Hi all,
First of all, I hope that you’re all doing well! I think many of you, like librarians of digital resources, have quite some work these days;) I hope you can manage it, as most of you are working from home in a locked down country.
As you all understand, the LIBER 2020 conference in Belgrade in June is canceled. We were scheduled to have a presentation there.
Anyway, work goes on. We have published our Guidelines and Recommendations document for public comments. @all: please share the messagehttps://libereurope.eu/blog/2020/03/02/fim4l-recommendations/
Two weeks ago I gave a presentationhttps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0AGLhezd40hjwUk9PVA for librarians of the United Nations.
Last week I got an interesting remark from Ralph Youngen (ACS, SeamlessAccess) on a question from Jiri. He said: “... The Pseudonymous entity category will be essential to avoid suspending access to an entire institution in the case of compromised credentials.”
Basically, we have two recommendations for libraries to choose from: Principle 4.A (transient identifier) and 4.B (persistent/pseudonymous identifier).
If publishers block an entire institution in case of misconduct when a library has chosen for 4.A, how should libraries respond? Should we recommend a pseudonymous identifier? Or is there a way to urge publishers not to block an institution? What are your thoughts on that?
(You may put your comments here: https://www.discuto.io/en/consultation/33970 )
Take care and all the best, Jos