Wednesday, November 30, 2005
We can learn a bit from looking at the books that Google has digitized. And what we learn is that their quality isn't all good. If you search through the materials, you'll find items were the images are very crisp and clear, and others that are blurry and (perhaps) sloppily done.
For example, if you flip through this book (from 1908 and in the public domain), you'll see a fingernail, book clamps, obscured pages, pages missing (p. 61), and pages that are crocked. And nearly every page is hard to read. Is this an anomaly? No. Look at this book (from 1916 and in the public domain) and you'll see brown pages (p. 22). What's up with that?!
Without signing in, you can only see a few pages of the newer books. Even without signing in, one quickly senses that the pages are clearer and much easier to read. (Look at this example from 2004.) Is Google doing something different with these so that they are scanned better?
BTW Google will display only snippets of a book where it has not received permission to digitize and display more pages from the book. Here's an example of that. Useless, right?!
Of course, Google would say that they want you to find the books online and not read the books online. To read the full-text, it is hoped that you'll purchase a copy of the book. Fine. But can I purchase a copy of a book published in 1908? Likely I would have to get a copy from my library through interlibrary loan (ILL), if it is available. Even if I have to get a book through ILL, Google has done its job because it has made me aware of a book that I might not have known about otherwise.
So can we overlook the errors and problems because Google is helping us find books? Part of me says "yes", but then I remember that we don't want be digitizing old books more than once. We want to do it correctly the first time. If these books have to be digitized again to improve the quality of the images, then time and money has been wasted. In addition, the books will have to be handled once more, which I hope is not once to many.
Google need to do better. The company is leading us down an important path. It need to do so the right way.
Finally, I found that if you page through a public domain book too quickly, Google senses that and feels that you may be a robot or virus, and thus stops you. You must then type in a code to continue. (This also occurs if you look at a book more than once.)
Technorati Tag: Google
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
It looks like James River Systems will sell equipment on consignment, too, and even make introductions (for a price) between a purchaser and someone who has equipment to sell. And besides giving equipment a second lease on life and providing equipment to a projectt that couldn't afford new equipment, they are helping to keep equipment out of landfills. An interesting business...
- Is Dublin Core being supported by common tools? Think not of OPACs and digitization programs, but more common web tools.
- How well is Dublin Core being adopted outside of the library/information community?
- Are tools such as RSS using Dublin Core?
[Actually the image has been selected as the one millionth. The photograph depicts Washington Senators baseball player Herman A. "Germany" Schaefer using a camera during a visit to play the New York Highlanders in April 1911.]
Monday, November 28, 2005
Report: A Textured Sculpture: The Information Needs of End-Users of Digitised Collections of New Zealand Cultural Heritage Resources
According to the NZ web site:
In 2004-05 the National Library continued to support research into library and information studies through commissioning the School of Information Management at Victoria University of Wellington to investigate the needs of end users of digitised cultural heritage collections. The report is presented here in its final version.The full report and an eight-page summary are available. Included in the full report are the survey questions used with the end-users.
Results from the surveys and interviews indicate that digital access is indispensable to cultural heritage research. However, participants also identified a number of barriers to digital access, some that are more generic, and others that are more relevant to scholarly historical research. The importance of New Zealand primary documents for cultural heritage research is repeatedly mentioned by participants, with particular emphasis on image sources (i.e. maps, photographs), newspapers, and all Māori cultural materials.
Friday, November 25, 2005
"Qualified Dublin Core"Â employs additional qualifiers to further refine the meaning of a resource. One use for such qualifiers are to indicate if a metadata value is a compound or structured value, rather than just a string.
Qualifiers allow applications to increase the specificity or precision of the metadata. They may also introduce complexity that could impair the metadata's compatibility with other Dublin Core software applications. With this in mind, designers should only select from the set of approved Dublin Core qualifiers that were developed by the Dublin Core community process.
Unfortunately, qualifiers often introduce additional complexity that can make metadata less interoperable unless approved DC Qualifiers developed within the DCMI are used with such interoperability considerations in mind.
The other version of Dublin Core is referred to as Simple Dublin Core or sometimes Unqualifed or Basic Dublin Core. If you are not familiar with Simple and Qualified Dublin Core, go to the web site and read more about it, and then talk to your colleagues about the pros and cons. Hopefully the benefits of using Qualified Dublin Core will outweigh any negatives.
Technorati Tag: metadata
You can contrast that with full preservation. FCLA says:
Full preservation includes bit-level preservation of the originally submitted files, as well as services intended to ensure that the information content of the files will remain usable into the indefinite future. These services vary according to the file type but may include the creation of normalized forms of the file and/or the reformatting of obsolete formats to reasonably comparable successor formats. It is not guaranteed, however, that normalized or migrated versions of any file will be identical in functionality or in look and feel to the original file. Note also that if a logical object is comprised of individual files in both supported and unsupported formats, there is no guarantee that the logical object will remain usable as intended.The assumption is, of course, that you have defined what file types you want to do full preservation on and why, and that those decisions match your organization's needs.
At any rate, these are both good definitions to keep handy. A Google search doesn't show bit-level preservation to be use widely at the moment, but I'm sure it will be.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
BTW vendors would then follow-up their appear at National Online with appearance at other conferences like those held by SLA and ALA. The last conference of the session was -- at that time -- the Online conference in London, UK (which is still a big deal conference). [Marydee Ojala in her blog today notes three vendors who will be making announcements at Online Information this year.]
As the industry grew more diverse and more conferences appeared on the scene, National Online became less important and it no longer exists. The industry changes also brought about a change to when new products are introduced. It may still be true that a vendor will try to time the formal release of a new product with a major conference, and probably a conference where the audience is hoped to be appreciative of its new product. But new products are also released at other times during the year, with whatever fanfare that can be mustered.
Here's the question for the day: Where should digitization-related vendors announce their new products in order to get maximum exposure and generate good word-of-mouth advertising? Is a traditional information industry conference the right place? What about the conference hosted by AIIM? (I've been told that the AIIM conference attracts vendors and not necessarily a lot of end users, even though it sounds like a conference we would be interested in given that AIIM members deal with information and image management.) Is there a digitization-related event that would be more appropriate?
If you're stumped, then join the club! I don't think there is a good place (conference) for these vendors to announce new products. Any conference will have some of their ideal customers there, but there is no one conference to give them the best launch. That's too bad, because that's the conference I'd like to go to!
Kay Schlumpf -- who is involved with the Digital Past at the North Suburban Library System based in Wheeling, Illinois -- wrote a comment and said that their project:
...is trying to find ways to get more small cultural institutions involved in digitization efforts. We have several instances where local public libraries have formed partnerships with small historical societies to get their items online. We have another library that brought together a group of 4 smaller local museums to digitize some of their materials as well.Wow! These efforts are wonderful to hear. Anyone else have a success story about working with smaller institutions to get them involved in digitization?
We even offer a digitization lab with hands on help and training free to participants. There is a very small fee to participate but most times the library or a donor will step in to cover that cost.
Currently we are focused in northern Illinois, but are willing to form partnerships with others.
The State Library of North Carolina is pleased to announce:
Digital Preservation in State Government: Best Practices Exchange 2006
When: March 27th - 28th, 2006
Where: Wilmington, North Carolina at the Hilton Wilmington Riverside
Registration Fee: $150
Registration Opens: December 5, 2005
Registration Deadline: February 23, 2005
Come join fellow librarians, archivists, records managers, and other information professionals as they share their experiences in managing and preserving digital state government information for public access. Bring examples of your successes, failures, and lessons learned to share with colleagues in facilitated exchange sessions. You will most certainly provide and take away something of value from this experience.
The Best Practices Exchange consists of two facilitated large group sessions (an opening forum and a closing wrap-up), six small group topic-based exchange sessions, and an evening reception.
Exchange Session Topics include:
- Repository Systems
- Identification, Selection and Appraisal of Digital Assets
- Collection of Digital Assets
- Authentication of Digital Assets
- Resources/Workflows for Managing Digital Assets
- Access to Archived Digital Assets
- Preservation of Digital Assets
- Organization (Central versus Federated)
For more information on the Best Practices Exchange, visit:
or, contact Christy Allen at:
Christy E. Allen
Digital State Documents Librarian
Documents Branch, State Library of North Carolina
4643 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4643
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Librarian of Congress James H. Billington and Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin announced today that Google is the first private-sector company to contribute to the Library's initiative to develop a plan to begin building a World Digital Library (WDL) for use by other libraries around the globe. The effort would be supported by funds from nonexclusive, public and private partnerships, of which Google is the first.
The concept for the WDL came from a speech that Billington delivered to the newly established U.S. National Commission for UNESCO on June 6, 2005, at Georgetown University. The full text is available at www.loc.gov/about/welcome/speeches.
In his speech, Billington proposed that public research institutions and libraries work with private funders to begin digitizing significant primary materials of different cultures from institutions across the globe. Billington said that the World Digital Library would bring together online "rare and unique cultural materials held in U.S. and Western repositories with those of other great cultures such as those that lie beyond Europe and involve more than 1 billion people: Chinese East Asia, Indian South Asia and the worlds of Islam stretching from Indonesia through Central and West Asia to Africa."
Google Inc. has agreed to donate $3 million as the first partner in this public-private initiative.
To lay the groundwork for the WDL, the Library will develop a plan for identifying technology issues related to digitization and organization of WDL collections. These might include presentation, maintenance, standards and metadata schemas that support both access and preservation. The plan will also identify resources, such as equipment, staffing and funding, required to digitize and launch an online presentation of a WDL collection.In their commentary on this, Danny Sullivan and Gary Price note:
Over the past year, Google has digitized about 5,000 public domain books from the Library of Congress, material that may ultimately end up in Google Book Search, though it's not currently listed there yet. Google will continue scanning public domain books from the Library of Congress Law Library. Google said it's too early to tell if any of the scanning work it has already done will end up in the WDL.Now we have several big projects underway. It will be interesting to see how they all fair.
What's the most different area that needs addressing in a digitization program? I think my answer changes depending on the situation. Clearly every hurdle can be overcome if there is money to solve the problem. But sometimes the hurdle is management's attitude. They don't see the importance of beginning such a program. They don't understand the positive impact it will have on the institution and those it serves.
The saddest part of digitization is that more institutions are not doing it. Many institutions, especially those small ones (e.g., small historical societies) with great collections, are being left behind. A divide is occurring and I don't see anyone riding in on a white horse (the proverbial hero) to solve it. The only way to get these institutions involved in digitization is to create collaborative efforts that they can easily be a part of. These smaller institutions don't need to digitize everything, but they do need to make some materials available online so that people know that they exist and know -- by example -- what they own. This would help those institutions stay visible and help drive visitors to them (both online and to their physical buildings).
Technorati Tags: Metadata, Digitization
Monday, November 21, 2005
The searches I have running are in Feedster and Google. They are not perfect, but they do deliver interesting results. And they have helped me find other blogs that I finding interesting and informative.
In case your curious, looking at the counter I have on the blog, I'm getting an average of 82 visits per day from around the world (every continent). That does not include all the people who read this blog through a blog reader. I've gotten messages from some of you. It would be wonderful to meet more of you, especially if there is a topic you would like addresses here.
Addendum, 11/23/2005: Guenter Waibel at RLG wrote to remind me of the PubSub features to check Daily Link Counts and Site Statistics. I had actually just started using it and it is an interesting tool.
Addendum, 11/23/2005, 2:44 p.m.: I should also mention that PubSub has a list of librarian blogs and shows them ranked against each other by something called ListRank. Besides seeing how a blog ranks (or not), you'll likely find a few blogs that you didn't know about and perhaps should investigate.
- Digitization vendors based outside of the U.S. (i.e., India) are reaching out to find potential customers. They use e-mail and phone calls to introduce their services and try to solicit business. Several vendors based in India have contacted me this year (one per month?), but only two U.S. digitization vendors have contacted me without any prompting. None of the digitization-related vendors in my geographic region have ever contacted me. (Yes, I do know who they are and what they do.)
- Many of the vendors who are reaching out are those that are looking for big projects like digitizing corporate files and working papers (e.g., banking records). Sadly, many that I talk to don't realize that the requirements for digitizing materials from a library, archive or museum are likely to be very different.
- Vendors are very picky about where they will exhibit their services (e.g., a conference vendor exhibit hall). Everyone wants to exhibit where the big customers will see them. However, they should also exhibit were smaller customers can also see them. You never know who knows who, and that small customer could lead to something very big. (Consider, for example, that a smaller organization is likely to find a major organization to partner with in order to create a more successful project.)
- Vendors would be wise to learn what an organization thinks about when considering a digitization project, so they understand how their services fit into the entire mix.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
I also occasionally do workshops (usually digitization, BI or computer-skills related) and this year developed one based on my blogging experience. I offered it -- How to Create a Blog for your Business -- in September (very successful, if I do say so myself) and will be offering it again in January 2006.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Learning About Digital Institutional Repositories Seminars programme (LEADIRS) aims to describe and illustrate how to build an online institutional repository.
The LEADIRS series of seminars present specialists from the UK and abroad sharing their expertise and experiences in building institutional repositories. This workbook book supplements the seminar presentations and offers practical advice as well as work sheets you can use to get started with your own repository programme. Where possible, we point you to real-world examples of planning aids or presentations used by university library teams in the UK and around the world.
The information in this book is as complete as possible at the time of writing. Because each institutional repository service will be unique to the institution where it is built, this information is meant to be helpful and to provoke discussion and exploration. It is not meant to be prescriptive. We cannot account for or anticipate the unique challenges and resources of your institution.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
When your web site is down, it is like you don't exist. Your "public" face is gone. No one can find you. Maybe Internet hosting services should develop some affordable mirror site ideas, which would guarantee that a web site is always available no matter what. (BTW thank goodness for cached sites in Google and those archived at the Internet Archive. And why does the Wayback Machine not show any pages archived for this year?)
People have asked why my blog is not part of my web site. The simple truth is that I didn't even think about putting on the same site as my web site, when I set it up. And now I'm happy that my blog is someplace else (Blogger) and available when my site is not.
The prognosis is that my site will be back up tomorrow. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Interestingly, they're also looking for pointers (URLs) to lesson plans and other documents that people have used to teach others about Google. Now it looks like they are not looking for this stuff in order to share it more widely, but rather as a way to learn what works when teaching people how to use Google! I wonder if they'll then use this information to create their own materials and put those trainers (librarians) "out of business" (at least for teaching about Google)?
Technorati Tag: Google
- When you collaborate, you bring in additional resources and skills to compliment those you already have.
- Two or more partners are less likely to let a project fail.
- There are more people to pick up a dropped "ball."
- The additional resources can help to create a better end-product.
- Responsiblities are distributed, so no one group feels overwhelmed.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
BTW I hadn't posted this earlier, because it was "just" an event in NYC, but now that it's going to be webcasted...!
The UK National Archives has released PRONOM 4, the latest version of its web-based technical registry to support long-term digital preservation. Adrian Brown, Head of Digital Preservation, at The National Archives said: ‘PRONOM 4 incorporates a number of significant enhancements, including an automatic file format identification tool.’
- Now holds detailed technical information about individual file formats, including links to the full format specifications where available
- In anticipation of the launch of the PRONOM Unique Identifier scheme, later in 2005, PRONOM 4 now also supports the use of unique identifiers. The scheme will provide persistent unique identifiers for file formats recorded in PRONOM, and has already been adopted as the preferred encoding scheme for describing formats within the e-Government Metadata Standard in the UK
- Introduces DROID (Digital Record Object Identification) the first in a planned series of tools, which use the content of the registry to provide specialized preservation services. DROID is an automatic file format identification tool, which uses byte signatures stored in PRONOM to identify and report the specific file format versions of digital files
Kevin Gell, Managing Director of Tessella, said: “Tessella has built a long-standing relationship with the UK National Archives, which includes the development of all four releases of PRONOM. Projects such as these, and the Electronic Records Archives program for the US National Archives and Records Administration, are demonstrating to the world that the seemingly insurmountable problems of digital preservation are beginning to be solved, and that the benefits of innovative solutions can be shared with the rest of the digital preservation community.”
Adrian Brown continued: “There is an ongoing programme of development for PRONOM, and we very much welcome feedback, including ideas for future enhancements. We are also always interested to hear from anyone who is either using, or would like to use, PRONOM content or services.”
Notes to editors: [edited]
- The UK National Archives hold one of the largest archival collections in the world, spanning 1,000 years of British history. Launched in 2004, the National Archives brings together the Public Records Office and the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and is responsible for the long-term preservation of, and access to, Government records in an authentic and complete state. Increasingly these records are ‘born digital’ files published by government departments. [www.nationalarchives.gov.uk]
- The Digital Archive stores important UK Government records, including public enquiries such as the Hutton Inquiry, the websites of Number 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet office, e-mails, web pages and databases. [www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/preservation/digitalarchive]
- For further information on PRONOM please visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/ www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20571&Printable=1&Article_ID=1717
- For further information on DROID please visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/aboutapps/pronom/droid.htm
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
If you would like more information on the one-act play (perhaps so you can do something similar), contact Debby Emerson at the Rochester Regional Library Council.
Now we know from talking to people at Kirtas and comments posted in this blog that the University of Toronto was using a Kirtas scanner, yet this does not look like a Kirtas scanner. So who's scanners are these? And what happened to the Kirtas scanners? We do know from the article that these scanners cost $20,000 to $40,000 each, which is much less than a Kirtas scanner. Is this one of the scanners that Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive are developing? If anyone has answers, I hope you'll let me know.
BTW here is a good quote from the WSJ article:
Mr. Kahle estimates it costs about 10 cents a page to get a book online, taking into account equipment, labor and the cost of hosting the pages on the Internet Archive's Web servers.
Monday, November 14, 2005
By the way, one of the things that NYS has not done is to create a really good front end to NOVEL (which is why the materials created by RRLC are helpful). The existing front ends assume that you know why you're at that page and what is available to you, yet that "what" is not going to be intuitively obvious for most people. Hopefully the State Library will spend some of its money improving the front end and making NOVEL known by every New Yorker.
Friday, November 11, 2005
One area that will need to be addressed is obtaining copyright permission to digitize some of the materials. Based on the few hours I had with the collection, I've suggested a few items to digitized including some where permission will be needed. However, I tried to selected materials where the copyright holder might easily be persuaded to give permission (or at least that is my hope). I have someone in mind who could do the leg work and contact the copyright holders which will be tedious work. This week I found a two-page article in Information Outlook (Oct. 2005, pp. 42-43) that talks about obtaining copyright permissions ("Enterprise-Wide Copyright Permissions"). The articles provides brief guidelines and an overview of the procedure that I think will be helpful to my client (likely as a refresher for them) and for the others that work on the project. [And a brief article is always easier for people to digest than a long in depth one.]
The article points to a document at Washington State University entitled "Getting Permission: Where and How?" which is a guide on obtaining permissions for various types of materials (e.g., music). Besides this article, the WSU web site has other useful information on copyright, so a good resource to bookmark.
When the client completes this project (assuming they do get funding), I hope they will write an article about it, or place lessons learned on the web site. I think people will be interested to know how it worked to outsource everything and how the resultant project impacted the institution.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
This came to mind to day after receiving an electronic document from someone and seeing that the fonts used were not fonts that my computer recognized. It was easy to rectify, but here someone had made an assumption about what my machine could handle (and what the document would look like) which was not true. This problem can also occur with web sites because of how monitors can vary, screen sizes, differences in browsers, etc.
The solution? Testing, testing, testing. Okay, you know to test a web site on multiple browsers and monitors. And you do test your PowerPoint presentations on different machines (and in different room environments) if time permits. But what about those other files you send around and those formatted/stylized e-mails? During the summer, I sent an e-mail to a a large group of people and I did test it ahead of time by sending it to my many e-mail accounts on different e-mail systems. That allowed me to see how the message might look on the receiving end and led me to make several changes to the e-mail message. (Oddly, I found that the best thing to do was to build the HTML e-mail in FrontPage then copy it into Outlook. That seemed to ensure that the formatting was more correct when people received it.)
Testing, though, is time consuming and it slows us down. We skip testing because we think all will be okay (based on our assumptions), but that is likely when something will go awry. For example, a remember hearing a story about an international non-government organization (NGO) who had created an information product to be used by people around the world. The product was housed on the organization's central computers and people accessed it over the Internet from various parts of the world. Unfortunately, the organization assumed that the access would be as fast and cost effective as it is in the U.S. It wasn't. Testing early on could have lead them in the right direction. Instead, they ended up getting feedback after the product had launched and then devising the product and disseminating it on CDs.
You might say that the product definition phrase should have been done better, but testing finds those things that aren't thought of. Testing during a products development ensures that it meets the users' needs and works within their environments.
Yes, testing does cost us time and money, but it can save time, money, aggravation and reputations in the long run.
If you're in the middle of creating something that people will see on their own computers and in various environments, why not take some time to test it now. Make sure your assumptions are true.
Monday 14th November- Thursday 17th November will see a week of events promoting the use of digital collections in museums, libraries and archives across Europe.The week includes the events to promote MICHAEL, the Multilingual Inventory of Cultural Heritage in Europe. According to the MICHAEL web site:
MICHAEL aims to provide simple and quick access to the digital collections of museums, libraries and archives from different European countries. Work began in June 2004, with the focus on implementing an innovative multi-lingual open source platform that will be equipped with a search engine. By 2007, the MICHAEL platform will be capable of retrieving digital collections that are dispersed across Europe. There will be many uses for MICHAEL, for example students and researchers will be able to discover information about European collections that might previously have been difficult to find. The services will also support cultural tourism, the creative industries and other interests.I think we'll have to learn more about MICHAEL....
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Some people might trust what is in electronic form, yet it is easier to spread lies and inaccuracies electronically. An an error can easily be replicated. Even Microsoft makes errors in the information it delivers (thinking specifically of Microsoft's calendar for Outlook thinking that Election Day was on Nov. 1 instead of correctly on Nov. 8).
The bottom line? How do people know that the information you're presenting to them in your digital library is correct, accurate, authentic...? Do they trust you because of who you are (or your institution)? Must they already know enough in order to know that the information is right? Do they just need to blindly trust the accuracy? Should you include a "stamp" of approval?
Funny that after a week away, this is the topic that came to mind. Maybe its from watch a bunch of TV news programs and wondering if I can trust what they are telling me. Or maybe its from knowing that Microsoft applied the Election Day rule wrong. If they got that wrong, what about all the other information (e.g., holidays) that we trust them on?
On October 28, 2005 CNI co-sponsored a symposium on Strategic Issues in Managing Digital Assets, working in partnership wtih the Association of Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, and the Digital Library Federation.
The text of the keynote address by Don Waters of the Andrew Mellon Foundation, and the presentations by the other speakers and panelists, are now available at
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
And what’s in this for Web users? It seems one thing has become clear. All the major search engines, not to mention the world of Web users, now believe that all information should come onto the Web. Google’s mission statement—”to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—seems to have become the mantra for all major Web suppliers. The race has begun to get it all done.
Issue no. 11 (June - September 2005) of the DPC/PADI "What's New in Digital Preservation" bulletin is now available from the Digital Preservation Coalition Web site and the National Library of Australia's PADI Web site:
National Library of Australia:
Digital Preservation Coalition:
"What's New" is a summary of selected recent activity in the field of digital preservation, compiled by Deb Woodyard-Robinson for the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) and Marian Hanley of the National Library of Australia. Items are compiled from the Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI) Gateway and the digital-preservation and padiforum-l mailing lists, although additional or related items of interest may also be included.
Issue 11 features news on projects funded by the Digital Curation Centre, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (UK), Digital Preservation Coalition, (DPC), Library of Congress, National Archives and Records Administration (US), Long-Lived Data Collections Task Force (US), Center for International Earth Science Information Network, the Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology (Canada) and the National Consultation on Access to Scientific Research Data (Canada).
The bulletin also includes summaries of recent publications on the themes of digital preservation research and directions, digital preservation readiness, digital repositories, web archiving, e-prints, preservation metadata, standards, personal archiving, storage media and digital preservation training. Summaries of other selected recent publications and information on past and forthcoming events are also provided.