.[15]
Regardless of whether aspects of a cyberinfrastructure are publicly or privately funded, the cyberinfrastructure must be established on the basis of a sound business model if it is to be sustainable. The different levels of engagement required to move a large organization to an electronic environment are considerable. For example, IT people in an organization must develop business applications, software and IT support designed for these new processes, especially a web-based environment. New applications will have to integrate with legacy systems and work together to create a new system that is flexible and scalable so that it can respond to ongoing changes. On the technological front, this involves complex choices about processors, displays, printers, scanners, digitizers, gateways, wireless networks, storage devices, operating systems, geographic information systems, data mining tools, voice recognition, digital signatures, applications service providers and more.[16]
E-research requires an information communication technological infrastructure that makes data seamless across various digital repositories. This requires both new tools in terms of software as well as standards that allow the tools to work across platforms, across disciplines and across national boundaries. Even at a basic level this infrastructure does not exist in some developing countries. Technical standards and compatibility across systems is also necessary before e-research becomes widespread. New e-research systems must also be integrated with legacy systems. In many cases, the adoption of e-research requires a whole organizational, regulatory and business process re-engineering that takes time, money and human resources.[17]
If this technology gap is not addressed there is the danger of a digital trading divide in which developed countries profit from the advantages of e-research with each other while developing countries are left out.
The establishment of a cyberstructure will require a policy framework. The reports above stress that this framework must stress both openness and access to all so that maximum innovation and collaboration may be promoted.[18] These policies should promote the sharing of tools (software, hardware, etc) so that standards may be developed that will promote collaboration across disciplines and across national borders. This policy framework needs to work across the three economies that shape the Information age:
1. a prestige economy, primarily for scholars and important but secondary for other players
2. a market economy, primarily for publishers, usually not very important to scholars, and important but not primary for libraries; and
3. a subsidy economy primarily for libraries, which are subsidized by universities, less available to publishers than it used to be, and more important to scholars than they generally know.[19]
One of the most insightful action items from the report is the need to encourage a new form of ‘digital’ scholarship. This includes scholarship that builds digital information, creates tools for collection-building, tools for analysis and study of digital collections, uses these tools to generate new knowledge, interpretation and understanding, or creates authoring tools for presentation of new ideas. This means that librarians, scholars and others involved in the production of knowledge must re-examine their cultures and norms. Such scholarship holds out the promise of new research methods of social science that offer new ways of ‘seeing’, measuring, studying, predicting and improving upon the ways to interpret more effectively and accurately the patterns of activities of society.[20]
Unfortunately, academic scholarship, especially in the social sciences, has tended to be very conservative. The focus has been on single-researchers working in isolation and confined to the narrow straits of their own discipline. There is in the Information Age, the need to promote more collaboration among scholars, including interdisciplinary work that enables issues to be tackled from multiple perspectives and using open source networks.[21]
Through public and private funding, we need to create extensive, accessible and reusable digital databases that can serve a number of uses and users. Such databases hold out the promise of being able to do new forms of research and see organizations in new ways, especially as they interact in new national and global networks made possible by advances in information communication technologies.[22]
If we are to create a cyberinfrastructure that is accessible, a public good, and sustainable, and one that possesses interoperability, facilitates collaboration and supports experimentation then great attention must be given to the creation of a system of innovation and a strategic framework that promotes this new form of research. Some of the features of this system include:
1. Strong legislative foundation: lest transactions be open to challenges and lawsuits.
2. Authentication and eligibility: where research is confidential only authorized and eligible parties should be given access to that part of the system.
3. Accuracy, Confidentiality, Security, Privacy: data are accurately recorded, confidentiality is assured, records are secure and privacy of parties is protected.
4. Integrity: documents that are forged, modified or deleted should be detected.
5. Verifiability and auditability: verification that all the parties have been accounted for and that reliable and authentic records exist.
6. Risk management: facilitation and controls are built in.
7. Reliability: ensure against loss of data by failures in the system.
8. Flexibility: should allow for a variety of platforms and technologies and be accessible to all, including those with disabilities.
9. Efficiency: based upon sound principles of knowledge management, sharing of data and maximum leverage of information.
10. Scaleability: the system should be able to be easily scaled upwards as international e-research activity increases.
11. Convenience: users should be able to access it quickly and without undue delay.
12. Accessibility: regular consultation and review by stakeholders/users to ensure the system meets the individual and collective needs of the research and general community.
13. Transparency: parties should be able to possess a general understanding of the processes involved in accessing the cyberinfrastructure and not be deceived in any way.
14. Certifiability: the system should be regularly tested and certified to ensure against failures.
15. Cost-effectiveness: the system should be affordable while being efficient and effective.
16. Interoperability: the e-research system should be able to be integrated with systems operating in other countries using agreed to standards for document and data classification.
If a cyberinfrastructure is to be created and sustained, there is the need for more bandwidth and more advanced software applications. Researchers also require more access to expertise in information technology.
An important component of this wider system is a legal framework that facilitates electronic transactions and achieves the appropriate balance between IP creators and consumers.[23] E-research activities are comprised of a series of transactions, including rising to the level of legally enforceable contracts between the parties, who increasingly will reside in different jurisdictions. E-research is unlikely to be adopted unless the legal systems in participating countries recognize the validity of and enforces these transactions.[24] Regulatory requirements imposed by different levels of government must be supported by an administrative and legal framework that recognizes and accommodates electronic transactions. Digital rights must be protected. Digital record keeping must be legalized. Evidence laws must recognize the legitimacy of electronic documents. Legislatively approved systems must be in place to ensure that electronic transactions are accurate, verifiable, confidential and secure. At the highest levels, this will mean the introduction of a legal and policy framework upon which e-government and then e-research can be built. At the departmental level, this framework must be accompanied by detailed regulations so that cyberinfrastructure initiatives may be operationalized.[25]
Many nations have enacted cyber laws that provide the legislative infrastructure for such transactions. At the same time, these laws are new and few have been tested in courts and tribunals. There are likely to be gaps and ambiguities left to be resolved and further reform undertaken as members’ experience with e-research evolves.[26]
While agreed standards and protocols are important, they must also be supported by a legal regime that provides the intellectual, contractual and other protection required to promote innovations. Given that e-research transcends national boundaries, many commentators suggest that what must eventually emerge is a ‘lex informatica’, a legal regime governing electronic international trade in services. National adoption and implementation of the UNCITRAL Convention on Electronic Contracting, the Revised Kyoto Convention, Customs-related WTO agreements, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and other international and regional agreements are part of the legislative framework that must be in place before e-research/innovation becomes a global reality.
Related to legal reform is the need for consistent data reporting requirements both within government and between government departments in member economies. The World Customs Organization (WCO) is addressing the problem, but there is much work to be done.
Many writers have called for a re-examination of the politics of intellectual property laws to ensure that we achieve an appropriate balance between the rights of the IP creators, consumers and those in-between. The Report notes that ‘current copyright laws not only keep most of the twentieth-century works from becoming available in digital form, they also threaten the preservation of born-digital works.’[27]
When different groups are empowered by the technology to come together then innovation is often the result. An example is the William Blake Archive[28]
that allows disparate groups from all over the world to compare works and bring in new perspectives that were fostered only through the existence of this digital archive.[29] In other cases, digital collections have enabled the capture, before it is forever lost, of important information that resides in the fading memories of people across cultures. A good example is Steven Spielberg’s establishment of the Survivors of the Shoah Foundation whose mission is to videotape and archive the testimonies of survivors of the Holocaust.[30]
There is a need for continual evaluation and ongoing research, pilot projects, ongoing technical assistance and human resource development so that cyberinfrastructure and e-research systems continue to improve and the dreamed potential of e-research becomes a reality.
What are some of the implications of all of this for legal research and scholarship?[31]
• We will see the encouragement of multi-disciplinary research, done in teams, often across national boundaries.
• Research training/education will increasingly take into account the need for such skills to equip the next generation of legal researchers.
• Law will see itself as an integral part of the social sciences.
• Document imaging and collaboration tools will continue their penetration in law schools, as a more efficient means to work with the ever-increasing number of documents involved.
• Mobile solutions will continue to flourish, as legal scholars come to rely upon remote access to their relevant information. However, security issues will remain paramount.
• There will be increasing importance attached to accountability and responsibility to have demonstrable outcomes for the public expenditure of research funds.
• Research funded by public funds will increasingly require linkages to government priorities.
• Standards will evolve in relation to use of technology in research and much needed ability to demonstrate replicable results.
• At the same time, changes in the nature of legal information and creation of new digital products (eg e-legal databases or knowledge management systems) as a result of legal research will continue.
• The growing information overload will put a premium on indexes, table of contents, synthesis tools, knowledge management systems and other devices to create sense and system to deal with the huge volume of data. An example is the Internet Archive.[32]
• New forms of license and new market dynamics will continue to re-shape and be re-shaped by the growing move from paper to digital legal resources.
• Blawgs[33], podcasts, wikis,[34] RSS feeds[35] and other new forms for the dissemination of legal knowledge will continue to evolve. New research tools will help us categorize and evaluate this new form of knowledge. An example is the Internet Archive, a non profit organization which seeks to help archive, preserve and thus provide access to materials that are only available on the Internet.[36]
• Further developments in legal research will occur as a result of projects such as the semantic web[37] and growth of legal XML,[38] both which will stimulate the evolution of new e-legal products, which universities will eventually recognize as part of ‘scholarship’, just as today such development is a part of innovative legal practice. The semantic web uses a mix of web-based technologies to get computers to talk to each other in meaningful ways.
• In this new environment we will see a continued emphasis on such areas as copyright, privacy, access rights, freedom of information, etc.
• New intellectual property legal regimes (eg Creative Commons)[39] will continue to evolve so that we have alternatives to the proprietary, profit-driven sources of intellectual property. Similarly, niche markets will evolve to challenge the IP monopoly or oligopoly of existing IP databases. An example is the development of Casemaker which provides a tailored service offering access to case law and statutory materials at competitive prices to small firms.[40]
• New applications that facilitate collaboration and remote communication will continue to evolve and be highly valued as scholarly outputs in their own right.
• New forms of partnership and cooperation. Collecting, sifting, organizing and making available, research consortiums.
• Use of the Internet and data-mining to get more and better information about potential students, present students, alumni etc.
Collectively, E-research has the potential to provide new and powerful ways to explore what happens in 21st century networked and global organizations and gain valuable insights otherwise unavailable. Moreover, multi-disciplinary, collaborative e-research is required if we are to fully exploit the potential of the web and minimize any harmful impacts from this new technology. Many argue that
If we want to model the Web; if we want to understand the architectural principles that have provided for its growth; and if we want to be sure that it supports the basic social values of trustworthiness, privacy, and respect for social boundaries, then we must chart out a research agenda that targets the Web as a primary focus of attention.[41]
From a wider perspective, Our Cultural Commonwealth concludes:
The advanced civilization of the twenty-first century depends on technology for the daily business of the culture as well as for its education and research. . . . Science and engineering have made great strides in using information technology to understand and shape the world around us. [T]hese same technologies could help advance the study and interpretation of a vastly more messy and idiosyncratic realm of human experience.[42]
If the dreams of an Information Age are to be realized we need to have an online environment that reflects the full richness of human experience. In this new environment, the social sciences, including legal research, will play the vital role it always has in providing us with knowledge about society and a deeper understanding and provide meaning in an otherwise chaotic and rapidly changing world.
[∗] Dean and Professor of Law, Charlotte School of Law, Charlotte, NC: eclark@charlottelaw.org. Portions of this article will appear in a related article in the first edition of Journal of Global Business and Organizational Excellence : A Review of Research & Best Practices.
[1] See eg, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
[2] acls.ci.report.pdf. This report was preceded by an earlier one that focused on science and engineering, Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Sciences Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure (Jan 2003):
http://www.nsf.gov/cise/sci/reports/atkins.pdf
[3] Our Cultural Commonwealth 2006, at 1.
[4] Ibid, at 2.
[5] Ibid at 2 and 8; Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder (1999) ‘Steps Toward and Ecology of Infrastructure”, Information Systems Research 7: 1: 111-34.
[6] http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/B6F765A7-DD2C-432B-9064-2F9CD4E17E66/10518/InterimReport2.doc
[7] http://www.e-framework.org/resources/eframeworkrV1.pdf/file_view
[8] For more information on the e-Framework visit http://www.e-framework.org
[9] http://www.elframework.org/
[10] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/distributed-systems/jisc-ie/arch/
[11] http://www.imsproject.org/pressreleases/IMS-eFramework.pdf
[12] Above n 3, at 39.
[13] British Academy Policy Review 2005, 2005a.
[14] Above n 3 at 42; http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector_ policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/ncris/documents/ncris_strategic_roadmap_pdf.html
[15] Above, n 3 at 36.
[16] Ibid, at 39.
[17] Ibid, at 40.
[18] John Willinsky , The Access Principle, 2006.
[19] Above, n 3 at 30.
[20] Ibid, at 231; Jeffrey Young, ‘Human Trails In Cyberspace: Social Scientists Create Maps of Online Interactions’ The Chronicle of Higher Education June 30 2006, at A18-21; Joshua Epstein Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling (2006); Edward Castronova, Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games (2005).
[21] Above, n 3 at 28-9; Deanna Marcum, ‘The Sum of the Parts: Turning Digital Library Initiatives into a Great Whole’, Keynote Address to the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Denver Colorado, June 8 2005.
[22] Above, n 3 at 53.
[23] Denise Covey, (2005) ‘Acquiring Copyright Permission To Digitize and Provide Open Access to Books,’ Washington DC Council and Library Information Services, October: http://www.diglib.org/pubs/trollcovery 0509/
[24] US Copyright Office Report, 2005: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
[25] Robert Merges, Peter Menell, and Mark Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (2006).
[26] Craig Nard, David Barnes, and Michael Madison, The Law of Intellectual Property (2006).
[27] Above n 3 at 27.
[28] http://www.blakearchive.org/
[29] Above n 3, at 19.
[30] Ibid, at 20.
[31] Ellen Quinn, Trends and Developments in Legal Research (2003): http://www.llrx.com/extras/researchtrends.html
[32] http://www.archive.org/about/about.php
[33] See http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/002382.html#002382; http: //www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/002382.html#002382; blawg Search -http://blawgs.detod.com/
[34] See eg, http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/002955.html#002955 and http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/ 002845.html#002845
[35] http://webopedia.com/TERM/R/RSS.html
[37] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_web& redirect=no
[39] http://creativecommons.org/
[40] www.casemaker.com, www.versuslaw.com, and www.fastcase.com
[41] Tim Berners-Lee, Wendy Hall, James Hendler, Nigel Shadbolt and Daniel J Weitzner, ‘Creating a Science of the Web’ Science 11 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 769 – 771.
[42] Above n 3 at 11-12.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2005/6.html