Thursday, May 16, 2013
Konferencija srpske medicinske dijaspore (SDMC) 2013, “Medicina u svetu i kod nas”održaće se od 16 do 18. maja 2013. u Belom Dvoru i Hotelu Metropol Palace, Beograd, pod pokroviteljstvom Nj.K.V. Prestolonaslednika Aleksandra II I Nj.K.V. Princeze Katarine.
Veliki broj lekara iz Dijaspore ima posebnu želju da se obrati studentima i mladim lekarima, i da im pomognu da steknu nova iskustva i saznanja, kao i mogućnosti da se edukuju u inostranstvu. Dodjite i pokušajte da pronadjete svoju životnu šansu!
Pozivamo studente medicine, farmacije, biologije, fizike i hemije da 16. maja dodju na predkonferencijsku sesiju koja se održava u Svečanoj Sali Medicinskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu. Ulaz za studente je slobodan i kotizacija za studente je besplatna uz prethodnu registraciju putem sajta Konferencije. http://www.serbiandiasporamedical.rs/reg_yu.html
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Zbog neobjašnjivog kašnjenja Ministarstava za obrazovanje i
nauku za odvajanje sredstava da se sredstva za naučne časopise ne uplate, gospodin Milan Novakovic je pokrenuo peticiju kojoj su se odazvali svi! Obavešteni cirkularnim pismima, ali i putem društvenih mreža, jedan po jedan istraživač je dodavao svoje ime ovom javnom apelu.
Ishod je sledeći: za samo dan i po sakupili smo 2,595 glasova i juce posle podne novčana sredstva su bila obezbeđena, a Ugovor ya produžetak pretplate na baze Elsevier je bio potpisan. Mnogo hvala svim istraživačima i kolegama koji su dali svoj glas za očuvanje Kobsona.
Pogledajte vest na Kobsonu.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
ScienceOnline je jedinstvena konferencija koja se još od 2007. godine održava svake godine u North Carolina u Chapel Hillu. Osnivač konferencije je Bora Živković, Anton Zuicker i drugi naučnici koji svoju nauku plasiraju u open režimu, onlajn, kreirajuću naučne blogove i mreže naučnih radnika povezujući se u jednu zajednicu.To je način kako da se nauka pusti van papirnih okova.
Ove godine će, pored brojnih svetskih gradova, i Beograd biti deo Scio13 , tako što će direktnim uključivanjem pomoću video linka omogućiti svim posetiocima da prate ScienceOnline2013, s mogućnošću učestvovanja u diskusiji putem twittera. Dakle, otvorite svi svoj twitter nalog , a hashtag ScienceOnline2013 je #scio13. Inicijatori ove konferencije su prijatelji Bore Živkovića-Dr Vera Zdravković, Vedran Vučić, Ana Ivković, dok se oko celokupne organizacije ovog događaja i medijsku kampannju pobrinuo Centar za promociju nauke www.cpn.rs
Konferencija počinje u četvrtak i održaće će se u Galeriji nauke i tehnike SANU u Knez Mihailovoj , ulaz iz ulice Đure Jakšića br.2. Početak u 16 h. a u petak i subotu očekujemo vas u Centru za promociju nauke u Makenzijevoj 24, u 16 h.
Program konferencije obuhvata sledeće teme
- Narativ u nauci i kako ga koriste naučni radnici i naučni pisci
- Kako objaviti naučni rad i kako ga predstaviti javnosti, kako steći čitalačku publiku..
- formalna i neformalna naučna edukacija naučnih radnika
- altmetrika (citiranje na internetu) i prikazivanje rezultata istraživača
- identitet na internetu
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Aaron Swartz Commits Suicide:
The Dark Knight Falls From Aaron’s last blog post: Thus Master Wayne is left without solutions. Out of options, it’s no wonder the series ends with his staged suicide. A year younger to me, and yet, he’s achieved ore than I could imagine achieving in my whole life, and at the untimely age of 26 years, he has gone and ended it. Don’t remember who Aaron Swartz is? He brought out the Guerilla Open Access movement into the open. The Robin Hood of the Open Access revolution, he was a Dark Knight. He downloaded 4.8 million papers off JSTOR servers, and ended up getting indicted for “wire fraud, computer fraud”. First reported by The Tech, MIT, this news has trickled through the interwebs and people like me are still trying to grapple with the implications. He was a bit of a precocious kid, like almost all other geniuses history has seen. At the age of 14, when we are grappling with adolescence and its issues, Aaron wrote the program specifications for RSS 1.0, which has become almost universally adopted. He was one of the earliest co-owners (one of the three, actually) of the online giant Reddit. He was a rebel. He did not sit down and conform and live the life of comfort that his laurels afforded him, he chose to rise and fight the system… not unlike Harvey Dent or the Batman, both of whom get analyzed in his final blog post. The Mashable contended, in keeping with a post on his blog, that he may have been severely depressed, causing this untimely demise. Comments left on the Mashable’s post, however, find severe depression to be a very convenient excuse. While I have no idea of his mental health, it is not difficult to imagine how much pressure the whole fracas, post-JSTOR, and pressing of fraud charges (which could lead to as many as 35 years of imprisonment, which is, frankly, ridiculous) must have put him under. swartz A death is always a saddening event and especially so when it occurs in conditions that are as questionable as they are now. We, as onlookers, are left wondering what went wrong.
Why such a brilliant person chose to take the most drastic way out, solve all temporary problems with one, convincing, permanent and irreversible solution. Which is, in fact, not much of a solution, actually. How this affects the online revolution against the paywalling of knowledge remains to be seen, because Aaron, along with others like Greg Maxwell, created a tidal wave of support for a relatively unknown, but vital movement. It is idle speculation to analyze whether the legal proceedings against him had any role to play in the suicide, one that we may not even be able to solve until more direct evidence comes to light. But what is sure is that it was an unreasonable persecution to threaten him with lifelong imprisonment. There shall be a lot of people who doubt his methods, even I did, to start with, but like the Batman said, those who are within the system, cannot cross lines, cannot break rules. They can hope that the rules can be bent, but not broken, to get their way, but these shenanigans shall always cost them their credibility and standing within the system. So, for us small fish, the Swartzes and Maxwells are the Batman, challenging the big, bad money-minting academic publication giants. I guess I am a little overly affected by the death of someone who I have never even seen in real life, yet, somehow, this strikes me to the core. Here is a person, I looked up to, in my age group, who challenged the conventions, wrote his own rules, and fought the exploitative system, who could have led a long, fruitful and insiprational life, cut short, in the bloom, for reasons unknown… how can I not be affected. All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall, while he chose to break down the walls we fear to challenge… Try as I might, I cannot but help wonder whether the whole business of being labelled a fraud affected him. How did it make him feel? We lauded his efforts, but never stopped to find out how he was dealing with the issue. Was he worried that the world would remember him as a mere, immoral hacker, instead of the crusader of academic justice that he was? Did he doubt that he had acted in haste to bring attention to the problem, and in the process, made a martyr of himself? I never stopped to ponder these, while I droned on and on about how great he was. Did he just want to end it, going out a hero rather than live to see the “courts of justice” brand him into a villain? die a hero Or was he just in agony from demons within his mind that he could no longer battle?
Once again, quoting from his blog: As George Scialabba put it, “acute depression does not feel like falling ill, it feels like being tortured … the pain is not localized; it runs along every nerve, an unconsuming fire. …
Even though one knows better, one cannot believe that it will ever end, or that anyone else has ever felt anything like it.” We shall never know. Probably. But to me, he remains a decent man in an indecent time. He remains the knight we needed, but we did not deserve. He remains a hero, no matter what a court of justice says. Rest in peace, man.
Post was taken from SCEPTICEMIA
Monday, January 14, 2013
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Dok je u osamnaestom veku mocart komponovao simfonije, ni slutio nije dа će mnogo vekova kasnije upravo njegova muzika pomoći doktorima prilikom lakšeg otkrivanja raka develog creva putem kolonoskopije.
Mala studija pod nazivom "The Mozzart Effect and Adenoma Detection" čiji su autori Catherine Noelle O' Shea, DO, and David Wolf, MD, iz Zdravstveno medicinskog centra u Hjustonu (Teksas), pokazala je da je lekar koji je tokom vršenja kolonoskopije slušao Mocartovu muziku, veštiji da otkrije prekancerozne promene, polipe u debelom crevu, od lekara koji je nije slušao tokom dijagnostičkog pregleda. Iako je studija bila mala, učestvovala su samo dva lekara, ali sa visokim brojem izvrešenih kolonoskopija, bar po 1000 pacijenata, a rezultati su bili zanimljivi i nezanemarivi.
Ideja o slušanju muzike tokom procedure tretmana nije nova. Tokom vršenja operacija, mnoge hirurge ponese omiljena melodija. Slušaju se različiti žanrovi- od Bitlsa, Keni Rodžersa...do Keni Vesta.Verujem da muzika ima neurobiološki efekat na telo i ako hirurzima povećava koncentraciju onda sam za muziku. Ostaje nam još samo da se ponadamo da i ostatak osoblja deli isti muzički ukus sa hirurzima.
Ovaj post je preuzet
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Ne morate tražiti po starim prašnjavim policama , nalaze se u arhivama na malo čistijem mestu - na internetu.
Tako je sa časopisima NEOPLASMA i J BUON. Dovoljno nam je samo da ukucamo naslov tog časopisa u Google i archiv, i već će nam se pojaviti sajtovi ovih casopisa. sa svojim arhivama.
Časopis NEOPLASMA ima arhivirane radove u PDF formatu (http://www.neoplasma.sk/archiv/) od 1957 godine do 2002.i veoma je značajna za naučne radnike koji se bave istraživanjima iz oblasti onkologije. Ovaj časopis indeksiran je u Current Contents-Life Sciences i Science Citation Index (SCI) , kao i u Medline/PubMed, bazi apstrakata, sa impakt faktorom 1.449 , za 2010. godinu što je najnoviji IF koji znamo. Kod nas se rangira kao M23 ,
NEOPLASMA je uvela i novinu -mogućnost postavljanja rada u ovaj časopis ali Open Access.
Instrukcije autorima mogu se videti OVDE
Časopis J BUON je nekako "naš", jer je časopis Balkanske unije, u kojem se naši lekari i istraživači kao autori mogu naći u brojnim radovima. Časopis ima svoj vebsajt i arhivu od 2002. godine do 2008. Arhivu možete čitati samo ako posetite vebsajt http://www.bu-on.org/jbuon/index.php i otvorite nalog svojom email adresom i pasvordom, što i nije velika muka.
J BUON je indeksiran u citatnoj bazi Science Citation Index Expanded(SCIe) , kao i u Medline/PubMed, bazi apstrakata, sa impakt faktorom 0.482 za 2010. godinu što je najnoviji IF koji znamo, te je u rangu međunarodnog časopisa kao M23.
Instrukcije autorima potražite OVDE.
Monday, March 5, 2012
je jedna od najreprezentativnijih ustanova na Balkanu, a od nedavno i sa novim izgledom modernizovanog enterijera, kao i savremenom tehnologijom - internet čitaonicom.
28. februara, Narodna biblioteka proslavila je 180 godina postojanja. To je najveći jubilej koji smo do sada proslavljali.
Svečanost je otvorio novi vršilac dužnosti upravnika Narodne biblioteke, gospodin Dejan Ristić predstavljajući biblioteku kao najstariji i najvredniji spomenik kulture.
U prepunom amfiteatru , o istoriji nastanku naše nacionalne biblioteke ispričala nam je književnica gospođa Svetlana Velmar Janković.
Osnovana je 1832. godine, prvo kao biblioteka u sastavu Knjaževsko-tipografijske biblioteke, Biblioteke Popečiteljstva prosveštenija i kao depozit knjiga privatnih biblioteka (Lukijana Mušickog, Josipa Šlezingera), Potom joj se pridružuju biblioteka javnih i državnih nadleštava da bi vremenom izrasla u nacionalnu biblioteku.
Nosilac je mnogih projekata kao i učesnik projekta Europeana...i domaćin i organizator brojnih kulturnih manifestacija, seminara, konferencija.
Učesnici ove svečanosti bila je vokalno-muzička grupa Glas ne žice koja se predstavila svojim atraktivnim izvođenjima i ulepšala slavlje.
je medicinski bibliotekar iz Australije. Tragajući za informacijama o godišnjim dešavanjima u svetu, kao što su - obeležavanje dana/nedelje/ meseca , proslave, konferencije, shvatila je da ne postoji ni jedan jedini sajt koji bi obuhvatio sve datume koji su nosioci biomedicinskih informacija HAPI važnih za organizovanje nacionalnog ili svetskog događaja (Svetski dan borbe protiv raka dojke, Dan borbe protiv duvanskog dima, kongresi, konferencije, i drugo).
Iz tvog razloga kreirala je sajt koji omogućava mnogim istraživačima upoznavanje sa svim dešavanjima u medicini u svetu.
Ovaj projekat - kalendar biomedicinskih informacija je jedinstven , a izrađen uz pomoć kolega - medicinskih biobliotekara iz celog sveta, a iz Srbije je podatke dostavila Ana Ivković, tako da HAPI obuhvata kalendar dešavanja i u Srbiji.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Novak Djoković je u konkurenciji za NAJ sportistu. A kako i ne bi bio? Posle svih podviga na mečevima koje je odigrao, yaslužio je i ovo najveće priznanje.
Information Research - ideas and debate:
The word is "corruption" I think:
An interesting item on how Elsevier and other publishers are trying to kill the USA's PubMed Central appears in a blog from evolutionary biologist Michael Eisen
The story is of a bill introduced by a Democrat congresswoman who just happens to get her campaign money from Elsevier: so, naturally, when the boys come along and say, "Let's have a bill to kill off the means whereby US citizens can access scientific medical knowledge", she's only too happy to oblige. In any truly civilized country such activity would be deemed criminal but, sadly, this is just one example of how politicians in the US (and increasingly in the UK) can be bought by business interests. I'm not a US voter, but I'd urge any reader who is to do their best to see that this bill is killed off and, if you happen to live and vote in the congresswoman's district, well, you know who not to vote for next time around!
Elsevier-funded NY Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Wants to Deny Americans Access to Taxpayer Funded Research
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
PLOS One, Public Library of Science for(Every)One internet portal publikovanja onlajn, drugim recima casopis online, proslavio je petu godišnjicu postojanja i uspešnog rada. Za vrlo kratko vreme. samo pet godina postojanja uspeo je da svojim kvalitetom obezbedi mesto među najrenomiranijim časopisima sveta i danas se nalazi na listi visoko rangiranih časopisa na Thompson Reuters Master Journal Listi, sa impakt faktorom preko 4.
Mnogim naučnicima je to jedan od najvažnijih parametara koji presuđuje da bi trebalo objaviti baš u PLOS One. Drugima je svakako inovacija koju je PLOS uveo a to je ARTICLE LEVEL METRICS - praćenje koliko puta je publikovan rad viđen downloadovan koliko puta citiran u indeksnim bazama.
PLoS ONE: Five Years, Many Milestones
Prenecemo post sa bloga PLOS One o ovom događaju.
Where Have We Come From?The journal launched on 20th December 2006 and the occasion was marked by a minor earthquake in the vicinity of our offices. The tremors might have been a first clue to the seismic changes that would soon occur in the publishing landscape.
The journal was formally conceived by the PLoS Founders in May 2005 (although it had been anticipated by them several years earlier in PLoS’s history). At the time, it was named PLoS Reports but, in the months before launch, it was renamed PLoS ONE to reflect the journal’s concept as being the one potential home for all science.
The growth of the PLoS ONE exceeded even the most optimistic predictions. In the first full year of publication it published 1,230 articles (making it larger in volume than all but about 100 journals) and, within 4 years, it became the largest peer-reviewed journal in the world. To date, PLoS ONE has published more than 28,700 articles and in 2011 alone it will publish almost 14,000 articles (meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed for 2011 will have been published in PLoS ONE).
One particular innovation that helped define PLoS ONE has been the provision of ‘Article Level Metrics’ on every published manuscript (something which is actually provided on all PLoS articles). With ALMs, in addition to ‘traditional’ metrics such as citations, authors could now see detailed information about the total views and downloads of their paper, as well as information about blog coverage, social bookmarks and so on. This program was introduced in 2009 at least in part to represent an alternative means of measuring an article’s merits post-publication and it continues to be developed by us and by others.
In addition to wide readership and high citation rates, articles published by PLoS ONE have always generated significant media coverage, for example appearing in The New York Times Science section 6 weeks running and even inspiring a Google Doodle on one occasion. Research on antiviral therapeutics, a possible fourth domain of life, and a group of articles that shares an inventory of species distribution and diversity in key global ocean areas are just a few of the most recent examples of the cutting edge research that has been covered by media outlets from around the world.
To what can we attribute this success? First of all, PLoS ONE came from the Public Library of Science – a well-established, not-for-profit publisher that had already proven itself as a trusted venue for high quality peer-reviewed publications (PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, and the PLoS Community Journals) – clearly PLoS ONE would not have been as successful without the support and brand recognition that those journals provided. Secondly, it seemed that Academics are increasingly realizing that the ‘game’ of submitting to a top journal and working down a ‘rejection ladder’ until a journal accepts the paper is a waste of everyone’s time and resources, and that PLoS ONE circumvents that process. And thirdly, it feels like an idea whose ‘time has come’ – as the movement towards Open Access to all journal content grows, it seems inevitable that a publishing model such as PLoS ONE will emerge as one of the most effective ways to publish scientific content.
Of course, none of the reasons listed above would have mattered at all, were it not for the many thousands of Academic Editors, peer reviewers and staff members who have provided their time and energy for the journal. In particular, the journal would not exist without our authors – a vital stakeholder group who have been supportive since day one. To date, we have published the work of over 100,000 authors and we regularly receive outstanding feedback from them via our Annual Author Surveys.
In the early days, some critics felt that the journal risked becoming a “vanity press”, and that any journal that aimed to publish “anything publishable” would naturally become a venue for poor quality papers. What we saw instead were carefully reviewed papers that only made it into press if they met our objective criteria for sound science and reporting. This came about with virtually no pressure from within – indeed, one might say that the secret to our success is that we have allowed our independent Academic Editors full autonomy to decide what is ‘good enough’ to be published, and they have done so by applying the standards and norms of academia to our unique publication criteria. By combining this approach with a series of strict checks and balances at the point of submission, and a separation of the financial from the editorial aspects of the journal, we have proven to the scientific community that we are serious about our goal of changing the status quo of scientific communication, and that we intend to do so in a high quality, transparent, and ethical manner.
Of course, our success has not gone unnoticed and, in the past year or so, a slew of PLoS ONE ‘clones’ have been launched by other publishers (some of whom had been quite skeptical of the PLoS ONE model in years gone past). Although we welcomed Nature Publishing Group to the party with a somewhat tongue in cheek post (and with a request to improve their copyright license), it is a fact that we genuinely welcome these new entrants. We believe that more PLoS ONE clones are a good thing that will accelerate the move towards full Open Access, and away from the current system whereby articles are reviewed by a chain of journals for the sole purpose of stratifying them according to their perceived ‘impact’. We expect that more clones will launch in the coming years and, provided they employ full ‘CC BY’ copyright licenses, we will continue to encourage them.
Where are we going?What does the future hold for PLoS ONE? Well, firstly we will continue to develop our systems to accommodate the kind of growth we have seen so far. This includes a root to branch overhaul of our publication platform (which will take some time to realize, but which is already underway); an improved submission and peer review system; and increasing numbers of Academic Editors and reviewers. Secondly, we plan to improve our Article Level Metrics to a point where they will provide genuinely valuable context about individual articles and hopefully be more widely used and understood by decision makers such as tenure committees and funding bodies. Thirdly, we will be developing new and powerful ways to navigate our platform. And finally, we intend to continue experimenting and pushing the boundaries of academic publishing – PLoS ONE has already proven to be be a phenomenon in the Academic Publishing world, but we feel it has tremendous potential to further change the way that scientific research is communicated!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Towards a new Europeana Data Exchange Agreement
Europeana supports open re-use of the metadata provided by our content providers and aggregators
The Data Exchange Agreement
- The Europeana Foundation has now officially adopted The Europeana Data Exchange Agreement. The official version replaces the previous Data Provider and Data Aggregator Agreement.
- The Agreement is the result of a year-long consultation process with the network of content providers and aggregators
- We have also written Usage Guidelines for metadata. These are non-binding, but they set out the responsibilities that people who want to re-use the data should be aware of
- Data Exchange Transition Schedule
Why support open metadata re-use?
It brings tangible benefits for heritage organisations:
- Increases traffic to your site
- Allows the Europeana APIs to be widely used
- Provides income-generating opportunities, e.g. for image licensing
- Enriches your data for your own use
- Increases usability and knowledge generation through Linked Open Data applications
- Enables the development of innovative services and new revenue streams
Our metadata principles
Europeana has set out fundamental principles for its dealings with your metadata. These include:
- Europeana is committed to consultation with the network of data providers
- Europeana does not intend to make direct commercial use of providers' metadata
- The contribution of data to Europeana does not prevent you from selling metadata to a third party
- Data Providers are not required to provide Europeana with complete metadata for digital objects
- Providing metadata relating to some works in your collections does not create the obligation to provide metadata about complete collections
- Thumbnails and previews will only be used by Europeana. Unless explicitly specified they cannot be reused by third parties
Jill Cousins' presentation* describes how the new agreement relates to the Comité des Sages New Renaissance Report and Europeana's Strategic Plan 2011-2015. It outlines what restrictions the current Agreement imposes that need to be overcome.
Your Metadata and Europeana gives a useful overview of our plans and explains the strategic need for an open metadata licence.
Validity of the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication with regards to the German Copyright Law. An expert analysis.
Related Europeana initiatives
We have recently released the Europeana API and search widget. APIs are ways of showing Europeana data through third-party sites. We currently limit the use of APIs to network partners because of the non-commercial restriction in the current Agreement. We need an open metadata licence to allow the API to be embedded in educational websites and academic blogs that use Google ads or are linked to commercial services.
We have published a guide to Linked Open Data and Europeana.
We are also running a Linked Open Data pilot, which is working with over 3 million metadata records from 20 partners including the Austrian National Library, the Danish Film Institute and the Swedish National Heritage Board. See related pages.
- Europeana Strategic Plan 2011-2015
- The Comité des Sages New Renaissance Report published in early 2011 recommends that data produced by Cultural Heritage institutions are openly available for re-use.
- British Library to share millions of catalogue records, press release, 23/08/2010
- JISC Open Bibliographic Data Guide, Rights and Licensing
- Discovery: Towards a thriving metadata ecosystem
- Linking BBC to the Linked Open Data cloud
- Linked Open Data and Rights, see several articles about the socio-economic arguments and the technical implementation aspects in issue 9 of the Nodalities magazine
Why there is need for a new agreement between Europeana and the providers?
Is the new Data Exchange Agreement the same for data providers and for aggregators?
Why drop the non-commercial clause from the agreement?
How is attribution handled in the context of the Data Exchange Agreement?
Does Europeana plan to use data from its data providers for commercial purposes?
What does the Data Exchange Agreement foresee about previews (thumbnails, a/v snippets, etc.) and content?
Do I loose control over the data if my metadata becomes available under the new Data Exchange Agreement/CC0?
Why is it not possible to create licenses at record level so that some data submitted to Europeana can be excluded from an onward CC0 license?
Can I continue generating income with my metadata if it becomes available under the new Data Exchange Agreement/CC0?
What can others do with my metadata after it has been published by Europeana?
What is Linked Open Data?
Why does Europeana want to publish my data as Linked Open Data?
Are there any examples of LOD implementation in the cultural heritage sector?
What is Europeana doing with LOD?
What will happen when we move from the old agreement to the new?
What are the next steps in the process towards agreeing the new Data Exchage Agreement?
I am an aggregator/data provider and I deliver data to Europeana. I already have signed the existing aggregator/ data provider agreement. Do I need to sign the new one?
I am an EU-funded project and I deliver data to Europeana. Do I need to sign the Data Exchange Agreement?
My project is coming to an end before September and I don't have any kind of Agreement signed with Europeana. What do I need to do?
What happens to my metadata if I sign the Data Exchange Agreement?
What happens with my metadata if I don't sign the agreement?
Europeana asks me to deliver the data I feel comfortable with delivering. What are the different implementation scenarios?
Europeana asks providers to deliver what they feel comfortable with but at the same time makes more metadata fields mandatory. Isn't this an oxymoron?
In some domains it can be difficult to differentiate clearly between content and metadata, and as a result whatever data is given to Europeana is called, for purposes of this agreement, metadata. In the DEA it says explicitly anyway that Europeana is not aggregating content. So which is true?
Is Europeana going to update the agreement any time soon?
* note: large file size - 11.6mb
The Data Exchange Agreement and Use Guidelines are part of Europeana's Licensing Framework which was developed in the context of EuropeanaConnect.Preuzeto sa sajta EUROPEANA http://www.version1.europeana.eu/web/europeana-project/newagreement