From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:44:16 +0000 Hi, Jim – I’m interested in your phrase “what publishers and libraries persist in calling ‘ebooks.’” I get the impression that you’re suggesting “ebooks” is the wrong term for the things to which you’re referring. Am I mistaken – and if not, can you expand on that? --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask] On 12/11/16, 2:37 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:02:15 -0700 Jill O'Neill of NISO has an interesting place from which to observe the various insanities and inanities of the market in what publishers and libraries persist in calling "ebooks" and she has an excellent posting on the Scholarly Kitchen on the theme: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/12/05/monographs-transparency-and-open-access/ Observe that it's not just that "discovery tools" fail in this case (without a lot of hunter-gatherer work on the user's part), but they fail because traditional metadata don't capture quite enough: we don't want merely title, author, keywords/subjects, and similar information, but we also want to know things about conditions of access. If we're lucky, it's as simple as OA/Paywall, but in this case it's something that happens to be OA on a site that has a range of kinds of materials, and the first discovery tool in fact misinformed her about the conditions she would find there -- and it was only stubborn persistence that got to the final revelation. So this is a case where the issues are one part technology of ebook and two parts legal/contractual questions of access to resources. What will make progress happen? Jim O'Donnell ASU