DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamentals of a Regulatory System for Algorithm-Based Processes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamentals of a Regulatory System for Algorithm-Based Processes Prof. Dr. Martini – Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes Prof. Dr. Mario Martini Chair of Public Administration, Public Law, Administrative Law and Euro- pean Law, German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, Director of the program area “Transformation of the state in the digital age” at the German Research Institute for Public Administration, Member of the Data Ethics Commission appointed by the German Feder- al Government FUNDAMENTALS OF A REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR ALGORITHM-BASED PROCESSES – Expert opinion prepared on behalf of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband)* – 1/5/19 1 Prof. Dr. Martini – Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes Recommended citation: Martini, Fundamentals of a Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes, Speyer, 2019. All contents of this report, in particular texts and graphics, are protected by copyright. Un- less expressly stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to Prof. Mario Martini, Chair of Public Administration, Public Law, Administrative Law and European Law, German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer. 2 Prof. Dr. Martini – Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes A. OUT OF CONTROL? ALGORITHMS AS NAVIGATORS IN THE DIGITAL WORLD ___________ 6 B. REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS _______________________________________________ 8 I. Transparency requirements ______________________________________________________________ 8 Ex-ante obligations to mark and inform ___________________________________________________ 9 a) Status quo under existing legislation___________________________________________________ 9 b) Recommendation for future legislation _______________________________________________ 10 2. Ex-post information _________________________________________________________________ 11 a) Obligation to state reasons _________________________________________________________ 11 Legal status quo ________________________________________________________________ 11 Recommendation for future legislation ______________________________________________ 12 cc) Limitations of obligatory justifications ______________________________________________ 12 b) Right of access to underlying data and the decision basis _________________________________ 13 aa) Status quo under existing legislation ________________________________________________ 13 bb) Right to appropriate algorithmic conclusions as a recommendation for future legislation? ____ 14 3. Expansion and publication of the data protection impact assessment _________________________ 16 II. Content control _______________________________________________________________________ 18 1. Regulation mechanisms ______________________________________________________________ 18 a) Approval procedure in sensitive areas of application ____________________________________ 18 b) Specifying regulations for the legitimacy of profiling, in particular the requirement of mathematical-statistical validity of algorithm-based decisions ________________________________ 19 c) Anti-discrimination guardianship: Obligation to ensure lawful and, in particular, non-discriminatory decision results _______________________________________________________ 21 aa) Operator obligations under discrimination law _______________________________________ 22 (1) Extension of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) _______________________________ 22 (2) Technical measures of protection against indirect discrimination ______________________ 23 bb) Quality requirements for procedural justice __________________________________________ 24 cc) Obligation to implement a risk management system and name a responsible person ________ 24 d) Supervision by the authorities during operation of algorithm-based systems _________________ 25 aa) Control of decision results, specifically through audit algorithms _________________________ 26 bb) Authorities’ rights of access and inspection, in particular access rights/interfaces for tests and external controls _________________________________________________________ 26 (1) Interface for tests and external controls __________________________________________ 27 (2) Obligation of service providers to keep records ____________________________________ 28 2. Institutional design __________________________________________________________________ 29 a) General supervisory authority? ______________________________________________________ 30 b) Supporting service unit ____________________________________________________________ 31 3 Prof. Dr. Martini – Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes c) Additional non-authority control mechanisms __________________________________________ 32 d) Interim conclusion ________________________________________________________________ 34 III. Ex-post protection _____________________________________________________________________ 35 1. Liabilities __________________________________________________________________________ 35 a) Allocation of the burden of proof ____________________________________________________ 35 b) Strict liability? ____________________________________________________________________ 36 2. Legal protection ____________________________________________________________________ 36 a) Competitors’ powers to issue written warnings _________________________________________ 36 b) Consumer associations’ right to take legal action and creation of arbitration boards ___________ 37 IV. Self-regulation _____________________________________________________________________ 37 Auditing ___________________________________________________________________________ 38 2. Algorithmic Responsibility Code ________________________________________________________ 38 C. REGULATORY THRESHOLDS: CATALOGUE OF CRITERIA TO SPECIFY WHEN CERTAIN REGULATORY MEASURES APPLY ________________________________________________ 40 I. Defining content-related standards _______________________________________________________ 41 1. Regulatory thresholds in general _______________________________________________________ 41 a) Fixed thresholds (e. g. number of employees; turnover) __________________________________ 41 b) Number of data subjects (potentially) involved _________________________________________ 43 c) Fundamental rights sensitivity as the connecting factor to the purpose of protection __________ 44 aa) Impacts on fundamental rights other than the right to informational self-determination ______ 45 bb) Risk of excluding consumers from important areas of life - Relevance of participation and availability of alternatives _____________________________________________________________ 46 cc) Specially protected categories of personal data _______________________________________ 47 d) Interim conclusion ________________________________________________________________ 47 2. Regulatory thresholds in specific areas – Identification of applications requiring regulation ________ 48 3. Combined solution __________________________________________________________________ 49 a) Risk factors ______________________________________________________________________ 49 aa) Types of damage ________________________________________________________________ 50 bb) Extent of expected damage _______________________________________________________ 50 b) (Qualitative) specification of risk thresholds ___________________________________________ 51 II. Procedural instruments of specification – limits to the delegation of regulatory power ____________ 51 1. Specification of provisions in national law ________________________________________________ 53 a) Constitutional framework for the specification of provisions – delegated regulations as an instrument for specifying provisions _______________________________________________________ 53 4 Prof. Dr. Martini – Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes b) Limits of delegation of regulatory powers by law to private actors, in particular to an expert committee in technology and ethics _______________________________________________________ 55 2. EU legal framework for the specification of provisions ______________________________________ 59 a) Delegated acts of the Commission ___________________________________________________ 59 b) EU Guidelines ____________________________________________________________________ 61 III. Summary: basic structure of a normative risk threshold system for algorithm-based processes _____ 62 D. REGULATORY COMPETENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY PROPOSALS IN A MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM – SUMMARY _________________________________________ 65 I. Transparency obligations _______________________________________________________________ 66 1. Labelling obligations (“if”) and content-related information obligations (“how”) _________________ 66 2. Obligation to publish a comprehensive impact assessment __________________________________ 68 II. Content control _______________________________________________________________________ 69 1. Instruments ________________________________________________________________________ 69 2. Regulatory thresholds ________________________________________________________________ 70 3. Institutional design __________________________________________________________________ 71 III. Liability and legal protection ____________________________________________________________ 72 IV. Self-regulation ________________________________________________________________________ 73 V. Table with regulatory proposals for exemplary applications __________________________________ 73 E. LIST OF REFERENCES _______________________________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amber Billey Senylrc 4/1/2016
    AMBER BILLEY SENYLRC 4/1/2016 Photo by twm1340 - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/89093669@N00 Created with Haiku Deck Today’s slides: http://bit.ly/SENYLRC_BF About me... ● Metadata Librarian ● 10 years of cataloging and digitization experience for cultural heritage institutions ● MLIS from Pratt in 2009 ● Zepheira BIBFRAME alumna ● Curious by nature [email protected] @justbilley Photo by GBokas - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/36724091@N07 Created with Haiku Deck http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1153322 02743cam 22004094a 45000010008000000050017000080080041000250100017000660190014000830200031000970200028001280200 03800156020003500194024001600229035002400245035003900269035001700308040005300325050002200378 08200120040010000300041224500790044225000120052126000510053330000350058449000480061950400640 06675050675007315200735014066500030021416500014021717000023021858300049022089000014022579600 03302271948002902304700839020090428114549.0080822s2009 ctua b 001 0 eng a 2008037446 a236328594 a9781591585862 (alk. paper) a1591585864 (alk. paper) a9781591587002 (pbk. : alk. paper) a159158700X (pbk. : alk. paper) a99932583184 a(OCoLC) ocn236328585 a(OCoLC)236328585z(OCoLC)236328594 a(NNC)7008390 aDLCcDLCdBTCTAdBAKERdYDXCPdUKMdC#PdOrLoB-B00aZ666.5b.T39 200900a0252221 aTaylor, Arlene G., d1941-14aThe organization of information /cArlene G. Taylor and Daniel N. Joudrey. a3rd ed. aWestport, Conn. :bLibraries Unlimited,c2009. axxvi,
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Regtech: the Benefits of a Globalized Approach
    111 Regulating Regtech: The Benefits of a Globalized Approach Anastasia KONINA1 Abstract: Regulatory technology, or RegTech, helps financial institutions around the world comply with a myriad of data-driven financial regulations. RegTech’s algorithms make thousands of decisions every day: they identify and block suspicious clients and transactions, monitor third party exposures, and maintain statutory capital thresholds. This article tackles one of the main problems of RegTech: the risks posed by inherently opaque algorithms that make the aforementioned decisions. It suggests that due to the fundamental 111 REGULATING REGTECH: THE BENEFITS OF A GLOBALIZED APPROACH APPROACH GLOBALIZED REGTECH: THEBENEFITS OFA REGULATING importance of RegTech for the robustness of global finance, a globalized model of regulating RegTech’s algorithms should be adopted. This model should be based on two facets of regulation: first, the soft law harmonizing instruments implemented by transgovernmental networks of cooperation; and, second, the domestic administrative instruments that adapt global requirements to particular jurisdictions. Anastasia KONINA Anastasia KONINA INTRODUCTION The financial system’s actors operate in the dynamic reporting and compliance environment prompted by the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008 (“the Global Financial Crisis of 2008”). In the post- crisis years, global and domestic regulators have created a regulatory regime that necessitates the collection, analysis, and reporting of granular data in real-time or near-to-real-time.2 The Dodd-Frank Act (US),3 the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (EU),4 and the Basel Committee’s “Principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting” require5 financial institutions to collect, calculate, and report aggregated risk data from across the banking group.
    [Show full text]
  • Download; (2) the Appropriate Log-In and Password to Access the Server; and (3) Where on the Server (I.E., in What Folder) the File Was Kept
    AN ALCTS MONOGRAPH LINKED DATA FOR THE PERPLEXED LIBRARIAN SCOTT CARLSON CORY LAMPERT DARNELLE MELVIN AND ANNE WASHINGTON chicago | 2020 alastore.ala.org © 2020 by the American Library Association Extensive effort has gone into ensuring the reliability of the information in this book; however, the publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. ISBNs 978-0-8389-4746-3 (paper) 978-0-8389-4712-8 (PDF) 978-0-8389-4710-4 (ePub) 978-0-8389-4711-1 (Kindle) Library of Congress Control Number: 2019053975 Cover design by Alejandra Diaz. Text composition by Dianne M. Rooney in the Adobe Caslon Pro and Archer typefaces. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). Printed in the United States of America 23 24 22 21 20 5 4 3 2 1 alastore.ala.org CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Introduction ix One Enquire Within upon Everything 1 The Origins of Linked Data Two Unfunky and Obsolete 17 From MARC to RDF Three Mothership Connections 39 URIs and Serializations Four What Is a Thing? 61 Ontologies and Linked Data Five Once upon a Time Called Now 77 Real-World Examples of Linked Data Six Tear the Roof off the Sucker 105 Linked Library Data Seven Freaky and Habit-Forming 121 Linked Data Projects That Even Librarians Can Mess Around With EPILOGUE The Unprovable Pudding: Where Is Linked Data in Everyday Library Life? 139 Bibliography 143 Glossary 149 Figure Credits 153 About the Authors 155 Index 157 alastore.ala.orgv INTRODUCTION ince the mid-2000s, the greater GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) community has proved itself to be a natural facilitator S of the idea of linked data—that is, a large collection of datasets on the Internet that is structured so that both humans and computers can understand it.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for a Linked Data Approach to Name Authority Control in an Institutional Repository Context
    Title Assessing author identifiers: preparing for a linked data approach to name authority control in an institutional repository context Author details Corresponding author: Moira Downey, Digital Repository Content Analyst, Duke University ([email protected] ; 919 660 2409; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6238-4690) 1 Abstract Linked data solutions for name authority control in digital libraries are an area of growing interest, particularly among institutional repositories (IRs). This article first considers the shift from traditional authority files to author identifiers, highlighting some of the challenges and possibilities. An analysis of author name strings in Duke University's open access repository, DukeSpace, is conducted in order to identify a suitable source of author URIs for Duke's newly launched repository for research data. Does one of three prominent international authority sources—LCNAF, VIAF, and ORCID—demonstrate the most comprehensive uptake? Finally, recommendations surrounding a technical approach to leveraging author URIs at Duke are briefly considered. Keywords Name authority control, Authority files, Author identifiers, Linked data, Institutional repositories 2 Introduction Linked data has increasingly been looked upon as an encouraging model for storing metadata about digital objects in the libraries, archives and museums that constitute the cultural heritage sector. Writing in 2010, Coyle draws a connection between the affordances of linked data and the evolution of what she refers to as "bibliographic control," that is, "the organization of library materials to facilitate discovery, management, identification, and access" (2010, p. 7). Coyle notes the encouragement of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control to think beyond the library catalog when considering avenues by which users seek and encounter information, as well as the group's observation that the future of bibliographic control will be "collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web- based" (2010, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripts, Languages, and Authority Control Joan M
    49(4) LRTS 243 Scripts, Languages, and Authority Control Joan M. Aliprand Library vendors’ use of Unicode is leading to library systems with multiscript capability, which offers the prospect of multiscript authority records. Although librarians tend to focus on Unicode in relation to non-Roman scripts, language is a more important feature of authority records than script. The concept of a catalog “locale” (of which language is one aspect) is introduced. Restrictions on the structure and content of a MARC 21 authority record are outlined, and the alternative structures for authority records containing languages written in non- Roman scripts are described. he Unicode Standard is the universal encoding standard for all the charac- Tters used in writing the world’s languages.1 The availability of library systems based on Unicode offers the prospect of library records not only in all languages but also in all the scripts that a particular system supports. While such a system will be used primarily to create and provide access to bibliographic records in their actual scripts, it can also be used to create authority records for the library, perhaps for contribution to communal authority files. A number of general design issues apply to authority records in multiple languages and scripts, design issues that affect not just the key hubs of communal authority files, but any institution or organization involved with authority control. Multiple scripts in library systems became available in the 1980s in the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN) with the addition of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) capability, and in ALEPH (Israel’s research library network), which initially provided Latin and Hebrew scripts and later Arabic, Cyrillic, and Greek.2 The Library of Congress continued to produce catalog cards for material in the JACKPHY (Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Persian, Hebrew, and Yiddish) languages until all of the scripts used to write these languages were supported by an automated system.
    [Show full text]
  • There Are No Limits to Learning! Academic and High School
    Brick and Click Libraries An Academic Library Symposium Northwest Missouri State University Friday, November 5, 2010 Managing Editors: Frank Baudino Connie Jo Ury Sarah G. Park Co-Editor: Carolyn Johnson Vicki Wainscott Pat Wyatt Technical Editor: Kathy Ferguson Cover Design: Sean Callahan Northwest Missouri State University Maryville, Missouri Brick & Click Libraries Team Director of Libraries: Leslie Galbreath Co-Coordinators: Carolyn Johnson and Kathy Ferguson Executive Secretary & Check-in Assistant: Beverly Ruckman Proposal Reviewers: Frank Baudino, Sara Duff, Kathy Ferguson, Hong Gyu Han, Lisa Jennings, Carolyn Johnson, Sarah G. Park, Connie Jo Ury, Vicki Wainscott and Pat Wyatt Technology Coordinators: Sarah G. Park and Hong Gyu Han Union & Food Coordinator: Pat Wyatt Web Page Editors: Lori Mardis, Sarah G. Park and Vicki Wainscott Graphic Designer: Sean Callahan Table of Contents Quick & Dirty Library Promotions That Really Work! 1 Eric Jennings, Reference & Instruction Librarian Kathryn Tvaruzka, Education Reference Librarian University of Wisconsin Leveraging Technology, Improving Service: Streamlining Student Billing Procedures 2 Colleen S. Harris, Head of Access Services University of Tennessee – Chattanooga Powerful Partnerships & Great Opportunities: Promoting Archival Resources and Optimizing Outreach to Public and K12 Community 8 Lea Worcester, Public Services Librarian Evelyn Barker, Instruction & Information Literacy Librarian University of Texas at Arlington Mobile Patrons: Better Services on the Go 12 Vincci Kwong,
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Controlled Vocabularies?
    2. What Are Controlled Vocabularies? A controlled vocabulary is an organized arrangement of words and phrases used to index content and/or to retrieve content through browsing or searching. It typically includes preferred and variant terms and has a defined scope or describes a specific domain. 2.1. Purpose of Controlled Vocabularies The purpose of controlled vocabularies is to organize information and to provide terminology to catalog and retrieve information. While capturing the richness of variant terms, controlled vocabularies also promote consistency in preferred terms and the assignment of the same terms to similar content. Given that a shared goal of the cultural heritage community is to improve access to visual arts and material culture information, controlled vocabularies are essential. They are necessary at the indexing phase because without them catalogers will not consistently use the same term to refer to the same person, place, or thing. In the retrieval process, various end users may use different synonyms or more generic terms to refer to a given concept. End users are often not specialists and thus need to be guided because they may not know the correct term. The most important functions of a controlled vocabulary are to gather together variant terms and synonyms for concepts and to link concepts in a logical order or sort them into categories. Are a rose window and a Catherine wheel the same thing? How is pot-metal glass related to the more general term stained glass? The links and relationships in a controlled vocabulary ensure that these connections are defined and maintained, for both cataloging and retrieval.
    [Show full text]
  • Useful Links
    Useful links Authority control: a basic glossary of terms http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/ac/def.html A basic glossary of terms on authority control compiled from various sources AUTOCAT http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/subscribe.html AUTOCAT is a semi-moderated international electronic discussion list. It serves as an electronic forum for the discussion of all questions relating to cataloguing and authority control in libraries. Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata: Final Report of the PREMIS (PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies) Working Group http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/premis-final.pdf This publication includes the PREMIS Working Group Final Report, the Data Dictionary, and Examples. The report and the PREMIS Data Dictionary version 1.0 are the culmination of nearly two years of effort by PREMIS members. This Data Dictionary defines and describes an implementable set of core preservation metadata with broad applicability to digital preservation repositories. This report is intended to put the Data Dictionary into context, explain the underlying assumptions and data model, and provide additional information about the meaning and use of semantic units defined in the Data Dictionary. Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) http://www.oclc.org/dewey/ The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, devised by library pioneer Melvil Dewey in the 1870s and owned by OCLC since 1988, provides a dynamic structure for the organization of library collections. Now in its 22nd edition, and available in print and Web versions, the DDC is the world’s most widely used library classification system. The DDC provides a logical system for organizing every item in your library’s unique collection, offer library users familiarity and consistency of a time-honoured classification system used in 200,000 libraries worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • AUTHORIS: a Tool for Authority Control in the Semantic Web Amed Leiva-Mederos, Jose´ A
    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm LHT 31,3 AUTHORIS: a tool for authority control in the semantic web Amed Leiva-Mederos, Jose´ A. Senso, Sandor Domı´nguez-Velasco 536 and Pedro Hı´pola Departamento de Informacion y Comunicacio´n, Universidad de Granada, Received 7 December 2012 Granada, Spain Revised 25 February 2013 Accepted 21 March 2013 Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a tool that generates authority files to be integrated with linked data by means of learning rules. AUTHORIS is software developed to enhance authority control and information exchange among bibliographic and non-bibliographic entities. Design/methodology/approach – The article analyzes different methods previously developed for authority control as well as IFLA and ALA standards for managing bibliographic records. Semantic Web technologies are also evaluated. AUTHORIS relies on Drupal and incorporates the protocols of Dublin Core, SIOC, SKOS and FOAF. The tool has also taken into account the obsolescence of MARC and its substitution by FRBR and RDA. Its effectiveness was evaluated applying a learning test proposed by RDA. Over 80 percent of the actions were carried out correctly. Findings – The use of learning rules and the facilities of linked data make it easier for information organizations to reutilize products for authority control and distribute them in a fair and efficient manner. Research limitations/implications – The ISAD-G records were the ones presenting most errors. EAD was found to be second in the number of errors produced. The rest of the formats – MARC 21, Dublin Core, FRAD, RDF, OWL, XBRL and FOAF – showed fewer than 20 errors in total.
    [Show full text]
  • Communications Wikidata: from “An” Identifier to “The” Identifier Theo Van Veen
    Communications Wikidata: From “an” Identifier to “the” Identifier Theo van Veen ABSTRACT Library catalogues may be connected to the linked data cloud through various types of thesauri. For name authority thesauri in particular I would like to suggest a fundamental break with the current distributed linked data paradigm: to make a transition from a multitude of different identifiers to using a single, universal identifier for all relevant named entities, in the form of the Wikidata identifier. Wikidata (https://wikidata.org) seems to be evolving into a major authority hub that is lowering barriers to access the web of data for everyone. Using the Wikidata identifier of notable entities as a common identifier for connecting resources has significant benefits compared to traversing the ever-growing linked data cloud. When the use of Wikidata reaches a critical mass, for some institutions, Wikidata could even serve as an authority control mechanism. INTRODUCTION Library catalogs, at national as well as institutional levels, make use of thesauri for authority control of named entities, such as persons, locations, and events. Authority records in thesauri contain information to distinguish between entities with the same name, combine pseudonyms and name variants for a single entity, and offer additional contextual information. Links to a thesaurus from within a catalog often take the form of an authority control number, and serve as identifiers for an entity within the scope of the catalog. Authority records in a catalog can be part of the linked data cloud when including links to thesauri such as VIAF (https://viaf.org/), ISNI (http://www.isni.org/), or ORCID (https://orcid.org/).
    [Show full text]
  • UDC Seminar 2009: an Overview
    UDC Seminar 2009: an overview Item Type Article Authors Slavic, Aida; Cordeiro, Maria Inês Citation Slavic, A. UDC Seminar 2009: an overview. Extensions and corrections to the UDC, 31 (2009), pp. 165-167. Publisher UDC Consortium Journal Extensions & Corrections to the UDC Download date 01/10/2021 07:39:52 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/118445 PROCEEDINGS UDC Seminar 2009 | Classification at a Crossroads: Multiple Directions to Usability UDC Seminar 2009: an overview Aida Slavic & Maria Inês Cordeiro Conference Programme Chairs UDC Consortium UDC Seminars’ background Following the first UDC Seminar that took place on 4-5 June 2007, the proceedings of which are published as an annex to Extensions and Corrections to the UDC 29 (2007), it is with great pleasure that we now introduce the proceedings of the second in the series of what are now biennial UDC conferences. These conferences are organized by the UDC Consortium and their titles honour the first two international UDC Seminars that took place in 1968 and 1970, in Copenhagen and Frankfurt respectively. We often refer to the first two as the ‘famous UDC seminars’ as they were the first to address the issues of classification use online, ahead of their time and pushing at the boundaries of research. The Copenhagen and Frankfurt seminars left their mark on classification research for decades. In many ways they represent a milestone in the evolution of library classification and they brought awareness of the role bibliographic classifications could play in the world of computers
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Papers from the Conference and School on Records, Archives and Memory
    -------------------------------- Records, Archives and Memory Selected Papers from the Conference and School on Records, Archives and Memory Studies, University of Zadar, Croatia, May 2013 -------------------------------- Sveučilište u Zadru University of Zadar www.unizd.hr www.unizd.hr Za nakladnika For the Editor prof. dr. sc. Ante Uglešić Ante Uglešić, Ph.D., Professor Predsjednik Povjerenstva za izdavačku President of the Publishing djelatnost Sveučilišta u Zadru Committee of the University of Zadar prof. dr. sc. Josip Faričić Josip Faričić, Ph.D., Professor Odjel za informacijske znanosti Department of Information Sciences Studije iz knjižnične Studies in Library and i informacijske znanosti Information Sciences Knjiga 3 Volume 3 Urednice Editors prof. dr. sc. Mirna Willer Mirna Willer, Ph.D., Professor prof. dr. sc. Anne J. Gilliland Anne J. Gilliland, Ph.D., Professor doc. dr. sc. Marijana Tomić Marijana Tomić, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Urednički odbor Editorial Board prof. dr. sc. Tatjana Aparac-Jelušić Tatjana Aparac-Jelušić, Ph.D., Professor prof. dr. sc. Srećko Jelušić Srećko Jelušić, Ph.D., Professor doc. dr. sc. Franjo Pehar Franjo Pehar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor izv. prof. dr. sc. Ivanka Stričević Ivanka Stričević, Ph.D., Associate Professor doc. dr. sc. Nives Tomašević Nives Tomašević, Ph.D., Assistant Professor doc. dr. sc. Marijana Tomić Marijana Tomić, Ph.D., Assistant Professor prof. dr. sc. Mirna Willer Mirna Willer, Ph.D., Professor Glavni urednik Editor-in-Chief prof. dr. sc. Tatjana Aparac-Jelušić Tatjana Aparac-Jelušić, Ph.D., Professor Poslijediplomski studij “Društvo znanja Postgraduate Programme “Knowledge Society i prijenos informacija” and Information Transfer” Voditeljica doktorskog studija Director of the Postgraduate Programme prof. dr. sc.
    [Show full text]