[Upd-discuss] [Info] UNU Policy Brief, Open Source and Open Standards:
A New Frontier for Economic Development
Adam Moran
adam@diamat.org.uk
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:49:24 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020906020102090802000002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:21:16 +0100 (BST) I wrote:
> "We released this policy brief a few weeks ago in preparation for the
> Symposium on Open Standards and the new intellectual property rights
> paradigms that are coming out of the various ‘open’ movements (open
> science, open source software, open medicine, etc.)."
>
> http://www.merit.unu.edu/a2k/?p=17
I've attached it as a .txt file so that it is more accessible.
--------------020906020102090802000002
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="new_frontier_for_economic_development.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="new_frontier_for_economic_development.txt"
Open Source and Open Standards
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Overview=20
--------
There are compelling reasons why technologically advanced and developing =
countries alike should adopt open source software as part of their ICT po=
licies. In addition to the obvious cost advantages, recent studies of fre=
e/libre/open source (FLOSS) communities demonstrate that the process of l=
earning and adapting software enables users to become 'creators of knowle=
dge' rather than mere passive consumers of proprietary technologies. This=
Brief discusses the economic benefits of investing in open source softwa=
re and points out some key factors that governments should take into acco=
unt when defining "Open Standards" to govern technology transfer and enha=
nce access to public information for all citizens.
=C2=A9 United Nations University 2006=20
ISBN 92-808-3011-2=20
ISSN 1814-8026=20
Licensed under the Creative Commons Deed "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDer=
ivs 2.5"
About the Authors
-----------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh is senior researcher at UNU-MERIT, The Netherlands. He=
was one of the founders, and is the current managing editor, of First Mo=
nday, a peer-reviewed Internet journal that covers Internet economics, la=
w and technology.
Philipp Schmidt is undertaking research at UNU-MERIT on the broad economi=
c, legal and social context of collaborative production models that use I=
CT.=20
[ UNU-MERIT is the United Nations University Maastricht Economic and soci=
al Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology. It integrat=
es the former UNU Institute for New Technologies (UNUINTECH) and the Maas=
tricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT). =
UNU-MERIT provides insights into the social, political and economic conte=
xts within which innovation and technological change is created, adapted,=
selected, diffused, and improved upon. The Institute=E2=80=99s research =
and training programmes address a broad range of relevant policy question=
s dealing with the national and international governance of innovation, i=
ntellectual property protection, and knowledge creation and diffusion. UN=
U-MERIT is located at, and works in close collaboration with Maastricht U=
niversity in The Netherlands. ]
UNU=E2=80=94Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre o=
n Innovation and Technology=20
Keizer Karelplein 19=20
6211 TC Maastricht=20
The Netherlands=20
Open Source and Open Standards: A New Frontier for Economic Development ?=
=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Access [to ICTs] is not enough, it is the ability to create, to add val=
ue, that is important=E2=80=9D
-- Felipe Gonzalez, former Spanish Prime Minister
FREE SOFTWARE (ALSO CALLED OPEN SOURCE software or libre software) has be=
come one of the most talked about phenomena in the ICT world in recent ye=
ars. This is remarkable, not only for the usual reasons -- that open sour=
ce has been around for many years as a volunteer driven success story bef=
ore being discovered by big business and now government -- but also becau=
se it has largely developed quietly on its own without the headline cover=
age and glare of international attention that it now receives.=20
The opportunity to "create and add value" provided by open source is part=
icularly important for developing countries and other economically disadv=
antaged communities. Access alone limits them to the role of passive cons=
umers in the knowledge economy; the ability to create transforms them int=
o active participants.=20
As we shall see in the first part of this Policy Brief, open source softw=
are appears to provide a training environment that enables this ability t=
o create; it increases the earning capacity of community participants wit=
hout any explicit investment in training and is perhaps a novel form of t=
echnology transfer.=20
This in turn makes it more attractive to governments and policy makers. C=
ountries around the world, regardless of their wealth, are trying to brin=
g citizens into the Information Society and provide electronic access to =
government services. Many of them are considering open source software as=
a cost-effective means of doing so. Many more see an inherent injustice =
in requiring citizens and businesses to buy software from specific vendor=
s in order to communicate with the government, and are looking at open st=
andards=E2=80=94which allow products from different producers of open sou=
rce or proprietary software to work together. Open standards, if defined =
carefully, can have unique economic effects. The remarkable case study of=
policy choices made by Massachusetts, one of the wealthiest States in th=
e USA, has relevance worldwide and is described further below. This Brief=
concludes with key policy=20
recommendations from a recent report on open source use in the UN System.=
=20
The FLOSS Revolution=20
--------------------
What is the special value of open source software, and how can it be harn=
essed ?=20
The Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) study led by MERIT (now UNU-M=
ERIT), in 2002, was a comprehensive analysis of developers and users that=
showed that the most important reason for developers to participate in o=
pen source communities was to learn new skills -- "free-of-cost." These s=
kills are valuable, help developers get jobs and can help create and sust=
ain small businesses. The skills referred to here are not those required =
to use free software, but those learnt from participation in free softwar=
e communities.=20
Such skills naturally include programming, but also skills rarely taught =
in formal computer science courses, such as copyright law and licenses (a=
major topic of discussion in many free software projects). Teamwork and =
team management are also learned. After all, the team management required=
to coordinate smooth collaboration by 1500-plus people who rarely see ea=
ch other is more intensive and far subtler than what is required to coord=
inate smaller teams employed in a single software company.=20
A follow-up study in 2005 for the European Commission under the FLOSSPOLS=
project found that developers *as well as employers* find that skills le=
arned through participation in the free-software community are so valuabl=
e that they may compensate for the lack of a formal degree.=20
Informal apprenticeships=E2=80=94technology transfer in FLOSS communities=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=20
FLOSS communities are like informal apprenticeships but the apprentice/st=
udents and master/teachers contribute their own time "for free", without =
receiving monetary compensation for the training process. Everyone can be=
nefit equally from this training -- any employer can hire someone informa=
lly "trained" through participation in the free software developer commun=
ity.=20
In the larger perspective, this training system -- where all parts of soc=
iety benefit from the products of the system but only some explicitly pay=
for it -- represents a subsidy, or technology transfer. Effectively, kno=
wledge is transferred from those who pay for formal training to those who=
do not (or cannot). Within countries, this represents a technology trans=
fer from big companies, which often pay for formal training, to small and=
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that cannot afford to subsidize training=
=2E Globally, this often represents a technology transfer from the richer=
economies that can afford formal training, to the poorer ones that canno=
t.=20
Building local ICT competencies=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Such skills development extends to the creation of new, local businesses =
that are able to provide commercial support for and build upon open sourc=
e software, thanks to its low entry barriers, in a way that would not be =
possible with proprietary software. This effect is heightened by any publ=
ic support of the open source software sector. For example, the takeup of=
open source by the Extremadura Region in Spain, through its support for =
the LinEx project (a localized, Spanish-language version of the GNU/Linux=
operating environment), has led to an economic regeneration in a relativ=
ely poor region of the EU (and which was subsequently awarded the Europea=
n Regional Innovation Award in April 2004). This has not only allowed the=
implementation of activities at a lower cost, it has encouraged higher I=
CT investments in the education and training sectors that was simply not =
possible with proprietary software. The use of free-software in the regio=
n has opened up opportunities for local entrepreneurs to provide commerci=
al ICT services since it is no longer necessary to approach a sole vendor=
for support.=20
This link between open source and the rise of small ICT businesses is esp=
ecially important given the tendency of proprietary vendors to ignore loc=
al needs, especially in developing regions. So, for instance, a large mul=
tinational software company may not be interested in supporting Xhosa spe=
akers (one of the official languages in South Africa), and yet it may pre=
vent local users or businesses from providing such support.=20
Should a society encourage passive users of "black-box" software or activ=
e participants in the global ICT community? Being active requires being a=
ble to create -- and to be able to choose, with the least barriers, one=E2=
=80=99s level of creativity -- so while you do not have to become a progr=
ammer, you should have the choice to do so. Developing countries need to =
avoid being locked out of acquiring skills and competencies. The adoption=
of open source policies provides environments that promote skills develo=
pment and the ability to create.
=20
The Economics of Open Standards
-------------------------------=20
"Rights can be exploited to give technology producers an anti-competiti=
ve advantage"
"Open standards" has become a very popular term in recent policy debates,=
but controversy abounds over what it=20
actually means. In order to distinguish open standards from "standards" m=
ore generally, there is need to bear in mind the economic effects associa=
ted with the term. Open standards, properly defined, can have the unique =
economic effect of allowing "natural" monopolies to form in a given techn=
ology, while ensuring full competition among suppliers of that technology=
=2E=20
Many applications of technology in the Information Society are subject to=
*network effects* -- the benefits to a single user are significantly enh=
anced if there are many other users of the same technology. The value to =
a user of an e-mail system, for instance, is limited unless the system ca=
n be used to send e-mails to many others, and increases enormously with t=
he number of other users. This value, which is over and above the value o=
f a single copy of the technology, is the *network externality.*=20
Network effects can go hand in hand with entry barriers for new technolog=
ies. A new technology may be adopted if it provides recognized benefits o=
ver a previous technology. However, since the value of a widely used syst=
em is, due to network externalities, much higher than the value inherent =
to a single user=E2=80=99s copy of the technology, any new technology is =
seriously hampered by its lack of an existing user base. A new e-mail sys=
tem must be far superior to an old system in order for its inherent benef=
its to outweigh the severe disadvantage caused by the lack of a pre-exist=
ing network. In applications highly susceptible to network effects, where=
the network externalities account for a large share of the total value o=
f the system -- such as e-mail -- this hurdle may be impossible to cross.=
Indeed, the e-mail system most widely used today has remained more or le=
ss unchanged, in terms of its underlying technical protocols, for over 20=
years.=20
This feedback loop leads to what economists call *natural monopolies* -- =
found not only in e-mail, but also in older technologies such as railway =
gauges and electricity transmission systems. Monopolies are not obviously=
good for consumers, but natural monopolies are thought to provide a bett=
er value than a collection of various incompatible systems.=20
Usually, the monopoly in technology is related to the monopoly in the sup=
ply of the technology: a single company therefore has a dominant position=
and can capture the value of network externalities. While monopolies hav=
e long been tolerated in the telecom, electricity and railway sectors, th=
ey are usually subject to regulation to limit their natural tendency to w=
ork against consumer welfare.=20
=46rom technology monopolies to open standards=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An alternative is to try to separate the natural monopoly in technology f=
rom the monopoly in the supply of that technology. This happens when the =
technology is treated as a *standard* and different suppliers make differ=
ent products that *interoperate* based on the standard. This is the case =
with e-mail: there are hundreds of different programmes you can use to se=
nd e-mail, but because they all use the same underlying technology *stand=
ard* they can all *interoperate*. This is not the case with word processi=
ng software, where the most widely used file format is best read by a sin=
gle brand of word processor, produced by a single company; if you use a d=
ifferent word processor, you may be unable to exchange documents with oth=
ers.=20
The problem arises that the technology for interoperability -- the natura=
l monopoly -- may have *rights* associated with it, typically patents, an=
d these rights may be owned by one market player (or a consortium). Such =
rights may be exploited to give some producers of the technology an anti-=
competitive advantage over other producers. This leads to three kinds of =
technology standards:=20
1. *Proprietary technologies:* a natural monopoly in a technology result=
s in a natural monopoly in the market for services and products based on =
the technology and results in a dominant position for the owner of the te=
chnology.=20
2. ("Semi-open=E2=80=9D) Standards: a natural monopoly in a technology a=
rises or is agreed upon, but *some* competition in the market for product=
s and services based on the technology is provided for with the mediation=
of a standards body (such as the International Standards Organization IS=
O).=20
3. Open standards: any monopoly in the technology is accompanied by full=
competition in the market for products and services based on the technol=
ogy, with no *a priori* advantage based on the ownership of the rights. T=
his occurs when access to the technology is available to all (potential) =
economic actors on equal terms.=20
Unlike railways, electricity or even mobile phones, in most software mark=
ets FLOSS often provides the main competing products. Thus for software, =
an open standard -- as defined by its economic effect -- can only be one =
that has licensing terms allowing equal access to FLOSS producers.=20
In the next section, we explore the real-life case of the state of Massac=
husetts, USA, which recently crafted an explicit policy to promote open s=
ource and open standards.=20
Moving a Public Administration Towards Open Standards and Open Source: Th=
e Massachusetts Experience=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------
"The Massachusetts example shows that developed countries can also bene=
fit from open source software and open standards"
This case study is based on a presentation by Peter Quinn, former Chief I=
nformation Officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the FLOSSPOLS=
workshop in Cologne, January 20 2006.=20
In 2003 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (CoM) first announced it would =
start using open source software and support open standard file formats. =
It has since implemented an official policy that mandates the use of the =
Open Document file format, an open standard used by office applications. =
The experience of the CoM provides a model for other administrations that=
consider using open source software and open standards.
=20
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the second-richest state of the US. =
It spends about US$700 Million on information technology each year.
=20
In 2002 the Information Technology Division (ITD) found itself facing dec=
reasing IT budgets, due to a difficult fiscal environment, while the exis=
ting infrastructure needed upgrading. At the same time a new business -- =
and IT -- savvy Governor was pushing for reforms. This presented an oppor=
tunity to transform the CoM=E2=80=99s IT infrastructure.=20
As a first step, ITD defined a broad mission to guide all aspects of the =
way the administration would use IT in the future. The mission considers =
information as a strategic asset that can be used to improve governance, =
and enable stewardship of public records to preserve history. The ITD con=
sidered open standards to avoid that technical barriers could hamper futu=
re access to information.=20
The IT Division began drafting its Open Standards, Open Source Enterprise=
Technical Reference Model (ETRM) to develop the policy into binding and =
specific guidelines for the Commonwealth=E2=80=99s computing environment.=
Over the course of 18 months it engaged with all stakeholders, including=
major proprietary software companies, and weighed the interests of indus=
try, the administration, and the citizens of Massachusetts. The final ver=
sion 3.5 of the ETRM mandates that by 1 January 2007 all new office docum=
ents must be created in the OASIS Open Document format, an open standard =
for office application files. At the same time all desktop computers must=
be equipped with software that can read and write the Open Document form=
at. A number of applications already implement the standard.=20
However, the current version of the market-leading Microsoft Office suite=
does not, which makes it ineligible for use by the CoM administration. I=
n addition the file format used by Microsoft Office is considered as not =
sufficiently "open" by the ITD.=20
The ETRM does not endorse one particular product, but mandates an open st=
andard, which enables more software developers to create competing applic=
ations. Furthermore the ETRP explicitly requires IT procurement decisions=
to be made on the basis of technical and business merit, without prefere=
nce for specific vendors or products.
=20
The increase in competition is expected to have some immediate financial =
benefits. The CoM estimates that migrating to Open Document supporting pr=
oducts rather than a new version of the Microsoft Office suite could save=
approximately US$45 million.=20
The experience in Massachusetts holds some valuable lessons for governmen=
ts that are considering open source or open standard policies, including:=
=20
* Considerable backlash can be expected, including legal, political and =
public relations efforts to influence the development and implementation =
of an open standards policy;=20
* There is lack of awareness of the economics of open source software. P=
roviding stakeholders with a short overview of business models and econo=
mic imperatives can help address concerns about the impact of open standa=
rds on competition and the local software industry;=20
* The fact that free/open source software does not require payment of li=
censing fees does not imply it is free. Total cost of ownership analysis =
is recommended in the same way as for proprietary software;=20
* The common concern that free/open source software lacks appropriate su=
pport is not relevant in large public administrations in the US, where in=
ternal staff can solve virtually all problems in-house;=20
* Currently free/open source software office applications do not provide=
support for users with disabilities, and especially blind users, in the =
way that proprietary alternatives do. The CoM is working with the FLOSS c=
ommunity to resolve this.
=20
Massachusetts=E2=80=99 decision to support open standards has implication=
s that go beyond the use of IT by the Administration itself. For organiza=
tions that regularly exchange data with the government, it will provide a=
n incentive to start using open standards. The example of Massachusetts s=
hows that open source software and open standards are not solutions prima=
rily for developing countries. Open standards have now been endorsed by o=
ne of the richest and most advanced states of the richest country in the =
world.=20
Massachusetts has created a blueprint for development of an open standard=
s IT policy that others can follow. This provides valuable decision -- su=
pport for administrations that were hesitant to take the first step. In t=
his sense, the CoM provides an example for other other regions and countr=
ies across the world.
Policy Recommendations from the UN Joint Inspection Unit Report on Open S=
ource Software=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
In 2005, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) of the United Nations system pub=
lished its report on "Policies of United Nations System Organizations Tow=
ards the Use of Open Source Software (OSS) in the Secretariats". The repo=
rt is available at: http://www.unsystem.org/jiu/en/reports.htm=20
The JIU made a number of recommendations, the highlights of which are pro=
duced below.=20
*Recommendation 1:* The General Assembly should affirm that the followin=
g principles should guide the adoption of a software policy by United Nat=
ions system organizations:=20
* All Member States and other stakeholders should have the right to acce=
ss public information made available in electronic format by the organiza=
tions and no one should be obliged to acquire a particular type of softwa=
re in order to exercise such a right;=20
* Organizations should seek to foster the interoperability of their dive=
rse ICT systems by requiring the use of open standards and open file form=
ats irrespective of their choice of software. They should also ensure tha=
t the encoding of data guarantees the permanence of electronic public rec=
ords and is not tied to a particular software provider.=20
*Recommendation 2:* The Secretary-General should take stock of the exper=
iences of Member States and undertake the necessary consultations in orde=
r to establish a system-wide United Nations Interoperability Framework (U=
NIF) to be reported to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session, w=
ith the following considerations:=20
* The UNIF should be based on open standards and open file formats=20
* New software, upgrades or replacements should comply with UNIF with l=
imited exceptions requiring justification.=20
* Customized software should be owned by the organizations and be made a=
vailable to other system organizations and public administrations of Memb=
er States or licensed as OSS;=20
* Organizations should seek to avoid lock-in to proprietary ICT products=
or services and give equal consideration to all appropriate solutions av=
ailable on the market including OSS solutions, as long as such products a=
nd services comply with the requirements under UNIF=20
*Recommendation 3:* Executive heads of UN system organizations should su=
bmit plans to their governing bodies on how they implement the new system=
-wide ICT strategy and the UNIF.=20
*Recommendation 4:* The Secretary-General should take the necessary meas=
ures to establish a data repository of mature OSS solutions used by Unite=
d Nations system organizations and which could be accessed by the organiz=
ations and by public entities of Member States and other interested parti=
es.=20
*Recommendation 5:* The Secretary-General should report to the General A=
ssembly in the sixtieth session on the level of priority, savings potenti=
al, risk, effectiveness and organizational interest for implementing the =
proposed OSS initiative. Executive heads should assess the total cost of =
ownership (TCO) of their current platforms and implement processes measur=
ing the total economic impact of their information technology (IT) invest=
ments including their use of OSS and CSS as well as the implications for =
Member States.=20
Appendix
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Related UNU-MERIT Projects and Online Resources=20
-----------------------------------------------
FLOSSPOLS--Free/Libre/Open Source Software: Policy Support
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Three specific tracks:=20
* government policy towards open source;=20
* gender issues in open source;=20
* and the efficiency of open source as a system for collaborative problem=
-solving.=20
http://www..osspols.org=20
FLOSSWORLD=E2=80=94Free/Libre/Open Source Software: Worldwide impact stud=
y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=20
Aims to build a global constituency for FLOSS and open standards research=
with partners from Europe, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, =
India, Malaysia and South Africa.=20
http://www..ossworld.org/=20
FLOSS=E2=80=94Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=20
FLOSS identified and developed indicators of "non-monetary/
trans-monetary" economic activity in a case study of free/libre/open sour=
ce software.=20
http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/=20
UNU-MERIT Access to Knowledge Hub=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Access to Knowledge (A2K) is the one-stop shop for UNUMERIT=E2=80=99s wor=
k on free/open source software, intellectual property, biotechnology and =
access to medicine. Join the discussion!=20
http://www.merit.unu.edu/a2k
United Nations System Resources=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
UNCTAD
~~~~~~
Expert Meeting on Free and Open Source Software: Policy and development i=
mplications=20
http://r0.unctad.org/ecommerce/event_docs/foss_exme_programme_en.htm
=20
United Nations Joint Inspection Unit=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reports on Open Source Software for Development and in the Secretariats=20
http://www.unsystem.org/jiu/en/reports.htm=20
UNESCO Free & Open Source Software Portal=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A gateway to resources related to Free Software and Open Source Technolog=
y movement=20
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3D12034&URL_DO=3DDO_TOPIC&UR=
L_SECTION=3D201.html=20
UNDP-APDIP International Open Source Network=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IOSN is a Center of Excellence for FOSS in the Asia-Pacific.=20
http://www.iosn.net/=20
FOSS Policy and Development Implications Mailing List=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/foss-pdi
UNU-MERIT Library Goes Open Source=20
----------------------------------
A number of interrelated initiatives are under way to enhance public acce=
ss to scholarly output and research information available at UNU-MERIT.=20
In the course of 2006 the library catalogue will fully migrate to the Koh=
a library information system (ILS). Koha is a free/open source system tha=
t uses library and web standards, making it a platform-independent ILS. =
It was awarded the "Trophees du Libre" in the Software for Public Adminis=
tration category in 2003. Using Koha will not only enable compliance with=
modern ILS standards but also promote research output through the use of=
interactive links.
=20
A second development is the launch of a new RSS based service to announce=
new books, journals and other catalogued materials. The RSS feeds will g=
radually replace the existing e-mail based service. Being userdriven,=20
RSS offers many advantages over e-mail based systems. These include great=
er privacy, reduced administration, and a better overview of the informat=
ion one receives. The beta version that is in use currently covers eight =
research areas and incorporates a broad range of sources=E2=80=94from aca=
demic publications to NGO outputs.=20
A third initiative relates to continuing improvements to existing metadat=
a information. In addition to participating on the RePEc (an archive of p=
ublications in economics) and the UNU-managed RUN (Research in the United=
Nations) repository, the Institute is exploring ways to link to the Open=
Archives Initiative. This is a network of research repositories working =
to enable better scholarly communication of research activities and outpu=
t.=20
For more information on these activities please contact Mr. Ad Notten, UN=
U-MERIT Librarian: notten@merit.unu.edu
--------------020906020102090802000002--