This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 16 November 2014, At: 06:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Acquisitions LibrarianPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzze20

Electronic Text CollectionDevelopmentSteven Ellis a & Kim Fisher ba Electronic Text Librarian, University Libraries, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802b Humanities Librarian, Selector of English and AmericanLiterature, The Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, PA, 16802Published online: 05 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Steven Ellis & Kim Fisher (1997) Electronic Text Collection Development,The Acquisitions Librarian, 9:17-18, 17-27, DOI: 10.1300/J101v09n17_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J101v09n17_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Electronic Text Collection Development: A Primer Steven Ellis Kim Fisher

SUMMARY. Just as libraries have provided a context for the printed book, so libraries are beginning to find a place for electronic texts. Many of the tools developed to aid in the selection of traditional l i - brary materials may be usehl in the evaluation of electronic texts, although with a slightly different emphasis. The selector of electron- ic text must also become familiar with issues of licensing, mode of access, ownership, copyright, and cooperative collection building, in addition to the notions of what constitutes elcc~ronic text "quality." In building an electronic text collection a selector should strive to be inclusive rather than exclusive, and always attempt to maintain a high degree of local ownership for materials. (Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deliven, Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail addess: getinfo@hawarfh.com]

INTRODUCTION

The technology of the text has been in a process of development and change since the first stylus was put to clay. We discover upon reflection that the particular "shape" a text has taken-its manner of writing, distribu-

Steven Ellis is an Electronic Text Librarian, and Kim Fisher is a Humanities Librarian and Selector of English and American Literature, both at University Libraries, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.

[Haworth co-indexing e n q nole]: "Electronic Text Collection Development: A Primer." Ellis. Steven and Kim Fisher. Co-published simultaneously in The Acqubilions Librarian (The Hawonh Press. Inc.) No. 17/18. 1997. pp. 17-27: and: Acquiririons and Collecrio~~ Dewlopnrenr in the Hsanni- lies (ed: Irene Owens) The Haworth Press, Inc.. 1997, pp. 17-27. Single or multiple copies orthis anicle are available for a fee b m The Hawonh Documen1 Delivery Service [I-800-342-9678.9:00 a.m. - 5:OO p.m. (EST). E-mail address: gerinfc@haworlh.com].

Q 1997 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

18 Acqtrisilions and CoNecrion Developn~ent ih !he Humanities

tion and use-has always been a function of its particular time and place. That the book, as Ranganathan (1996) says, has "cuboidal properties"- that it is to some extent self-contained-ought to be understood as but one means of its widespread success.

It is often overlooked that libraries have given the book its context, have made it to a large extent what it is today, by the simple matter of giving it a long-standing place to be. We should not be surprised therefore to learn that a similar procedure is underway with electronic text, although with a slightly different emphasis. It is a process that has as much to do with determining the shape of the text as it does with determining its place.

We do not often think of selection as a technology-shaping enterprise. Yet the kinds of decisions made in selection will have a role to play in determining how our future texts will behave. It would seem, therefore, that (here is much at stake in the development of electronic text collec- tions.

Background

In the early years of computing many electronic texts were produced in isolation by scholars who saw a certain potential in the organizational and retrieval capabilities of the machine. Much of this woik was done in isolation, creating a less than optimal situation for collection: there may have been many texts, but no one knew where they were or in what form they might be.

Many of these early texts were used as a basis for what had come to be called "concordance proccssing." The textual scholar may have wanted to know where and how a certain word had occurred in the work of a given author. In the past, and still in many cases in the present, a scholar of text may turn to a concordance. But this was not all. Over time it became apparent that the computing machine could be used to make connections between texts. The computing machine could be used to make material linkages between texts (hypertext), and connections could be made be- tween texts by querying collections of text as a database.

The power of such insights to galvanize the scholarly community can be scen in the widespread acceptance of texts produced in large scale conversion projects such as the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG). Over a period of thirty years roughly the entire corpus of classical Greek litera- ture has been converted to a machine readable format now widely pub- lished on CD-ROM. The TLG has since become accepted as an indispens- able research tool in classical studies (Ruhleder 1995).

The proliferation of textual databases of this kind (although not neces- sarily of this scale) coincides with other digitization trends. For more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Electrmic Etivitotrmen~ 19

a decade, libraries have been sites of digital proliferation. Library catalogs were among the first resources to be converted to the machine, and other bibliographic resources, many available commercially and on CD-ROM, became available for libraries to buy. A notion of a digital or virtual library and the ability to link texts with their bibliographic descriptions was not far away.

Yet, unlike the technology of the book, which has bcen at the center of library collections for centuries, i t is often unclear how to integrate elec- tronic texts into existing organizations. Electronic text centers, in many cases within libraries, provide a context and often a physical space within which this new technology may be addressed-although not always in a fully integrated manner, since electronic text centers are often scparated from traditional areas of service (Ellis 1996).

Often the only thing electronic texts have in common is that thcy require a computing machine for their existence. Beyond that, electronic texts are famously unstandardized and susceptible to obsolescence (Hockey 1992). This has led to concerns about long term access, standards and bibliographic control (Gaunt 1990).

Evaluation

The evaluation of resources has long been an integral part of collection building. That funds are limited and that decisions therefore must be made is an underlying assumption to all collection theory. To this end, selectors generally use a set of tools in the evaluation of print materials. For exam- ple, Ranganathan (1966) suggests that an author's previous works may have bearing on the quality of the current work and that the press is often indicative of quality. As evaluative criteria, notions authority and mode of publication may also be applied to electronic texts, although the emphasis has changed in some very important ways.

The mode of publication is a source of some confusion with electronic text. Lowry (1992) makes the distinction between published and unpub- lished texts, choosing only to treat published texts because "unpublished electronic texts are difficult to identify, acquire, and use." Shreeves (1 992) characterizes this distinction as "unnecessary" since it has rarely been clear just what it means to "publish" an electronic text, and very likely will continue to be even less clear-in the context of communally produced texts on the Internet, for example.

Lowry's distinction provides useful assistance in mapping the electron- ic text distribution landscape, however, both as it has evolved in the past as well as how it stands to a certain extent today. While the line between publisher and author has been blurred somewhatanyone may become his

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

20 Acquisiliom and Collecrion Developmenr in the Humanities

or her own publisher on the Internet we are often told-intellectual property and copyright still have force, and publishers by their imprint still give works a certain legitimacy, electronic or otherwise. And, electronic text projects are increasingly taken up by traditional publishers.

Lowry's criteria for the evaluation of published electronic texts are: text quality, software, markup, mcdium, documentation, and price. While each of thc six criteria might seem straightforward at first glance, each becomes complicated in application. The problems emerge as a function of the unusual nature of the material. It is difficult to gain a sense for how a given text collection might fit or change existing contexts.

Of the six criteria, price would seem to be the most transparent: as with all collection development one must balance cost against an assessment of needs. And some electronic text products are exceedingly expensive. Often the only means to justify their cost is through an anticipated use value, since very little relative user need may have been expressed-some- thing not entirely new to collection development, although arguably proh- lematic.

Documentation would seem simplc enough as well. Just as one would not like to receive a new program for word processing without any instruc- tions for use, so selectors should be wary of published electronic texts without documentation. Once we begin to inquire after just cxactly what it is we would like documented about the text, and what form we might like that documentation to take (concerning a standard), the question of docu- mentation loses its simplicity. Documentation in this sense refers to the extent to which the text describes itself, that is, the extent to which it accounts in a clear manner for each of the other five criteria, in particular, markup, medium, software and quality.

Markup or metadata refers to the means by which features of the text are signified within the text. Often the rationale for markup in an electron- ic text is prompted by the notion that features of the printed text will have been lost in the transition to the computing machine. Markup also may be used to signifL features of the document that have no physical presence within the printed text, such as when linguists mark lexical categories for later analysis. In this way, markup interacts with, and in that sense be- comes part of, the "software" of the text.

Much of the literature surveyed here calls for standardized markup schemes and in particular, implementation of the Standard Generalized Markup Language as deployed through the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Guidelines (Hockey 1994, Lowry 1994, Gaunt 1995). While this may be necessary for the long term preservation and access of electronic texts, it must be emphasized that whether or not a text reflects the specifications of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Elecrmnic Environmenf 21

the TEI does not exclusively furnish an adequate means for evaluation. There are simply too many texts being produced that do not comply.

In the same way the CD-ROM is often characterized as an inadequate and highly restrictive means of distribution. And, while this may be true, such insights do not h i s h an adequate means of evaluation as well. There are simply too many CD-ROMs currently available to buy, many of which have value for research and instruction now.

All collection development criteria are to some extent prescriptive. Deci- sions must be madc in favor of one resource, often at the expense of another. The requirement of documentation (and its associated features of markup, medium, software, and quality) does provide an effective set of tools for the evaluation of electronic texts. Yet, with the proliferation of electronic resources and sheer variety of choices, it is far too easy to become rigid in evaluation. When Welsch (1992) states that "critical and comprehen- sive evaluation is mandatory before libraries adopt hypersystems prod- ucts or even accept them as gifts," we might have cause to worry, espe- cially when it is not at all clear what we mean by "evaluation" with regard to collection development generally, as Henige (1991) ably dem- onstrates.

Licensing

All information is subject to varying degrees of ownership. With elec- tronic information the license has become one means to control ownership and the right of distribution. It is worth noting that there was rarely a need for libraries to negotiate anything like a license with print materials, since the medium is by nature limiting: only one user can use it at a given time. With electronic information, however, the nature of the medium and its inherent flexibility has led publishers to limit usage. As with other elec- tronic resources, this limitation has taken three principle f o m with elec- tronic text:

1. the "stand-alone" license, when access is limited to one user at a time at one machine,

2. the site license, when a given number of users are allowed to access the product on multiple machines, often over a network, and

3. the campus-wide license, when anyone (most likely faculty, students and staff) may have access anywhere on campus, and often from home.

As networks become more robust we are likely to see more of this third form of licensing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

22 Acquisirions and Collec/ion Developrne~ irr [he Htrrnaniries

License agreements with publishers generally cover the things that the library (or the licensee) can and cannot do. Parts of a license may prohibit use of thc database to create any competing publication or for the licensee to act as intermediary in the resale of the database. There may also be limits on use in terms of eligible users. For example, the resource may be leased on the condition that only course-related research be conducted on it. Other features of licensing might include replacement provisions for a damaged product on the condition that the previous edition is dcstroyed.

Those libraries acquiring electronic texts should keep in mind a number of issues as they review their licenses. We have found the following criteria helpful:

1 . Be aware of how much information can be duplicated, printed or downloaded. May portions be extracted for use in courses?

2. Pay attention to the number of simultaneous users allowed. Who is eligible?

3. Will the currcnt license apply to new versions of the database? 4. How does the license address issues such as cross-platform portabil-

ity and preservation? Are there provisions to allow the data to be re- moved at a later date'?

Every electronic text product will bring with it its own unique licensing characteristics. Careful attention needs to be paid to each characteristic.

Access and Ownership

The issues of access and ownership play an important role in the evalu- ation and acquisition of electronic texts. The economics of providing users what they need, regardless of what or where it may be, has been, as it should be, a long standing concern. The number of electronic resources available from remote sites for libraries to purchase has increased. Pn turn it has become less clear exactly what it means for a library to "own" something. It is often overlooked that the library's capacity as public information archive is to a great extent a function of its being a physical place.

Lowry (1993) characterizes the emerging relationship between libraries and publishers as one of landlord and tenant, with libraries more often in the tenant's position and publishers in that of landlord. Not all discussants in the "access vs. ownership" debate have been committed to an eithedor perspective, however. Recently it has been suggested that libraries balance access and ownership case by case (Hoadley 1993, Kane 1997jindicating something of the magnitude of the change currently underway.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Elecrronic Environmer~r 23

The issues of access and ownership take on particular characteristics with regard to electronic text. It is possible, for example, to both provide remotc access to Chadwyck-Hcaley's English Poetry Database ( E P D ) across the campus network via the World Wide Web, while maintaining a high degree of local "ownership" for the material. For the library this high degree of ownership is expressed through a campus-wide site license in perpetuity, allowing for unlimited distribution throughout its campus do- main.

The unequivocal connotation of the word "ownership" can be mislead- ing. With electronic text, ownership is often a matter of degree. Electronic text products may contain works by multiple authors, some of whom may be under copyright, some not-an important characteristic in evaluating price. In all cases we must ask: does the publisher adhere to best practices in charging for this ,product in this way? One should also be wary of high costs for electronic text products that have been funded by public or private philanthropic monies: the library in its capacity as public institu- tion ought not to have to pay for texts a second time (Ellis 1995).

One should also be wary of subscription to texts that have a discernible end point. For example, with the Web version of the Oxford English Dictionary, emphasis is on subscription. Instead of a high degree of own- ership as with the English P o e q Dafabase, the subscription would have to be renewed annually, while the product may not change from one year to the next. In this case it becomes clear that while it is one thing to pay for something once (albeit always with certain strings attached), it is quite another to lease an unchanging resource from year to year. The resource is never possessed in any sense by the library, and therefore far more suscep- tible to the contingencics of the budget.

Copyright

The development of electronic publishing has brought with it concerns about the adequacy of the copyright law. More than a decade ago the OEce of Technology Assessment recognized with regard to copyright that "technological change is now outpacing the legal structure that governs the system" (Intellectual Property fights 1986). While it has long been an assumption that making works available in electronic versions may consti- tute publication, the Copyright Act is less clear.

From the publishers' point of view, changes in distribution technology have allowed for the relatively inexpensive and easy duplication of an original, an original that would have associated costs much higher than the copy (Gasaway 1995). This has led to a number of recommendations by groups both public and private to amend the present law, a process of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

24 Acquisifio~rs a d Collecrion Developmerrr br rhe Hlcntarlifies

change that has had and will have a direct impact on elcctronic tcxt dis- tribution policies.

Perhaps the best known of these groups is the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. Their rcport, "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure," has two recommendations that may affect thc library's ability to distribute or provide access to electronic text: (1) that the definition of publication be changed so as to no longer require that the physical object change hands, and (2) that the right of first sale not apply to electronic publishing in the same way that it currently does not apply to sound recordings and computer software.

The recommendations of the Working Group have had an impact on the recent hearings on the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and copy- right in the U.S. Congress. The House Subcommittee on Courts and Intel- lectual Property has held hearings on the NII, reflected in H.R. 2441 and its companion bill (S 1284) in 1995 and 1996 (United States House of Representatives). The proposed legislation, entitled "The NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995," includes sections summarized as follows:

1. clarify the copyright owners' right over distribution of their works that havc been transmitted electronically,

2. allow libraries to digitize copies of print materials for preservation or replacement without requesting authorization from the copyright holder,

3. make an exception for the reproduction of copyrighted works for the use of the visually impaired,

4. prohibit the use of any device or sclvice designed to circurnvcnt copyright protection systcms,

5. address liabilities of online providers.

The tone of the bill suggests that it is consistent with the "pro-busi- ness" recommendations of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. It is important to note that with this legislation something of the library's traditional role as a site of access and distribution may be cur- tailed. At present, no new legislation has been enacted, but it is certain that the copyright law will undergo changes in the hture, with significant impact on electronic text distribution policies.

Cooperative Collection Development

There is now some precedent for cooperative collection development with electronic texts. When agreements are formed betwcen publishers and two or more institutions, publishers will often offer a reduced rate. As

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Elecnonic Dtvirorimerrt 25

an example, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CICHhe aca- demic equivalent of the Big Terr-has sought to address the increasing cost of materials by negotiating joint contracts on behalf of the member institu- tions.

In 1993 the Committee on Institutional Cooperation formed the Task Force on CIC Electronic Collection. Their charge has been to consider the management and use of shared electronic resources. The use, production and distribution of electronic texts has been a continuing interest of the Task Forcc (Committee on Institutional Cooperation 1993, 1995). A Work- ing Group on Electronic Texts in the Humanities has also been created within the CIC. Issucs explored thus far by this group include encoding standards and training, as well as the various organizational models cur- rently being used to deal with electronic texts (Committee on Institutional Cooperation, 1996). One outcome of this work has been the negotiation for the joint purchase of a large collection of commercially published electronic text material. Licenses for the material would go to cach mem- ber institution (maintaining a high degree of local ownership) and access would be provided through a central server.

Cooperative collection development can also take the form of group decision making within libraries, and this is particularly true with electronic resources. Demas (1994) has proposed an organizational model that would account for the proliferation of electronic resources and formats by forming an electronic resources "council" within the library. This council would be composed of " g e m specialists" who select according to their subject ex- ~ertise across formats. With regard to electronic text Ellis (1996) has re- ported how both group decisionkaking and group purchasing p ~ ~ & can be effective in acquiring a core collection of primary source material.

CONCLUSION

According to Katz (1980) selection philosophy falls into three basic categories, liberal, traditional and pluralistic. Traditionalist approaches would include adherence to collection practices that have worked in the past, such as purchasing only for those who use the library actively. When resources are sufficient the liberal philosophy predominates. In a liberal budgetary environment one would be able to buy proactively for the potential user and try new services. The pluralistic approach, of course, would account for what most practitioners have to contend with most of the time.

The need for a theory of collection development stems from resource scarcity. After all, if unlimited funds were available, there would be no

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

26 Acquisi~ions and Collection Developmen/ in /he Humani~ies

need to "select" and every library would contain all information needed. One wonders just how far we will be willing to g o in our pursuit of the digital library, with its ubiquity of access, its unlimited archive. Could it be that by pointing simply our Web browsers to resources at remote sites we begin to erode the foundations of the library as public information ar- chive? A period of "liberal" rhetoric, without sufficient liberal resources, could easily work to promote this situation. The great tradition the library as public information archive has given rise to access and all the freedom such access implies. We must ask daily, access for whom and at what price?

REFERENCES

Committee on Institutional Cooperation. Task Force on the CIC Electronic Collection. 1993. Report to rhe CIC Library Directors, October 1, 1993. URL: http:llcedar.cic.net/ciclelecfin.html.

-. 1995. Repor/ lo /he CIC Library Directors. Spring, 1995. URL: hnp:ll cedar.cic.net/cic/tfreport.html.

-. 1996. Slralegic Directions for Electronic Resources, Spring, 1996. URL: http:ilcedar.cic.net/cic/tfec96.html.

Demas, Samuel. 1994. Collection Development for the Electronic Library: A Conceptual and Organizational Model. Library Hi Tech 12 (3): 71-80.

Ellis, S. 1995. Networks and Electronic Publishing: A View. Againsr the Grain 7 (47): I, 16-17.

--. 1996. Towards the Humanities Digital Library: Building the Local Organiza- tion. College and Research Libraries 57: 525-534.

Gasaway, L. 1995. Scholarly Publication and Copyright in Networked Electronic Publishing. Library Trends 43: 679-700.

Gaunt, M. 1990. Machine-readable Literary Tcxts: Collection Development Is- sues. Collection Managemen/ 13: 87-96.

-. 1995. Literary Text in an Electronic Age: Implications for Library Services. In Advances in Library Services 19 (Irene Godden, Ed.) New York: Academic Press.

Henige, David. 1991. Value and Evaluation. In Collection Management: A New Treatise. Foundations in Library and Information Science 26, part A (Ross Atkinson, Ed.) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hoadley, Irene. 1993. Access vs. Ownership: Myth or Reality. Library Acquisi- lions: Practice and Theory 17: 191 - 195.

Hockey, S. 1994. Evaluating Electronic Texts in the Humanities. Library Trends 42: 676-693.

Information Infrastructure Task Force. Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. 1995. Intellectual Properly and the National Information Infrastruc- ture: Reporf of the Working Group on h~telleciual Properly Rights. Informa- tion Infrastructure Task Force, Washington, D.C.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Electronic Environment 27

Kane, L. 1997. Access vs. Ownership: Do We Have to Make a Choice? College and Research Libraries 58, 59-67.

Katz, W.A. 1980. Colleclion Developmenl: The Selection of Materials for Li- braries. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lowry, A. 1992. Electronic Texts in English and American Literature. Library Trends 40: 704-723.

-. 1993. Landlords and Tenants: Who Owns Information, Who Pays for It, and How? Serials Librarian 23: 6 1-7 1 .

Ranganathan, S. 1966. Library Book Selection. 2nd. ed. Bombay, New York: Asia Publishing House.

Ruhleder, K . 1995. Reconstructing Artifacts, Reconstructing Work: From Textual Edition to On-line Databank. Science, Technology & Human Values 20: 39-64.

Shreeves, E. 1992. Between the Visionaries and the Luddites: Collection Devel- opment and Electronic Resources in the Humanities. Librav Trends 40: 579-595.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. 1996. NII Copyright Pmteclion ACI of 1995: Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts and lntellec~ual Property of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senare Committee on the Judiciary. One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session.

United States. Congress. Ofice o f Technology Assessment. 1986. lntellectual Proper& Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Ofice.

Welsch, E. 1992. Hypertext, hypermedia, and the humanities. Libra9 Trends 40: 6 14-646.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:20

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14