The Wolanski Foundation Projecte  


Paper no 46









List of papers








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?


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, and the Department of Heritage, Environment, Water and the (DEWHA,  

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 ( 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 (, 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 (, 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.


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 (, OZCAM ( and PictureAustralia ( 

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 ( to review the territory. 

Two reports by the US Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS, 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 (, 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 ( 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

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,, 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 (, 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, include: Australia’s Strategic Framework for the Information Economy (2004-2006), Opportunities and Challenges for the Information Age (2004); Australian Government Support for ICT (2005); Achieving Value from ICT: Key Management Strategies (2005); The Role of ICT in Building Communities and Social Capital (2005), ICT and Australian Productivity: Methodologies and Measurement (2005); Community ICT Transformations: Next Steps (2005); General Purpose Technologies and the Information Economy: an Evolutionary Approach to Macroeconomic Modelling (2006); Estimating Aggregate Productivity Growth for Australia: the Role of Information and Communications Technology (2007); Broadband in Regional Australia: Making a Difference (2007).

[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)

[iv] Stilgherrian. The Digital Economy: Just For Big Business? (Crikey, 10 September 2008

[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 

[vii] New Zealand’s Digital Strategy: Creating Our Digital Future (; Canadian Digital Information Strategy 2007 available at Library and Archives Canada (; European Union Dynamic Action Plan for the EU Co-ordination of Digitisation of Cultural and Scientific Content (

[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 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.

[x] Institute of Museum and Library Services. Study on the Internet’s Impact on Museums and Libraries, 2008. To view the report:

[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),

[xii] National Archives of Australia. Digital Futures International Forum

[xiii] Lavoie, Brian F Lavoie. Fifth Blackbird: Some Thoughts on Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation. (Dlib Magazine March/April 2008,

[xiv] Green, David. Interview with Kenneth Hamma in Museums, Cataloging & Content Infrastructure. Academic Commons December 2007 http://www.academic

[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,

[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),

[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) (

[xxii] Innovation and Business Skills Australia. Cultural and Creative Industries: Key Economic Metrics: Census data update 2006, January 2008.

[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

[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?

[xxvi] Comments by Robert L Delinschneider were delivered at the inaugural Institute of Museum and Library Service’s Leadership Lecture.

[xxvii] Smith, Abby. Distributed Preservation in a National Context: NDIIPP at Mid-point (D-Lib June 2006).

[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

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,


 About usWhat's newSite map | Searching  | Managing  | Learning  |  Library |  Research 

  Contact us | Home  

© 2009 The Wolanski Foundation Project 

 Email web manager.  URL:

Page last updated: 18 April 2009