THE DIGITAL ECONOMY DANCE: GETTING INTO STEP WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY
by
Paul Bentley
Article
originally published in Online Currents February 2009 and reprinted with kind permission of the
publishers Thomson Reuters.
Australian governments have wrestled with the
information economy for more than a decade. The Rudd Government is positioning
itself for the upcoming tussle, educated by the experience of its
predecessors. The Collections Council of Australia, established to lead the
collections sector towards a converging future, is still finding its footing
as the libraries, archives, galleries and museums work out how best to be part
of the action. Where are they up to? Where do they go from here?
GOVERNMENT
POLICY AND DIRECTION
Under Howard
The
Goldsworthy Report, The Global Information Economy: the Way Ahead,
published by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism in 1997, is a
starting point for tracking ideas and priorities. In promoting the importance
of information to the economy and the urgency of action required, it called
for a National Information Industries Strategy. The government, it said, needs
to provide supportive infrastructure rather than back winners, but it should
demand something in return from industry players.
The
Howard Government subsequently produced a stream of reports, some exploring
the information economy in broad terms, others scrutinising the part to be
played by creative and cultural heritage industries..[i],
[ii]
Australia’s Strategic Framework for the Information Economy 2004–2006
set in motion four priorities: developing capabilities, networks
and tools; ensuring the security and interoperability of an information
infrastructure; developing an innovation system as a platform for productivity
growth and industry transformation; and raising public sector productivity,
collaboration and accessibility. In 2005, Community ICT Transformations:
Next Steps explored the complexity of using information and
communications technology in communities and non-profit organisations. ICT
and Productivity: Summary of DCITA Publications (2007) came to the
view that, although the connection between ICT and productivity had been
difficult to substantiate, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that
investing in ICT would pay significant dividends.
Four
reports relating to the Australian creative industries and cultural heritage
sector, published in 2003, looked at the role of government agencies in
developing digital content and exploiting markets. Although agency spending
had been small, multiplier effects on industry development had been
significant. Recommendations included encouraging greater access to risk
capital to offset the conservative dynamic of government agencies, freeing up
intellectual property rights, and getting serious about industry development.
Although many agencies claimed to perform industry development, one report
said, none of them possessed explicit industry development goals or
strategies. Cultural institutions could be embedded in collaborative
innovation centres, export opportunities could be promoted, the role of
broadcasters could strengthened, there could be an investment nationally in
content and metadata standards and systems and tax credits for research and
development could provide incentives.
A
fifth study in 2003, The Measurement of Creative Digital Content, drew
attention to the paucity of indicators available to measure digital content
activity. New standards, it said, were needed to help assess digital products,
facilitate the allocation of funds, and measure consumption.
Particularly instructive for the collections sector was a sixth study in 2003,
Economic Benefits from Cultural Assets: the Digitisation Programs and
Standards of Collecting Institutions and the Scope for Collaboration with the
Creative Industries. A gulf existed between the collections sector
and creative industries and there were few signs of the gulf being bridged.
Digitisation had been inhibited by the absence of targeted funding to support
conversion into digital form and for cataloguing and management of the digital
collections. Only the most specialised and sophisticated institutions had made
any headway. Most small institutions had made little progress. Networks for
developing digital standards needed to be placed on a more reliable and
professionally-managed footing. Inter-sectoral collaboration had been thwarted
because collecting institutions were, of necessity, inward looking.
Collaboration between the cultural and creative industry sectors had not yet
been developed.
Frameworks for future activities, the report suggested, could include
the development of more effective channels to markets. Stronger linkages
between the cultural sector and the creative industries required a long term
approach through the establishment of clusters. Pre-conditions for
collaboration involved the development of an ability to service demand as well
as a critical mass of digital materials.
Considerable groundwork was needed to enable cultural institutions to
accelerate their digitisation programs and to lay the foundations for a common
understanding with future partners. Earmarked funding was recommended for
digitisation infrastructure, training in project planning, priority
conversions, and development of quality metadata. Standards services were
proposed to provide clear leadership and guidance. Funding could be allocated
for cataloguing and repository software, management of licences and technical
support suiting the needs of diverse Australian institutions. A national PURL
resolver service, available to all sectors, was needed to enable resources to
be found at their Permanent Universal Resource Locator addresses. The
development of pilot projects could assist in overcoming impediments.
Amplifying its recommendations for encouraging linkages between collecting
institutions and the creative industries, the report proposed the involvement
of a national organisation in a coordinating and promotional role and
the development of regional and functional clusters as soon as the
pre-conditions for clustering had been satisfied. Programs could focus on the
high-payback areas of music, animation and video. Opportunities in the
education sector should be explored.
In
2006, the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
released Unlocking the Potential: Digital Content Industry Action Agenda
by the Strategic Industry Leaders Group, updating earlier reports. This
proposed the goal of developing a sustainable and internationally competitive
digital content industry which doubles in value to $42 billion by 2015.
The
composition of the 15-member group reflected the relative importance of the
collections sector in the scheme of things. Although the group consulted a
handful of national collecting institutions, the sector did not have a seat at
the table. The marketing and supply of the holdings of museums, galleries and
libraries in digital form were acknowledged as issues, but the tables of
statistics put things into perspective. Ten per cent of the
cultural and recreational sector was then engaged in the digital
content business and it made a 14 per cent contribution to the sale of digital
content goods and services. To overcome fragmentation and other strategic
needs, the report proposed investments in facilitated relationships,
regulatory frameworks, export capabilities, skills and training, and research
and development that fostered innovation and progressed issues such as
intellectual property, statistics and standards.
Under Rudd
After taking office in 2007, the Rudd Government transferred the main
responsibilities of DCITA to the new Department of Broadband, Communications
and the Digital Economy (DBCDE, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/) and the
Department of Heritage, Environment, Water and the (DEWHA, http://www.environment.gov.au/).
DBCDE has the goal of encouraging “a world-class Australian communications and
information technology sector [that] will build on the creativity of our
people and the opportunities provided by new technologies to enrich the
economic and social wellbeing of all Australians.” To develop the digital
economy, the government has committed $4.7 billion towards the National
Broadband Network and $1 billion towards a “digital education revolution”.
To
crystallise its approach, the government has used old forms of consultation
under new guises and released a number of policy statements and reports.
In
April, the Australia 2020 summit (http://www.australia2020.gov.au)
included discussions with 1000 Australians and collated more than 1000
additional submissions. A background paper drew attention to the impact of
technology and flagged issues for attention. The Prime Minister released a
405-page report with about 20 top ideas in May 2008, and promised a considered
response to all suggestions by the end of the year. As far as the collections
sector is concerned, the great opportunity for government assistance could
flow from a quickly formed and readily accepted suggestion that, “funds be
provided to digitise the collections of major national institutions by 2020”.
In
search of an up-to-date digital economy agenda, DBCDE organised public
consultations. In December, a short-lived digital economy blog was launched as
an experiment in community consultation to supplement other policy development
processes. A future directions paper is being prepared that will address new
business models, the role of stakeholders, social and economic challenges, how
to build skills and capabilities, and how to deliver productivity and social
benefits.
Reaction to a digital economy forum in September, predictably, has been mixed.
The Australian Computer Society’s Kumar Parakala said clarifying the purpose
of broadband should be a national priority.
“Whilst the lodgement of tenders is an important milestone, we are
mindful that broadband is a facilitator, not an end in itself.” The society
also wants better coordination of government programs. “Currently we have a
disconnected series of government reviews, programs and activities around
technology spread across a number of portfolios. These initiatives need to be
brought together under a centralised digital economy strategy with defined and
coordinated outcomes”.[iii]
Stilgherrian feared consultations will simply lead to favourable treatment for
“blokes in suits jostling for room at the trough of government largesse”
rather than small businesses, which represent 93 per cent of the Australian
business sector.[iv]
In
October, Sir Peter Gershon’s Review of the Australian Government's Use of
Information and Communication Technology pinpointed weak governance of
pan-government issues related to ICT.
[v] Business-as-usual funding in agencies is not subject to
sufficient challenge and scrutiny. There is a disconnect between the stated
importance of ICT and related action on skill development. The absence of a
whole-of-government strategic plan will lead to ad hoc investments that will
cost significantly more than a coordinated approach.
At
the beginning of 2008, the Cultural Ministers Council (http://www.cmc.gov.au),
released the Creative Innovation Economy Roundtable Report, proposing
five areas for government support, all echoing past suggestions. Priorities
should revolve around increased access to digital infrastructures – especially
broadband, simpler copyright provisions, partnerships between the creative and
education sectors, and targeted funding likely to increase the commercial
potential of creative enterprises and organisations. The report also proposed
funding to encourage community participation and user-created content as well
as business cluster programs involving partnerships with ICT businesses,
broadcasters and others.
In
December, the Online and Communications Council (http://www.occ.gov.au),
coordinating IT policy in federal, state and local governments, announced the
formation of a new Digital Economy Group with responsibility for the digital
economy and ICT capabilities, capacity and skills.
COLLECTIONS
SECTOR DIRECTION
The Collections Council of Australia and an Australian framework
The
Cultural Ministers Council established the Collections Council of Australia (CCA)
in 2004 to address issues facing the collections sector. With a budget of
about $600,000, a staff of four and project consultants, it has pursued a
number of worthwhile initiatives – a proposal for collection hubs in regional
Australia, projects on topics such as conservation, significance assessments
and collections law, and submissions to government enquiries on cultural
statistics, research and innovation. Perhaps its most important work has been
on an Australian Framework for Digital Heritage Collections which began at a
summit in August 2006 when the four domains gave perspectives on their use of
technology.[vi]
Warwick Cathro, of the National
Library of Australia and representing libraries, said there had been
significant progress in developing new service models, supported by a
collaborative ethos. Libraries had worked with archives, museums, galleries
and universities to develop standards, preservation policies and services.
Improved access to collections had been achieved without additional funding
from governments. A national information policy and appropriate funding for
digital activities, he said, was vital for collecting institutions to fulfil
their mandates.
Tony
Caravella, of the Council of Australasian Archives and Records Authorities and
representing archives, said the loss of information due to IT obsolescence and
poor practices, the volume of digital collections, sustainable preservation
solutions, adequate resourcing, and organisational re-engineering were among
issues to be considered.
Tim
Hart, of Museum Victoria, said that museum systems and standards vary
considerably. The two broad types of museums – natural science collections or
material culture collections – use completely different data management
approaches. Differences are accentuated by subject specialisations, history,
geography, institutional commitments, government policy and, to some extent,
personalities. Although new museum systems had led to more common ground for
the larger institutions, the flexibility of systems had reinforced the lack of
standardisation. The major institutions all operate sophisticated collection
management systems. Regional and specialist museums tend to use a number of
elementary applications. Online collaboration is reflected in the work of the
Collections Australia Network (http://www.collectionsaustralia.net),
OZCAM (http://www.ozcam.gov.au) and PictureAustralia (http://www.pictureaustralia.org).
José
Robertson, of the National Gallery of Australia, gave a picture of the gallery
domain where much had been achieved during the last 10 years despite the lack
of formal planning. Factors affecting digitisation priorities had included the
director’s view, exhibition-related drivers, conservation-related concerns,
the availability of targeted funding, the influence of particular
stakeholders, and technical considerations.
The
Collections Council’s draft report, Australian Framework and Action Plan
for Digital Heritage Collections, proposing a number of reference and
working groups, was published for comment in 2007. Responses were supportive
of the general direction, but a number of concerns were expressed. The overall
purpose and language of the report needed reworking. The limiting nature of
the term cultural heritage and the number, roles and modus operandi of
the working groups were questioned. The timelines were criticised as being too
ambitious. It was important to integrate proposed action with initiatives
already underway. Its final, less certain report, Digital Collections
Summit 2006, was published in August 2008.
The
council will continue to develop the framework by convening working and
reference groups. Simultaneously, it will undertake an advocacy campaign to
make the case for a coordinated national framework along with policy and
resource commitments.
What’s it all about?
The
Digital Collections Summit report presents priorities for further
collaboration under nine broad needs – capturing and preserving digital
material, ensuring sustainable funding for digital collections, engaging users
interactively, co-ordination and co-operation between the domains focusing on
interoperability, building skills and capacity, realising opportunities in the
education sector, addressing the disconnect between Federal and State
government policies, and achieving agreement on standards, language, shared
protocols, tools and templates across and within the domains. It not only
builds on the recommendations of past government reports, it echoes navigation
points in the strategies of Europe, Canada, and New Zealand.[vii]
The
need for urgent coordinated action is reinforced by the data explosion.
According to John F Gantz and others, the digital realm is already bigger than
the number of stars.
[viii]
There are about 45 gigabytes of digital information for
every person on the planet. By 2011, the digital universe will consist of 1800
exabytes and it will continue to grow by a factor of 10 every five years. The
growth of accessible information outside collecting institutions has led to an
international Digital Lives Project (http://www.bl.uk/digital-lives) to
review the territory.
Two
reports by the US Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS, http://www.imls.gov)
provide some evidence of the state of play in the collections sector. Its
Use of Technology and Digitisation in the United States (2006), no doubt
mirroring the situation in Australia, reported dramatic progress in use of
technology and digitisation activities since 2001. Large libraries have led
the way. Small museums and public libraries still lag behind. Many technology
and digitisation activities, it said, had not been supported by plans and
policies. While some collaborative digitisation efforts were underway, they
were not yet widespread. Only a small proportion of museums and libraries
assess user and visitor needs when digitising collections and services.[ix]
In its report on the impact of the internet on museums and libraries, IMLS
made the case that the internet is not replacing visits to libraries and
museums and may be increasing visits.[x]
The
Digital Collections Summit report called for additional government
funds. Progress had been thwarted, it said, by the use of project-based
non-recurrent funding, the need to simultaneously respond to user demand, the
burden of responding to technological advances and the limited capacity of
small organisations. Neil Beagrie is among many who have highlighted the fact
that digital preservation is poorly funded in relation to the scale of the
challenge.[xi]
A Digital Futures International Forum, organised by the National Archives of
Australia in 2007, noted that “although there had been substantial investment
in this area in the United States and Europe and some investment in
Australasia, the uneven and often inadequate levels of investment are
impairing not only access to this digital content, but its very survival”.[xii]
Brian F Lavoie has called for a more sensible macro approach, involving the
right sort of investment.[xiii]
“We have not yet established a systematic mapping between general economic
models of resource provision and particular digital preservation contexts.”
There needs to be a transition from “lakes of funding” to “rivers of funding”,
from a reliance on project-based, one-time grants to the establishment of
self-sustaining flows of resources. Another challenge, he said, is to organise
limited institutional resources as community-wide initiatives.
The
Collections Council has called for the creation of a future fund for the
collections sector. It says the sorts of transformations it is advocating need
a major shift of emphasis and additional funds to meet the expectations of
21st century users.
On
the other hand, the Getty Museum’s Kenneth Hamma, in an interview with David
Green, suggests that attitudes may be more important than money.[xiv]
Talking about museum digitisation he said, “it is really a question of
attitude in institutions and a willingness to see opportunities. Almost never
believe, ‘we haven't got the money to do it’. In scholarly communication there
are millions of dollars going into print publications that have a print run of
several hundred, for heaven's sake. You just need to take money out of that
system and put it into a much more efficient online publication or collection
access system”.
What’s the main thing?
Kenneth Hamma is among leading executives who have drawn attention to the
central importance of metadata.
[xv]
“Convergence happens at the network level. Metadata is the
largest issue to be addressed, but there are levels of complexity within the
metadata debate”.
The
point was underlined by Michael Middleton and Julie M Lee in their report
investigating the practices and opinions of Australian institutions.
Improvements in access will depend upon improved retrieval capabilities in
repository software and rationalisation of descriptive metadata. Collaboration
through federated search mechanisms may be further pursued by
inter-institutional development of educational products. Although seeding of
external social networks with information about repositories is a useful
exercise, it is unlikely to be sustainable while the process is carried out on
an ad hoc basis. A flexible approach to management of digital content is
desirable under the umbrella of wider sector strategy, which responds to the
rapid environmental changes.[xvi]
Nancy McGovern reckons that standards in archives, libraries, museums and
other cultural heritage institutions “are moving towards more comprehensive
codification of accepted practice, the promulgation of standards and practice
through community channels, and the means to develop and maintain policies and
procedures”.[xvii]
But Mary Elings and Günter Waibel get to the nub of the matter: “While data
structures can be mapped with relative ease, data content variance still
effectively prohibits economic plug-and-play aggregation of collections”.[xviii]
Metadata development is an international game requiring local adoption and
adaptation. There’s a difference between metadata that needs to be tightly
controlled and metadata that doesn’t need to be controlled.
The
library sector has placed great expectations on Resource Description and
Access (http://www.rdaonline.org), the next iteration of the
Anglo American Cataloguing Rules, in facilitating data re-use and
interoperability with standards used by other domains. RDA draws on the
information engineering concepts of data entities, attributes and
relationships, moves library metadata in flat files to relational structures
and offers new rules for describing material types. The final version of the
standard will be published in 2009 for implementation in 2010. Deirdre
Kiorgaard, chair of the Joint Steering Committee for the development of RDA,
says that despite incentives for the collections sector to make more effective
use of the Internet, creating common ground has not been easy. “Standards”,
she said, quoting Murtha Baca, “are like toothbrushes; everyone thinks they
are a good thing, but nobody wants to use anyone else’s”.[xix]
A
number of Australian projects act as beacons for practical resolution of
metadata issues. MusicAustralia (http://www.musicaustralia.org)
harvests MARC and non-MARC records which are linked to name authorities.
Massaging the non-MARC records still requires intensive hand crafting. The
name authority database has had only a marginal impact on the dirty data
problem. The National Library of Australia’s leadership on People Australia,
Federated Open Search, Single Business Discovery and other projects carry
great promise (see http://wiki.nla.gov.au).
Where to from here?
Creating the mechanisms for better data to support sector decisions and
advocacy is one of the top priorities.
As
John Houghton observed in 2001 about the library domain, “all too often
judgements are made, rather than decisions, because of the absence of data”.
[xx]
Vivienne Waller and Ian McShane say the rhetoric needs critical evaluation.
The development of the digital economy defies standard economic analysis. More
research is needed to prove public benefits, re-evaluate institutional goals
and guide operational effectiveness.
[xxi]
In
proposing four broad components for cultural and creative industry metrics,
Innovation and Business Skills Australia highlighted barriers to measurement
because of the nature of cultural and creative industries. The contribution of
volunteers, its says, tends to overlooked in official data sets and industry
performance data.[xxii]
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, http://www.abs.gov.au), in
its Arts and Cultural Information Development Plan, published in 2008,
advances some of the issues raised in the 2003 government study, when
describing data gaps and future requirements. The ABS suite of statistics for
Australia’s knowledge-based economy and society, designed to avoid
over-simplification and misleading representation, hints at a possible
approach. Specialised reports offer further detail.[xxiii]
Advocacy has tended to focus on getting more money from governments at a time
when more money is less likely to materialise. Kenneth Hamma, however, in his
interview with David Green, has drawn attention to the need for advocacy
within the sector to change traditional approaches. “It would really be
helpful if there were, for example, a museum association in [the
US]…thoughtfully bringing [metadata] issues to the attention of the museum
community, but [that] hasn't been true for the last twenty years”.[xxiv]
The
need to get together has produced notable efforts as the collections sector
searches for additional funds for action on a grand scale. The CCA report
notes that, although there was a desire to avoid duplication of effort and
share expertise within and across collecting domains, mechanisms need to be
created to capitalise on the spirit. Kenneth Soehner has observed that
consortial arrangements relating to digital projects have been additive rather
then transformational.[xxv]
Robert L Dilenschneider warns that, while libraries and museums must be true
to their mission, they must reinvent themselves at the same time.[xxvi]
The
experience of the National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation
Project is instructive about the nature of the challenge. Established in 2000,
with government funding of around A$145 million from the US Congress, it has
moved through three phases for seeding the network, identifying common tools
and services, and building a network of partners with functional roles as
content custodians, developers and dissemination experts, service providers
and capacity builders. Phase 4, from 2010-to 2015, will be devoted to
formalising the network. It has been a slow and measured process, suggesting
that solutions cannot be forced.
Abby
Smith, in a mid-term report, highlighted degrees of difficulty when she said
the experience had demonstrated that “simple operations can be hard” and
“complex negotiations among partners even harder”.[xxvii]
Martha Anderson has reinforced earlier observations. Relationship between
public and private enterprises are not always interoperable. Even within the
same domain, there are barriers to collaboration. Although partners share a
common interest, their work in diverse communities is not necessarily
conducive to thinking and working as a larger network. Interoperability
challenges become greater as user communities broaden their interest. Metadata
in standardised formats very often represent an institutional context that is
not easily transferable to a larger context. At the moment, the greatest
common ground for preservation processes, tools and standards lies at the bit
level. Long term preservation is data-centric not system-centric. A single
tool may not provide complete coverage and extraction of useful information.[xxviii]
Governments have created intermediaries as agents for change. Their power to
influence others depends on the money they are given. The money they allocate
to their own operations and the money they pass on to others will be the
subject of ongoing debate. In the United State the $390 million Institute of
Museum and Libraries dispenses funds in targeted areas. In the UK, the Museum
Library and Archives Council (http://www.mla.gov.uk), with a budget of
$108 million in 2006/2007, has recently been through a major re-structuring to
emerge, with reduced operational costs, in the words of its chairman Andrew
Motion, “leaner, fitter and more agile.” The new MLA he said, will focus on
promoting best practice and excellence, targeting energies where they can be
of greatest benefit to our sector.
In
Australia, major institutions, particularly those with track records in
forging interoperability, may be the primary mechanisms for transforming the
sector with funds targeting particular areas. An organisation like the
Strategic Content Alliance may be needed to drive things through.[xxix]
In a dicey funding climate, while libraries,
archives, museums and galleries wait for Prince Charming to turn up to the
barn dance, they may be better off doing a quick step with those already at
the dance.
End notes
[i]
Australian government
reports on the information economy and use of technology,
(most
are available from the Department of Broadband, Communications and
the Digital Economy,
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/
[ii] Australian government
reports relating to cultural heritage and creative industries include
Creative Industries Cluster Study (2002); From Cottages to
Corporations: Building a Global Industry from Australian Creativity:
Report on Access to Overseas Markets for Australia’s Creative Digital
Industry (2003); The Measurement of Creative Digital Content: a
Study to Assess User Requirements for Creative Digital Content Statistics
and a Possible Collection Strategy to Address Them (2003); Research
and Innovation Systems in the Production of Digital Content and
Applications (2003); The Role of Government Agencies as Market
Place Participants in Digital Content Markets (2003); Economic
Benefits from Cultural Assets: the Digitisation Programs and Standards of
Collecting Institutions and the Scope for Collaboration with the Creative
Industries: Final Report (2003); Unlocking the Potential: Digital
Content Industry Action Agenda (2005); Creative Innovation Economy
Roundtable Report (2008).
[iii] Corner, Stuart.
Putting the NBN Cart Before the Digital Economy Horse (ITWire, 1
December 2008) http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22001/1095/
[iv] Stilgherrian. The
Digital Economy: Just For Big Business? (Crikey, 10 September 2008
http://stilgherrian.com/politics/the-digital-economy-just-for-big-business/
[v]
Gershon, Sir Peter. Review of the Australian Government'’s Use of
Information and Communication Technology. Canberra: Australian
Government Information Management Office, Department of Finance and
Deregulation, 2008.
[vi] Collections Council of
Australia papers
on an Australian framework for digital heritage collections are
available at http://www.collectionsaustralia.com.au
[vii]
New Zealand’s Digital Strategy:
Creating Our Digital Future (http://www.digitalstrategy.govt.nz);
Canadian Digital Information Strategy 2007 available at Library and
Archives Canada (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/); European Union
Dynamic Action Plan for the EU Co-ordination of Digitisation of Cultural
and Scientific Content (http://www.minervaeurope.org/publications/dap.htm)
[viii]
Gantz, John F, Christopher Chute, Alex Manfrediz, and others. The
Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe: An Updated Forecast of Worldwide
Information Growth through 2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/
2264647/The-Diverse-and-Exploding-Digital-Universe-EMC-IDC
[ix] Institute of Museum and
Library Service. Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation's
Museums and Libraries, January 2006. http://www.imls.gov
[x] Institute of Museum and
Library Services. Study on the Internet’s Impact on Museums and
Libraries, 2008. To view the report: http://interconnectionsreport.org
[xi] Beagrie, Neil.
National Digital Preservation Initiatives: An Overview of Developments in
Australia, France, the Netherlands,and the United Kingdom and of Related
Activities, 2003), http://www.clir.org/
[xii] National Archives of
Australia. Digital Futures International Forum http://www.naa.gov.au/dfif.html
[xiii]
Lavoie, Brian F Lavoie. Fifth Blackbird: Some Thoughts on Economically
Sustainable Digital Preservation. (Dlib Magazine March/April 2008,
http://www.dlib.org/)
[xiv]
Green, David. Interview with Kenneth Hamma in Museums, Cataloging &
Content Infrastructure. Academic Commons December 2007 http://www.academic
commons.org
[xv]
Sloper, Austin. Comments on discussions at the ALA conference 2007 and
American Association of Museums’ 2006 conference in Museum Matters vol 17,
no 1 May 2008
[xvi] Middleton, Michael and
Lee Julie M. Cultural Institutions and Web 2.0, November 2007.
Available from Smart Internet Technology CRC, http://www.smartinternet.com.au
[xvii] McGovern, Nancy. A
Digital Decade: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going in Digital
Preservation? (RLG DigiNews Vol 11, no 1, April 15, 2007), http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=21033#article3
[xviii] Elings, Mary and
Waibel, Günter. Metadata for All: Descriptive Standards and Metadata
Sharing across Libraries, Archives, and Museums (First Monday, vol 12
no 3, March 2007)
[xix] Bentley, Paul. Notes
from Australian Committee on Cataloguing Seminar on Resource Description
and Access, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, 24 October 2008.
[xx] Houghton, John.
Economics of Scholarly Communication: a Discussion Paper prepared for The
Coalition of Innovation in Scholarly Communication. Melbourne: Centre
for Strategic Economic Studies: 2001
[xxi] Waller, Vivienne and
McShane, Ian. Analysing the Challenges for Large Public Libraries in
the Twenty-First Century: a Case Study of the State Library of Victoria in
Australia. First Monday, vol 13, no 12, 1 December 2008) (http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2155/2060)
[xxii] Innovation and
Business Skills Australia. Cultural and Creative Industries: Key
Economic Metrics: Census data update 2006, January 2008. http://www.ibsa.org.au/downloads/cultural_pathfinders.pdf
[xxiii] Additional material
includes MLA’s paper Developing Performance Indicators for Local
Authority Museums, Libraries and Archives (2005) and the National
Information Standards Organisation’s Information Services and Use:
Metrics and Statistics for Libraries and Information Providers: Data
Dictionary.
[xxiv] Green, David.
Interview with Kenneth Hamma in Museums, Cataloging and Infrastructure
issue, Academic Commons, December 2007 http://www.academiccommons.org
[xxv] Soehner, Kenneth in
RLG News Fall 2005 discussing issued raised at the New York forum
Libraries, Archives and Museums: Three-ring Circus, or One Big Show?
http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20521
[xxvi] Comments by Robert L
Delinschneider were delivered at the inaugural Institute of Museum and
Library Service’s Leadership Lecture. http://www.imls.gov
[xxvii] Smith, Abby.
Distributed Preservation in a National Context: NDIIPP at Mid-point
(D-Lib June 2006). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/smith/06smith.html
[xxviii] Anderson, Martha.
Evolving a Network of Networks: the Experience of Partnership in the
National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
(International Journal of Digital Curation vol 3 no 1 2008)
[xxix] Strategic Content
Alliance
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/eresources/contentalliance
Non-commercial viewing, copying, printing
and/or distribution or reproduction of this article or any copy or
material portion of the article is permitted on condition that any copy of
material portion thereof must contain copyright notice referring
"Copyright ©2009 Lawbook Co t/a Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited." Any
commercial use of the article or any copy or material portion of the
article is strictly prohibited. For commercial use, permission can be
obtained from Lawbook Co, Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited, PO Box 3502,
Rozelle NSW 2039, www.thomson.com.au
