Supplementary materials came up at CrossRef09 (which I heard about via Todd Carpenter who twittered about a CrossRef Technical WG paper by
the AGU’s Sasha Schwarzman.

So that google hit is pretty awesome, nice job.

As for the Google search. I firmly believe it’s down to our review and enhancement of the supplied metadata. The initial outlay of time and energy is more than rewarded by enhanced discovery.

Neat that a google search DOES work quite perfectly to find the record in your repo. Wonder how typical that it is for academic repos.

Also interesting that you do manage to put all Dissertations immediately in public access full text? Repo stuff isnt’ really my world, but I thought a lot of universities were having problems with scholars saying they didn’t want the dissertation publically accessible in the repo, because they planned to make a book out of it that they wanted to sell. Either I was over-estimating the extent of that problem, or U of O has managed it, cool.

We hope in our new submission process the candidate will be able to submit the accompanying material alongside the dissertation and we’ll acquire them for our IR as a part of the that process. As you note there are copyright issues, particularly with performed music, and these are not insignificant.

We do want to include accompanying material of whatever kind as long as we have the right and ability to do so. However, we will still face technical, policy and administrative issues. Not least of those are declining financial and staff support to “just” make the change.

FWIW, ProQuest is planning to make submitted data available. Someday. So they say.

On the interloans side of things, a lot of universities will ILL a physical copy of the dissertation, it’s just they generally make them for-library-use-only.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/it-s-still-duck-court-re-affirms-first-sale-doctri

Likely to be appealed, though…

One of RDA’s major difficulties is that, like AACR, it’s set of content guidelines: just one layer of the stack, and not the bottom layer. Other layers, particularly the domain model and the vocabularies, should have been laid down _before_ the guidelines. Instead, we’ve taken the content guidelines and then extrapolated what the vocabularies and domain model should be. It’s like building a house from the top down. But it’s happening, (see the RDA vocabularies), which is the main thing.

Shawne, I agree about the fundamentals of AACR being quick to learn: but I would say the best way to learn them is not to read AACR. A good teacher or mentor is the best, or at least a good textbook.

Having said that, after just using AACR as a tool for years, I actually once read it from front to back like a novel when I had a spare few weeks (long story!). By the end I was left feeling awed by the intellectual achievement it embodies and the years of collective cataloguing wisdom captured in it. But I probably wouldn’t recommend non-cataloguers doing it, unless they were insomniacs.