scholarly journals Institutional repository statistics: reliable, consistent approaches for Canada

Author(s):  
Will Roy ◽  
Brian D. Cameron ◽  
Tim Ribaric

Introduction: “Usage metrics are an effective way for libraries to demonstrate the value of their institutional repositories, however, existing tools are not always reliable and can either undercount or overcount file downloads. As well, although statistics can sometimes be accessed through the various repository interfaces, without an agreed standard it is impossible to reliably assess and compare usage data across different IRs in any meaningful way.”[1] The Task Group for Standards for IR Usage Data has undertaken an information-gathering exercise to better understand both the existing practices of Canadian repositories, as well as the emerging tools and processes available for repositories to track and monitor usage more effectively. This exercise directly links to the broader goals of the Open Repositories Working Group, which are to “strengthen and add value to the network of Canadian open access repositories by collaborating more closely and adopting a broader range of services.”[2] Our recommended course of action is for all Canadian IRs to collectively adopt OpenAIREStatistics. This path aligns with the following recommendations which our group also advances: Recommendations: We suggest the following Mandatory (M) and Optional (O) recommendations: R1(M):All Canadian IRs should adopt the COUNTER Code of Practice. R2(M): All Canadian IRs should select a service that allows for interoperability with other web services via a fully open, or accessible, permissions-based API. R3(M): All Canadian IRs should usea statistics service that practices transparent communication and maintains a governance strategy. In addition, we strongly urge for the future that Canadian IRs consider the following advice. R4(O): Make further investments into understanding and utilizing the common log format (CLF). R5(O): Conduct research into the privacy implications of collecting use statistics via third party services with commercial interests and consider available alternatives. R6(O): Practice a healthy skepticism towards tools and solutions that promise “increased” usage statistics, and instead advocate for responsible collection assessment based on multiple aspects of use.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Roy ◽  
Brian D. Cameron ◽  
Tim Ribaric

Introduction: “Usage metrics are an effective way for libraries to demonstrate the value of their institutional repositories, however, existing tools are not always reliable and can either undercount or overcount file downloads. As well, although statistics can sometimes be accessed through the various repository interfaces, without an agreed standard it is impossible to reliably assess and compare usage data across different IRs in any meaningful way.”[1] The Task Group for Standards for IR Usage Data has undertaken an information-gathering exercise to better understand both the existing practices of Canadian repositories, as well as the emerging tools and processes available for repositories to track and monitor usage more effectively. This exercise directly links to the broader goals of the Open Repositories Working Group, which are to “strengthen and add value to the network of Canadian open access repositories by collaborating more closely and adopting a broader range of services.”[2] Our recommended course of action is for all Canadian IRs to collectively adopt OpenAIREStatistics. This path aligns with the following recommendations which our group also advances: Recommendations: We suggest the following Mandatory (M) and Optional (O) recommendations: R1(M):All Canadian IRs should adopt the COUNTER Code of Practice. R2(M): All Canadian IRs should select a service that allows for interoperability with other web services via a fully open, or accessible, permissions-based API. R3(M): All Canadian IRs should usea statistics service that practices transparent communication and maintains a governance strategy. In addition, we strongly urge for the future that Canadian IRs consider the following advice. R4(O): Make further investments into understanding and utilizing the common log format (CLF). R5(O): Conduct research into the privacy implications of collecting use statistics via third party services with commercial interests and consider available alternatives. R6(O): Practice a healthy skepticism towards tools and solutions that promise “increased” usage statistics, and instead advocate for responsible collection assessment based on multiple aspects of use.


2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Phamela D Tampubolon ◽  
David Paul Elia Saerang ◽  
Agus Toni Poputra

Amid competition is so rapid and uncertain economic conditions, every company is required to be more efficient in order tobe more efficient in orderto survive and all of it can not be separated from the role of management.  Management measure which is occupied to measure the success or failure of the company is profit. To produce an efficient profit differential accounting information requires management to select the best course of action among alternatives available. The purpose of this study is to analyze the application of differential accounting information in the decision to buy or make your own semi-finished products on UD. Berkat Anugerah. This study uses a descriptive research method. The result of the analysis of research conducted on UD. Berkat Anugerah seen from the cost accounting showed diferential role in the short-term decision making, where the company should buy semi-finished products from third party cost incurred due to lower than producing its own.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.


1976 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Shalev

Chapter 4 of the new Israeli Contracts (General Part) Law, 1973, introduces the concept of a contract in favour of a third party, while granting express recognition to the right of a third party beneficiary. Even those, (including the author) who maintain, that the right of a third party beneficiary could and should be derived, even before the commencement of the new Law, from the general principles and premises of the old Israeli law of contract, cannot fail to see in the above-mentioned chapter an important innovation in the Israeli legal system.This paper is a comparative analysis of the institution of third party beneficiary. The analysis will consist of a presentation and critical examination of the central concepts and doctrines involved in the institution under discussion, and it will be combined with a comparative survey of the arrangements adopted in various legal systems. The choice of this approach stems from the particular circumstances of the new legislation.While in most countries, comparative legal research is a luxury, in Israel it is a necessity. The new legislation in private law is inspired to a great extent by Continental codifications. As far as the law of contract is concerned, Israel is now in the process of becoming a “mixed jurisdiction”: departing from the common law tradition and technique, and heading towards an independent body of law, derived from various sources, mainly Continental in both substance and form.


2018 ◽  
pp. 218-233
Author(s):  
Mayank Yuvaraj

During the course of planning an institutional repository, digital library collections or digital preservation service it is inevitable to draft file format policies in order to ensure long term digital preservation, its accessibility and compatibility. Sincere efforts have been made to encourage the adoption of standard formats yet the digital preservation policies vary from library to library. The present paper is based against this background to present the digital preservation community with a common understanding of the common file formats used in the digital libraries or institutional repositories. The paper discusses both open and proprietary file formats for several media.


Author(s):  
John Baker

This chapter explores some lines of development in contract law after 1600. First there were questions flowing from the decision in Slade’s Case – the pleading formulae known as the ‘common counts’ in indebitatus assumpsit were quickly settled and the perjury problems after the disuse of wager of law were dealt with in the Statute of Frauds 1677. Attempts to rationalize consideration in the eighteenth century were unsuccessful save that it became distinct from the requirement of an intention to be bound. The chapter traces the history of privity of contract and of the various attempts to give remedies to third-party beneficiaries. It then discusses the implication of terms into contracts, the difference between conditions and warranties, exclusion clauses, and the problems occasioned by standard-form contracts.


2021 ◽  
pp. 307-358
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier

Poole’s Casebook on Contract Law provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. This chapter examines privity of contract, its relationship with consideration, and the ability of third parties to enforce contractual provisions for their benefit. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the benefits of a contract can be enjoyed only by the parties to that contract and only parties can suffer the burdens of the contract. At common law, third party beneficiaries could not enforce a contractual provision in their favour so various devices were employed seeking to avoid privity. Statute now allows for direct third party enforcement but in limited circumstances. This chapter examines the background to privity and the attempted statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as it has been interpreted in the case law. The chapter also discusses the common law means of avoiding privity as illustrated by the case law, e.g. agency, collateral contracts, and trusts of contractual obligations. Finally, it assesses the remedies available to the contracting party to recover on behalf of the third party beneficiary of the promise, including the narrow and broad grounds in Linden Gardens Trust. It concludes by briefly considering privity and burdens—and the exceptional situations where a burden can be imposed on a person who is not a party to the contract.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document