1.-HIPERTEXTO E HIPERMÍDIA (P)
2.-HOW MANY ON-LINE (I)
3.-SOBRE FILTROS EN LA ESCUELA (I)
4.-LISTAS EN PORTUGUES (P)
5.-CONCURSO DE SOFTWARE DO MEC (P)
6.-LA PROXIMA BATALLA POR LA EDUCACION ON-LINE EN UNIVERSIDADES (I)
7.-THE TECHNOLOGY SOURCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (I)
8.-KIDLINK (I)
9.-YOUR COMPUTER BREAKS DOWN ON THE WEEKEND (I)
10.-ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME A WORLD COLLABORATIVE PROJECT (I)
11.-T@LK EUROPE! CHATLINE! (I)
12.-APPLE EDUCATIONAL OBJECT ECONOMY PROJECT (I)
13.-W3C EASES WEB USE (I)

Índice de resúmenes

==========================
1.-HIPERTEXTO E HIPERMÍDIA=================
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998
From: Luiziana <luiziana@lci.ufrj.br>

Envio algumas referências sobre hipertexto e hipermídia. Espero que lhe sejam úteis.

NIELSEN,Jakob. HyperText & HyperMedia. Academic Press, 1993.

LÉVY, Pierre. As tecnologias da inteligência: o futuro do pensamento na
era da informática. Tradução de Carlos Irineu da Costa. São Paulo:
Ed.34, 1996.

http://orion.ufrgs.br/faced/tomaz/teo.htm.

http://www.eastgate.com/Hypertext.html
 

====================
2.-HOW MANY ON-LINE========================
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>

Visit the CSS Internet News at:
http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker

Translation from English to: French, German, Spanish, Portugese or Italian available.
----------------
Nua's How Many Online finds there are now almost 113 million people online wrldwide with
62 million of these online in the United States, 20 million oncentrated in Europe and 14
million in Asia/ Middle East. 5.8 million Germans aged between 14 and 59 years of age now
use the Iternet on a regular basis, with teenagers comprising the strongest demographical
group online. 14 out of every 100 Germans aged between 30 and 39 are now adept at online
services while seven percent of those between 50 and 59 know how to navigate the Web. 45
percent (121,630) of all Icelanders are online and 35 percent are using the net more than 1
hour per week. One in twenty five British households are now linked to the Internet, showing
a strong commitment to online services. There are now 8.8 million online users in Japan,
having more than tripled from this time two years ago. Courtesy NUA Ireland
-----------------
 

=============================
3.-SOBRE FILTROS EN LA ESCUELA=============
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998
From: NA Webmaster <webmaster@nalejandria.com>

From: Gail Watson <gwatson@ILLUMINET.NET>
Date: Sáb 10:32
Subject: Re: Filtering Questions

> I was interested in the item John Walker posted about filtering programs
> for libraries and schools. Does anyone have any experience with
> filtering programs or comments on any of the available products?

Our school district uses Webtracker. We have had numerous problems, and I am quite
convinced that 99% of it was pure accident. That much junk is available, and that much junk
slips through the filters. I'm not talking pornography, that stuff is filtered out, but links to it,
with the enticing titles, are not. Quite a bit of profanity comes through, and certainly anything
in audio comes through uncensored.

All the bad sites our various students have run into was a direct result of them searching
topics they were supposed to be researching! It's kind of sad. Our curriculum next year
requires 5th (and maybe 4th, I can't remember) to know how to use search engines, so this
year we are experimenting with it. I'm not going to say I agree with that, because I don't, but I
have no say in the matter. Before our district came up with the technology curriculum, our
school had a policy of "no searching". We set up an extremely elaborate reserarch page on
our school web site with many teachers pooling their favorite curriculum related web sites for
me to post. All sites were reviewed and were considered appropriate for the kids. We still
push it, but we also encourage and teach the kids to search. I have a link to yahoo right at the
top of our web page for convenience.

> What is the state of filtering devices? I'm a health educator/teacher.
> In the past, putting in certain body parts--breast is a good one--would
> filter out valuable information on breast cancer, etc. Where do schools
> currently stand on the use of filtering devices? Thanks for any
> thoughts. Margo

At our school, we have had minimal problems with sites being filtered out when they were
considered valuable. It has happened, but not very often. Much more prevelant are sites
slipping through which SHOULD be filtered and aren't. Links or search results are never
filtered out, so if you did a search on something, you would be able to see your choices if not
the actual page. You could then recreate the search at home (if you have access at home) and
see what you can't at school. On the flip side of the argument, our fire wall has a huge impact
on the speed at which we do things on the internet. It is maddening! We have T1 lines to all
the classrooms, yet I have a faster ACTING connection at home with my 28.8 modem.
EVERYTHING I do at home is faster. Our district help desk doesn't believe me when I've
emailed them numerous times about this. It may have to do with an undersized fire wall
server, I don't know. Therefor, my final assessment of the usefulness of filters is a very mixed
bag for the elementary level. I have 3 children at home who I NEVER allow to search alone.
In fact, when they tell me they need info on something I usually get on before them (a
difficult task) to check out what will come up in a search. Only one time did I let one of my
kids do a search for the first time while I watched. Boy was I surprised. My daughter was in
second grade at the time, and obviously was a good reader. Now that they are older, I look at
some of this stuff as "jumping off points" for the birds and bees discussions we're supposed to
be having in the first place, but I still want to see it before they do. All this has no place in
schools, though. I guess I'm winding my way back to not really wanting elementary kids to
search at school.
I know this is a hodge podge of information, but I hope it helps.
-----
Mrs. Gail Watson
Computer Technologist
John F. Pattie Elementary School
16125 Dumfries Rd.
Dumfries, VA 22026
http://www.illuminet.net/pattie/
Personal page:
http://www.illuminet.net/~gwatson/
 

=======================
4.-LISTAS EN PORTUGUES=====================
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

Aquí paso algunas listas en portugués que pueden interesar.

AMIGA-L
Lista brasileira para discussoes sobre a familia de microcomputadores Commodore Amiga.
Coord.: Gelson Dias Santos <gelson@vortex.ufrgs.br>

CTRS-L
Destina-se a discussoes sobre Ciencia e Tecnologia no Rio Grande do Sul.
Coord.: FAPERGS <postmaster@zeus.fapergs.br>

EDUTEL-L
Destina-se a discussoes sobre Educacao.
Coord.: Lucila Santarosa <lucila@vortex.ufrgs.br>

GIPIE-L
Grupo Interdisciplinar de Pesquisas em Informatica na Educacao.

RIBIE-L
Informacoes sobre a Rede Iberoamericana de Informatica Educativa e assuntos relacionados
a Informatica na Educacao.

SBIS-L
Sociedade Brasileira de Informatica em Saude.
Coord.: Mariza Stumpf <mariza@vortex.ufrgs.br>

Grupo de listas integrantes da "RedePsi":
A RedePsi se constitui em um forum eletronico de divulgacao e discussao de temas relevantes
a todos os profissionais da area 'psi' (psicologos, psicanalistas e psiquiatras, entre outros). Ela
e' composta por uma lista geral (INFOPSI) e diversas listas de discussao tematica, segundo a
relacao abaixo:

INFOPSI
Visa divulgar assuntos relevantes aos membros da RedePsi, como conferencias, congressos,
etc. Sera tambem utilizado para coordenar os foruns da RedePsi. Coord.: Cesar A. Piccinini,
PhD <piccini@vortex.ufrgs.br>

ADOLESCENCIA-FAMILIA
Este forum visa discutir o desenvolvimento no contexto das interacoes sociais, em especial o
desenvolvimento da autonomia na adolescencia no contexto das interacoes familiares, relacao
apego-autonomia e as implicacoes do contexto socio-cultural.
Coord.: Rita Sobreira Lopes, PhD <sobreira@vortex.ufrgs.br>

COGNICAO
Pretende-se discutir resultados de pesquisas e projetos em andamento que se relacionem com
percepcao humana, funcionamento cognitivo, representacao e construcao de conhecimento,
com atencao especial as tecnologias da informacao e comunicacao.
Coord.: Dra. Lea da Cruz Fagundes <leafagun@vortex.ufrgs.br>

COMUNITARIA
Este forum esta aberto para todos os interessados em Psicologia Comunitaria. Enfase especial
e dada a aplicacoes apropriadas para paises em desenvolvimento e para grupos de alto risco,
como criancas de rua, usuarios de drogas iv, adolescentes gravidas, etc.
Coord: Claudio Hutz, PhD. <hutz@vortex.ufrgs.br>

FENOMENOLOGIA
Discute-se a aplicacao da teoria e metodo fenomenologico para a investigacao de temas em
desenvolvimento psicologico: adolescencia, adultez, envelhecimento, personalidade,
socialiacao, entre outros.
Coord.: William B. Gomes, PhD <gwilliam@vortex.ufrgs.br>

INTERACAO-SOCIAL
Neste forum discute-se a interacao crianca-crianca, especialmente nas atividades de
brinquedo de criancas normais e atipicas. Ha interesse em discutir o desenvolvimento de
metodologias variadas aplicaveis a area.
Coord.: Tania M. Sperb, PhD. <sperbt@vortex.ufrgs.br>

PAIS-CRIANCA
Este forum discute a interacao pai/mae-crianca e suas implicacoes no desenvolvimento
socio-emocional. Sao bem-vindas discussoes sobre interacao precoce, apego, cognicao, bem
como as estrategias educativas parentais utilizadas em diferentes contextos socio-culturais.
Coord.: Cesar A. Piccinini, PhD. <piccini@vortex.ufrgs.br>

PSICOPATOLOGIA
Propoe discussoes de textos fundantes e determinantes do campo e do corpus
psicopatologicos. Transmite apreciacoes de artigos apresentados em congressos e revistas, de
livros ou cursos sobre pesquisas psicopatologicas recentes ou em curso. As polemicas sao
desaconselhadas, incentiva-se a "psicopatologia comparatista".
Coord.: Jose L. Caon, PhD. <caon@vortex.ufrgs.br>

PSICOSSOMATICA
Destina-se a discussao de questoes relativas a avaliacao e intervencao em transtornos de
ordem psicossomatica. Embora nao se exclua outros aportes, aquele de base tem sido o da
Escola de Psicossomatica de Paris.
Coord.: Maria Lucia Tiellet. Nunes, PhD. <marianunes@vortex.ufrgs.br>

SOCIO-MORAL
Este forum destina-se a discussao de aspectos teoricos e metodologicos do desenvolvimento
socio-moral. Inclui-se topicos especificos tais como: aspectos culturais do desenvolvimento
socio-moral, intervencoes, etc.
Coord.: Angela M. Biaggio, PhD. <biaggio@vortex.ufrgs.br>
e Clary Milnitsky Sapiro, PhD. <sapiro@vortex.ufrgs.br>

TRABALHO-SUJEITO
Este forum discute questoes que contemplem o exame do trabalho e suas articulacoes com a
subjetividade. Sao bem-vindas contribuicoes sobre o exame dos modos de subjetivacao e de
constituicao do sujeito na dinamica das relacoes sociais que priorizem a significancia do
trabalho enquanto categoria socio-historica neste processo.
Coord.: Maria G. Jaques, PhD. <graca@vortex.ufrgs.br>
 

==================================
5.-CONCURSO DE SOFTWARE DO MEC=========
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

De otra lista.

Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998
Send reply to: Paulo Francisco Slomp <slomp@edu.ufrgs.br>

Concurso Nacional de Software do MEC

http://www.mec.gov.br/sesu/concurso/98/cns98.htm

O objetivo do concurso é estimular e divulgar a produção de software...
---------
Poderão participar do concurso: Docentes em exercício e alunos matriculados em Instituições
de Ensino Superior ou Escolas Técnicas do país, individualmente ou em equipe. Neste caso, a
equipe deverá indicar um representante...
----------
Prazo final para envio dos trabalhos: 15 de agosto de 1998 (data de postagem)
----------
 

===================================================
6.-LA PROXIMA BATALLA POR LA EDUCACION ON-LINE EN===
UNIVERSIDADES (EN INGLES)==========================
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:46:08 -0800
From: "Sebastian Touza" <lstouza@sfu.ca>

Hace un tiempo envie a la lista un articulo del mismo autor sobre este tema. Aca va la
continuacion. Me hubiera gustado traducirlo pero ando con poco tiempo. Un saludo,

DIGITAL DIPLOMA MILLS, PART II
The Coming Battle Over Online Instruction

Confidential Agreements Between Universities and Private Companies:Pose Serious
Challenge to Faculty Intellectual Property Rights
(c) by David F. Noble, March,1998

Tensions are rapidly mounting today between faculty and university administrations over the
high tech commercialization of higher education. During the last two decades campus
commercialization centered upon the research function of the universities, but it has now
shifted to the core instructional function, the heart and soul of academia. In both cases the
primary commercial impulse has come from non-academic forces, industrial corporations
seeking indirect public subsidy of their research needs and private vendors of instructional
hardware, software, and content looking for subsidized product development and a potentially
lucrative market for their wares. In both cases also, there has been a fundamental
transformation of the nature of academic work and the relationship between higher
educational institutions and their faculty employees. With the commoditization of instruction,
this transformation of academia is now reaching the breaking point.
The commercialization of research entailed the conversion of the intellectual process of
research into discrete products - inventions- and the conversion of these inventions into
commodities - something that could be owned and exchanged on the market - by means of
patents and exclusive licenses. With this change, faculty who conducted research in the
service of their role as educators and scholars, became instead producers of commodities for
their employer. Universities could become commercial players not only because they were
the major site of federally-funded scientific and technological research but also because
amendments to the patent law had given academic contractors ownership of all patents
resulting from federally-funded research. This potentially gave the universities something to
trade with industry licenses to those patents. But before the universities could make any
proprietary deals with industry they had first to secure the patent rights of their research
faculty and staff, because patents are issued only to inventors not to institutions. Universities
thus established ad hoc arrangements with their own professors, giving them a share of
revenues in exchange for their patent rights. Eventually, they adopted formal intellectual
property policies similar to those devised many decades before by private industry employees
would be required contractually to assigntheir patent rights to the university as a routine
condition of employment.
In the process, research, formerly pursued as an end in itself or as a contribution to human
knowledge, now became a means to commercial ends and researchers became implicated,
directly or indirectly and wittingly or not, in the business of making money for their
universities. The commercialization of academic research brought universities and industry
into close partnership; it made some people very rich and no doubt resulted in the
development of some new technologies. But it also ushered in a brash new regime of
proprietary control, secrecy, fraud, theft, and commercial motives and preoccupations. Some
argue that this new commercial ethos has irreversibly corrupted the university as a site of
reliably independent thought and disinterested inquiry, placing in jeopardy a precious and
irreplaceble public resource.
Today the universities are moving rapidly to commercialize their instructional activities in
much the same way. Here the instructional process, classroom teaching, is converted into
products, such as a CD ROMs, Websites, or courseware. These products are then converted
into marketable commodities by means of copyrights and licenses to distribute copyrighted
instructional products. Like the commercialization of research, the commercialization of
instruction entails a fundamental change in the relationship between the universities and their
faculty employees. Here faculty who develop and teach face-to-face courses as their primary
responsibility as educators are transformed into mere producers of marketable instructional
commodities which they may or may not themselves "deliver."
Universities today are going into business for themselves, as the producers and distributors of
commercial instructional products, or they are making deals with private firms for the
production and distribution of online courses. But before the universities can begin to trade on
their courses, they must first control the copyright to course material. Course copyright is the
sine qua non of the digital diploma mill. In copyright law, however, ownership follows
authorship. This means that course materials are the property of the teaching faculty and staff
who developed them. Traditionally, universities have acknowledged that faculty, as the
authors of courses, have owned their course materials and hence copyright to them (except in
those cases where extraordinary university resources were involved in course development,
which might entail shared ownership). But the universities are now undertaking to usurp such
traditional faculty rights in order to capitalize on the online instruction marketplace, and it is
for this reason that the rather arcane matter of copyright and intellectual property has become
the most explosive campus issue of the day. Here the battle line over the future of higher
education will be drawn. For faculty and their organizations it is a struggle not only over
proprietary control of course materials per se but also over their academic role, their
autonomy and integrity, their future employment, and the future of quality education. In the
wake of the online education gold-rush, many have begun to wonder, will the content of
education be shaped by scholars and educators or by media businessmen, by the dictates of
experienced pedagogy or a quick profit? Will people enroll in higher educational institutions
only to discover that they might just as well have stayed home watching television?
At present the universities are in a phase of transition, experimenting with solutions to their
copyright dilemma. Such efforts must be watched very closely because what happens now
will likely determine the future shape of higher education. During the last few years several
universities have entered into formal agreements with private firms which give some
indication of where they are headed UCLA and the Home Education Network (THEN), UC
Berkeley and America On Line (AOL); and the University of Colorado and Real Eduation.
These documents, heretofore confidential, herald the dawning of a new regime of instruction
strikingly similar to the commercial regime of academic research. The initial loci of these
arrangements are the extension programs of the universities, the testing grounds for online
instruction and the beach-heads, so to speak, for the commercialization of higher education.
In each of these contracts, entered into without faculty knowledge much less approval, the
university has explicitly assumed its own, rather than faculty, authorship/ownership of course
materials, in violation not only of academic tradition but perhaps also of federal copyright
law. In claiming authorship/ownership as a precondition of making the deal, the universities
might also have committed fraud. Whether or not the universities have already overstepped
legal boundaries, it is clear that there is a move afoot here to establish surreptitiously a new
practice, a new tradition, in which universities automatically own all rights to course material
developed by faculty. Unless faculty act quickly to assert and confirm their rightful claim to
their course materials, their inaction might retrospectively be seen by the courts in the future
as a tacit acknowledgement of the abandonment of those rights. In the longer run, universities
will no doubt undertake to routinize this theft by requiring faculty to assign all copyrights on
course material to the university as a condition of employment as they have done with
patents.
* * *
The first case to be examined is the secret agreement between UCLA and The Home
Education Network (THEN) signed on June 30, 1994 and amended February 21, 1996. This
agreement entailed the granting by a university of exclusive production and distribution rights
to electronic courses, including copyright, to a private, for-profit corporation, without any
prior faculty consultation or approval.
THEN emerged not from the world of education but from the fast hustle media world of spins
and sound-bites, cable TV and public relations. It was the brainchild of political media
consultant and television producer Alan Arkatov, who produced and marketed the media
campaigns of over a dozen U.S. senators, governors, and mayors, before serving as Senior
Advisor to President Clinton's 1992 campaign chairman Mickey Kantor. In 1994 he
negotiated a landmark contract with the Regents of the University of California to form an
unprecendented arrangement with UCLA Extension (UNEX), the largest continuing higher
education program in the country. The agreement gave Arkatov exclusive rights to all
electronic delivery of UNEX courses and the exclusive use of the UCLA name for that
purpose, thereby launching THEN as "the most comprehensive continuing distance learning
program of its kind in the United States."
THEN is now directed by its President and CEO John Kobara, who comes out of the cable
television industry and the public relations and marketing side of academia. A UCLA
graduate, Kobara was vice president and general manager of Falcon TV, one of the nation's
largest independent cable operators, and served as president of the Southern California Cable
Association before returning to UCLA to direct the Alumni Association. By the time he
joined THEN in 1997, Kobara was UCLA's Vice Chancellor of University Relations directing
all of the university's public relations, marketing, and government and alumni relations
activities. Combining their media experience, political influence, and insider knowledge of
UCLA and its myriad community connections, Arkatov and Kobara were well placed to make
the most profitable use of their ambitious arrangement with UCLA. But UCLA
administrators, meanwhile, had ambitions of their own, not only to provide a new revenue
stream for UNEX but to establish it, and UCLA, as the premier vehicle for distance learning
in the University of California system, and beyond.
The extremely broad agreement between THEN (signed by Arkatov) and the Regents of the
University of California (on behalf of UNEX, a part of the Division of Continuing Education
of UCLA, signed by Robert Lapiner, UCLA Dean of Continuing Studies) granted to THEN
the exclusive right to produce, for a ten year "production period", and exploit, in perpetuity,
all electronic versions of UNEX courses "the sole, exclusive and irrevocable right under
copyright and otherwise to make, produce and copyright by any means or 'Technology,' as
such term is hereinafter defined, now known or herefter devised during the 'Production
Period', as such term is hereinafter defined, audio, visual, audio/visual. digital and/or other
recordings of all UNEX classes. . . ." as well as "the sole, exclusive and irrevocable right
under copyright and otherwise to exhibit, perform, broadcast, transmit, publish, reproduce,
manufacture, distribute, advertise, sell, rent, lease, market, publicize, promote, merchandise,
provide technical support for, license and otherwise exploit, generally deal in and with and
turn to account the Recordings by all means and technology and in all media and forms of
expression and communication now known or later developed in all languages throughout the
universe (the 'Territory') in perpetuity. . . ." THEN also secured the right to use the "University
of California" and "UCLA" names in connection with the exploitation of their rights granted
in the Agreement, as well as the right to assign or transfer their interests in the agreement to
"any entity."
In consideration of this generous grant of rights, UNEX would receive a percentage of
THEN's gross receipts (increasing from 6 to 12 percent over the course of the term) plus
reimbursement of expenses incurred in the preparation of courses, including materials and
wages. UNEX retained the right to designate which courses would and would not be
converted to electronic form and the right to final approval of their content. However, it
agreed that "THEN shall have the unlimited right to vary, change, alter, modify, add to and/or
delete from the Recordings, and to rearrange and/or transpose the Recording and change the
sequence thereof." In 1995 there was apparently some difference of opinion between the
parties over whether or not the 1994 agreement covered online and Internet delivery of
courses. THEN insisted that it did and ultimately prevailed upon UCLA to formally amend
the agreement stipulating explicitly that "UNEX and THEN acknowledge that the inclusion of
On-Line Rights is on the same economic and other terms as pertain to Recordings in the
Agreement and that all such terms shall be interpreted so as to encompass On-Line Rights."
If the THEN-UCLA agreement brought the pecuniary preoccupations of private commerce
into the heart and soul of higher education, it also carried with it another characteristic aspect
of proprietary enterprise secrecy. Despite, or perhaps because of, the broad terms and far-
reaching implications of their agreement, THEN officials and UCLA administrators formally
agreed to keep it secret. In a confidentiality clause in the 1994 agreement, it was agreed that
"except as required by law, UNEX shall hold in confidence and shall not disclose or reveal to
any person or entity confidential information relating to the nature and substance of this
Agreement. . ." and that any participating "Instructor shall hold in confidence and not disclose
or reveal to any person or entity confidential information relating to the nature and substance
of the agreement between UNEX and THEN. . . ." While THEN clearly had proprietary
motives for such confidentiality, why did UCLA administrators, trustees of a public
institution trading in publicly-created goods, agree to such secrecy? What did the university
have to hide? Perhaps it was what the agreement had to say about its larger ambitions, and,
especially, its relations with faculty.
Kobara's spin on the deal is that this arrangement is a modest one, restricted to UNEX and
thus without any significance, or any reason for concern, beyond it. He insists that THEN has
no relationship with UCLA but only with UNEX,which he argues is an independent entity.
This is not the case. While UNEX is self-supporting, it is unambiguously a part of UCLA, as
the Agreement itself makes clear. It is for this reason that an officer of UCLA, Robert
Lapiner, signed the agreement, representing the Regents. Moreover, Kobara's modesty is
clearly belied by the Agreement, which reveals intentions of a much wider scope. According
to the Agreement, "The parties contemplate that the relationship with THEN may extend to
other University of California campuses. Because of UNEX's unique responsibility to be
bound to THEN for the Term hereof, THEN agrees that the participation of all other
University of California campuses as well as other academic units of UCLA in this project
will be coordinated by UNEX and for the purposes of this Agreement shall be considered
'UNEX Classes.' An appropriate share of revenues otherwise payable to UNEX for any such
courses shall, however, be distributed proportionately to the participating University of
California campus or other academic unit of UCLA." Whether or not they are able to realize
their grand vision, it is clear that UCLA from the outset intended to extend its distance
education operations beyond UNEX and, through UNEX - the largest continuing education
program in the UC system - beyond UCLA to other UC campuses. This Fall the UCLA
Division of Letters and Science launched its Instructional Enhancement Initiative mandating
that every course must have a website containing at a minimum course outlines and
assignments and encouraging faculty to put their lectures and other materials online as well.
Like the THEN-UCLA deal, this action was taken without debate or formal faculty approval.
THEN and UCLA officials maintain that there is no connection between this unprecedented
initiative and their UNEX activities. In response to increasingly apparent faculty concern,
UCLA's Provost of Arts and Letters Brian Copenhaver has recently distributed a letter to all
faculty insisting, perhaps too much, that IEI is "resolutely and only academic" and that "there
are no plans to use IEI commercially." Reading the Agreement, however, one has to wonder.
At the heart of the THEN-UCLA deal is the crucial matter of copyright. As is typical in any
such agreement, the parties must attest to the fact that they indeed have the right and authority
to grant whatever it is they are granting. Thus, UNEX affirmed that "UNEX has the full right,
power, and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and to grant to and vest in
THEN all rights herein set forth, free and clear of any and all claims, rights, and obligations
whatsoever." Under this assumption, UNEX agreed that "As between UNEX, THEN, and the
instructors of the UNEX Classes (the 'Instructors'), THEN shall be the owner of all right, title,
and interest, including without limitation, the copyright, in and to all Recordings of UNEX
Classes produced by and for THEN hereunder and, for purposes of Title 17 of the United
States Code also known as the Copyright Act of
1976, as amended (the 'Copyright Act'), THEN shall be deemed the author of the Recordings."
By what legal right and under what authority could UNEX make such a grant, given the fact
that the instructors who create the courses rather than UCLA or UNEX are the rightful and
heretofore acknowledged owners of copyright? The instructors, of course, were never even
party to this agreement. This is the crux of the Agreement and all such arrangements.
In order to be in a position to uphold its side of the bargain, UNEX formally agreed that it
would undertake to compel its instructors, on THEN's behalf, to assign their copyrights to
UNEX, thereby enabling UNEX to assign them to THEN. This was made fully explicit with
the inclusion in the Agreement of an "Exhibit A," outlining a compulsory "Instructors'
Agreement," whereby instructors would be made to surrender their rights to UNEX as a
condition of employment. The Agreement thus stipulates that "UNEX shall use its best efforts
to cause each Instructor to agree in writing ('Instructor Agreement') for the specific stated
benefit of THEN, to the provisions set forth on Exhibit 'A' attached hereto." Furthermore, the
agreement stipulates that any such Instructor Agreement had to meet the specifications not
only of UNEX but also of THEN, which "shall have the right of prior written approval of the
form and substance of the agreements entered into by UNEX and Instructors concerning the
production and exploitation of the Recordings."
Exhibit A is a five page document which specifies in detail what the Instructor must give up
and do for UNEX and THEN in order for UNEX to meet its contractual obligations to THEN.
Predictably, the Instructor must agree to grant to UNEX the same rights granted by UNEX to
THEN, namely "the sole, exclusive and irrevocable right under copyright and otherwise to
make, produce and copyright by any means or technology now known or hereafter devised
Recordings of all UNEX Classes taught by Instructor" as well as "the sole, exclusive and
irrevocable right under copyright and otherwise to exhibit, perform, broadcast, transmit,
publish, reproduce, manufacture, distribute, advertise, sell, rent, lease, market, publicize,
promote, merchandise, provide technical support for, license and otherwise exploit, generally
deal in and with and turn to account the Recordings by all means and technology and in all
media and forms of expression and communication now known or later developed in all
languages throughout the Territory in perpetuity." The Instructor must acknowledge and agree
that "THEN shall be deemed the author of the Recordings" and that the "Instructor has no
rights of any kind or nature in the Recordings of UNEX Classes taught by the Instructor;" and
must "forever waive any right to assert any rule, law, decree, judicial decision or
administrative order of any kind throughout the world, which allows Instructor any right in
the moral rights (droit moral) in the Recordings."
According to Exhibit A, the "Instructor must not permit the Course Materials utilized by the
Instructor for UNEX Classes taught during the Production Period to be recorded by any
Technology, except by THEN" unless it is approved by THEN or is restricted to publication in
print form on paper (e.g. books). The Instructor is also obligated to assist UNEX and THEN
in securing releases to all copyrighted material used in the Instructor's course. And just as
UNEX must use its best efforts to cause the Instructor to sign the Instructor Agreement, so the
"Instructor shall use Instructor's best efforts to cause all guest lecturers taking part in UNEX
Classes taught by such Instructor to execute agreements approved by UNEX and THEN that
are consistent with the balance of the provisions of Exhibit A." Finally, the Instructor is
required to execute any other documents consistent with the terms of the Instructor
Agreement, as requested by UNEX or THEN, and if the Instructor fails to do so, "the
Instructor shall be deemed to have appointed UNEX and/or THEN as Instructor's irrevocable
attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution and delegation and with full and complete
right and authority . . . to perform such acts and take such proceedings in the name of
Instructor. . "
The Instructor Agreement, a formal written contract between employee and employer in
which employee rights are legally transferred to the employer, was seen by the parties in 1994
as the way UNEX would secure the power and authority required to comply with its
Agreement with THEN, at the expense of the Instructors. Today both parties contend that
such Instructor Agreements are not necessary. According to the terms of a revised agreement,
they argue, which has not yet been finalized, the actual ownership of electronic courses would
reside solely with UNEX while THEN would merely have exclusive rights of distribution.
And UNEX now maintains that its ownership rights are automatic and would not require any
formal contract with their employees. As David Menninger, UCLA's Associate Dean of
Continuing Education and UCLA Extension, explained to me in a letter in December, 1997,
"since the focus of the Extension/THEN relationship has shifted to Extension online courses,
for which the Regents of the University of California retain ownership, no such instructor's
agreement has ever been used, nor is any further need anticipated."
It is not clear upon what legal basis Menninger asserts his claim that the Regents of the
University of California retain ownership, given the traditional legal rights of the Instructors
to these courses. According to Kathy Whenmouth, technology transfer specialist in the
University of California's President's Office, the University does not yet have any policy on
the copyright of online course materials. Clearly, the matter is far from settled. What exactly
are the rights of instructors and the Regents? Now that the UNEX/THEN Agreement has seen
thelight of day, it will no doubt become a focus of controversy. Is it legal? Will it withstand a
legal challenge? Whatever the ultimate legal status of the Agreement,which would have to be
determined in court, this episode sheds much light upon the methods, intentions, and visions
of those involved in the commoditization and commercialization of university instruction.
The second agreement, between America On Line (AOL) and UC Berkeley (The Regents of
the University of California) points in much the same direction. Signed on July 26, 1995, this
agreement, which also contains a confidentiality clause, centers upon Berkeley's extension
program, the Center for Media and Independent Learning. Here the arrangement from the
outset entails only the licensing of course distribution rights without any transfer of copyright
from the university to the company. According to the agreement, the University aims to offer
"electronic courses in a broad spectrum of disciplines (Arts and Humanities, Business and
Management, Computer Science, Hazardous Materials Management, Natural Sciences, Social
Sciences), for credit or for professional development." Accordingly, the "University grants
AOL a non-exclusive, revocable, worldwide license to market, license, distribute, and
promote" these courses. In doing so, the "University represents and warrants to AOL" that
such offerings "will not infringe on or violate any copyright, patent or any other proprietary
right of any third party. . . " Once again, as was the case with the UCLA- THEN agreement,
the University is representing to AOL that it alone owns the course materials and that no third
parties, including the faculty who develop courses, have any rights to them. In order to secure
faculty compliance with this claim, the University has drawn up a generic course
development "letter of agreement" for instructors to execute. In this document, which
instructors are required to sign, the University informs instructors that "The Regents of the
University of California will own the copyright to all materials you develop, in print or other
media, for use in this UC Extension course . . . and we retain the right to continue offering
the course should you resign as instructor." By means of this contract the University obtains,
and the instructors abandon, ownership of all course materials. Instructors are paid a modest
"honorarium" for developing the course and abandoning their rights, payable half on
acceptance of the materials and half on actual delivery of the course. Whereas AOL receives
ten percent of all royalty revenues, the instructors receive none.
The final example is possibly the most far-reaching, involving the Denver-based company
Real Education, Inc. (Real Ed) and the entire University of Colorado. Real Education was
founded in 1996 by CEO Rob Helmick, an attorney and former general counsel for various
universities who specialized in education law and the "merger and acquisition of educational
institutions worldwide." In 1996 Helmick's law firm, Helmick and Associates International,
acquired Real Information Systems, one of the leading worldwide web production companies
in the U.S., and created Real Education, Inc., "so that universities could easily outsource
instruction." Real Education has become a major player in the outsourcing of university
online instruction and currently has contracts with some twenty universities and colleges
throughout the United States, including the University of Colorado, Northern Illinois
University, Rogers University, and the Colorado Community Colleges. The company
specializes in providing universities with all of the hardware, software, internet links and
technical support they need for online course delivery, including assistance with course
development. It is now collaborating with Microsoft and Simon and Schuster to create a
standard for the industry. For its part, the University of Colorado has been in the forefront of
online education and recently won the Eddy Award of the National Science Foundation as the
"Number One Online University in the World."
After some preliminary collaboration, Real Ed and the University of Colorado entered into a
formal agreement on May 27, 1997. The arrangement engages Real Ed to provide the
technical means for online course development and delivery but the University retains all
copyright to course material. According to the agreement, the "University, on behalf of its
four campuses, wishes to develop its online capability utilizing Real Ed's Einstein Network
Version 2.5 (or the latest version thereof) to create University credit and non-credit courses
for delivery in the United States and abroad." As part of its obligations, Real Ed agrees to
"oversee the adaptation of existing distance-learning courses and collaborate with the
University's faculty and staff in the development of new courses" and to "provide instructional
design support to University faculty to assist in the transfer of lectures to the online format."
However, according to the contract, "it is understood and agreed that the relationship of
University and Real Ed, with respect to all course development, is that of author and editor,
final approval and ownership rights over University-developed material will vest in the
University. . . ." Once again, in making a deal with a private firm, the University is explicitly
identifying itself as the "author" of all course materials having full "ownership rights."
Having made clear its proprietary claims vis a vis Real Ed, the University has also made an
effort to establish the contractual basis for such claims vis a vis its faculty. The University has
drawn up an "Agreement for Development of Courses Between the Regents of the University
of Colorado and Faculty Course Developer" to be signed by all faculty developing online
courses. According to this agreement, "Faculty acknowledges that the 'on-line course is
deemed as a 'work made for hire' within the meaning of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and
The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado shall own exclusively and forever all
rights thereto including derivative works." In addition, "Faculty acknowledges and agrees that
the 'on-line' course itself may not be used in faculty consulting, in delivering lectures or
presentations to another academic institution, and may not be duplicated or distributed to
other individuals, academic institutions or corporations without a written agreement and
approval of the University." In return for developing a typical three-credit course and
assigning copyright on all course materials to the University, the faculty member receives one
thousand dollars plus royalties of ten percent of revenues up to $125,000 and fifteen percent
thereafter. (Real Ed receives five thousand dollars for each course developed plus one
hundred dollars per student.) At present, faculty involvement in online course development is
voluntary. However, according to the agreement with Real Ed, the University has the power
to designate which faculty will develop such courses. According to Maureen Schlenker of the
University of Colorado at Denver who oversees "UC Online," departments might require
faculty to participate. No doubt untenured and part-time instructors, those with the least job
security and lowest pay, will most likely be pressed into service. Marvin D. Loflin, dean of
the college of arts and sciences on the Denver campus, says he is considering plans to hire
non-professorial "teaching associates" to teach on-line courses. "I'm prepared to make over
the whole infrastructure of higher education," he recently proclaimed to the Chronicle of
Higher Education (March 27, 1998, p. A30).
These agreements herald a new regime in higher education, one which is taking hold of the
nation's campuses at an accelerating rate the commoditization and commercialization of
instruction. Extension programs are the cutting edge for this new commercial ethos not only
because of their obvious involvement in distance learning but also because they are typically
staffed by the most vulnerable instructors, people who have little job security and would thus
be most ready to comply with university demands. But as the arrangement between the
University of Colorado and Real Ed makes especially clear, the new regime of online
education extends far beyond university extension programs and the most vulnerable. Indeed,
it is now becoming increasingly apparent that the real market for online courses will be the
on-campus population, as the experience of the University of Colorado aleady indicates. And
as UCLA's Instructional Enhancement Initiative makes plain, faculty at all levels will
ultimately be drawn into the new regime, through encouragement or coercion. The
implications of these agreements therefore must be considered seriously by anyone who is
using or plans to use electronic means to enhance or deliver their courses. Who owns the
material you have placed on the Website or e-mail? Without a clear and definitive assertion of
copyright claims by faculty, the universities will usurp such rights by default.
This is a matter of some urgency and it is especially pressing for those faculty who work in a
non-union workplace. Unionized faculty have at least an organization and collective
bargaining rights through which they might fight for their rightful claims. But non-unionized
faculty must invent other means. One strategy might be for faculty to file for injunctions
against their universities to prevent them from entering into or complying with agreements in
which they make claim to copyright on course materials that legally belong to faculty. These
agreements might well be illegal, perhaps involving fraud, and hence invalid. Faculty might
also investigate whether or not their university is involved in the delivery of any courses
without having first obtained a signed copyright agreement with the instructor. Once again,
this might well involve an illegal infringement of copyright. But by whatever means,
collective bargaining, litigation, or direct action, faculty must act, and act now, to preserve
their rights.
University control over copyright is the sine qua non of the Digital Diploma Mills. Without it
the universities and their corporate partners cannot proceed. As the CEO of Simon and
Schuster, Jonathan Newcomb, has stated, commercial online education presupposes
"advances in digital technology coupled with the protection of copyright in cyberspace."
(Emphasis added). Only by resisting and opposing university control over copyright will
faculty be able to preserve their legal rights, their autonomy, their jobs, and, above all, the
quality and integrity of higher education. The fate of higher education is in their hands.

Historian David F. Noble teaches at York University in Toronto. He is currently visiting
professor at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California and can be reached there at (909)
6o7-7699.
 

================================================
7.-THE TECHNOLOGY SOURCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION===
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

Algunos artículos interesantes en inglés.

Original Message
The Technology Source for Higher Education
April 1998
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE

Cynthia Whitesel provides us with this month's Vision
http://www.microsoft.com/education/hed/vision.htm
article, in which she outlines her ideas about the classroom environment of the future.

April's Commentary
http://www.microsoft.com/education/hed/comment.htm
comes from Linda Enghagen, who writes about the increasingly important issue of "fair use"
laws with an emphasis on the way that they pertain to electronically accessible information.

Paul Shrivastava writes our Case Studies
http://www.microsoft.com/education/hed/action.htm
article this month, in which he outlines the Socrates program.

Microsoft Exchange is our Featured Product
http://www.microsoft.com/education/hed/products.htm
for the month of April. Ernest Marshburn and Richard Brown write about their experiences
using Exchange to update and overhaul the campus-wide communication system at East
Carolina University as part of a chancellor's initiative program
 

===============
8.-KIDLINK===================================
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

Para quienes están interesados en proyectos para chicos, les paso un dato sobre Kidlink.
Como dice en el recorte, desde 1990 han participado más de 100.000 chicos, de 117 países en
las actividades de Kidlink, en una gran variedad de idiomas, entre ellos el español. Es otra
opción para integrar escolares al ciberespacio.

Kidlink on museum!
From: Odd de Presno [mailto:presno@eunet.no]
Sent: Thursday, April 02,

It is indeed a strange to see an Internet-based organization born in 1990 at a museum. This
has now happened to Kidlink, a virtual non-profit organization promoting global networking
for kids through the age of 15. For pictures and details, see
http://www.kidlink.org/english/general/museum.html
Kidlink currently operates 39 public mailing lists for conferencing in English, French,
German, Hebrew, Icelandic, Japanese, Nordic languages, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. It
has a private network for Real-Time Interactions (chats), online art exhibition sites, and is
operated by volunteers living throughout the world. Most volunteers are teachers and parents.
Since the start on May 25, 1990, around 100,000 kids from 117 countries on all continents
have participated in its activities. It's web address is
http://www.kidlink.org

Odd de Presno
Kidlink Project Director
 

===============================================
9.-YOUR COMPUTER BREAKS DOWN ON THE WEEKEND===
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

Algunas direcciones para tener en cuenta, sobre todo cuando ocurren incidentes los fines de
semana (y además ... leemos inglés).

Newspaper article: Your Computer Breaks Down on the Weekend, Now What do You do?
(4/3/98)
From: Robin Nobles <smslady@netdoor.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 1:29 PM

It's Saturday morning, and your computer has just died a fast death. You have a deadline
staring you in the face, and Sam, your favorite computer repairman, won't be back at work
until Monday. What on earth do you do, besides toss your computer out of a second story
window?You go to the Internet, of course! Believe it or not, No Wonder Computer Support
offers free 24-hour technical assistance for computer hardware and software. They offer
personal help from one of their experts, or group help on their message boards. You simply
select your operating system and you're off and running. You'll also find support for basic web
design, such as CGI setup, animated GIF's, frames, and HTML code.
http://www.nowonder.com
If you're like me, when you want help, you want it *now." At HelpMeNow... Your Online
Help Source, you can choose between live help, e-mail help, or FAQ's. Their Live Computer
Help page gives you instant answers to your computer questions.
http://www.HelpMeNow.com/. Visit ZDNet's HealthyPC.com
http://www.zdnet.com/hpc/
for online PC care, maintenance, and trouble shooting. Their experts are ready to answer your
toughest questions about Windows 95, Windows NT, Office 95/97, Java and ActiveX, and
more. The site offers loads of tips in categories such as Networking, Peripherals, and PC's.
The support finder will even search for online technical support.
http://www.zdnet.com/hpc/

Do you need help in finding an online computer manual? At Help-Site Computer Manuals,
you'll find links to over 800 computer-related documents and 126 websites. Categories
include DOS, Windows 95, OS/2, Windows NT, Mac, Network, and more. If you're looking
for FAQ's, tutorials, online manuals, or support sites, this is the place to begin.
http://help-site.com/

What about a site that has cataloged *all* computer hardware manufacturers present on the
Web? HW Companies: The Web List offers a whopping 954 different manufacturers, which
you can find in alphabetical order or by product category. You'll find categories for
Controllers and I/O Boards, Memory, Chips, BIOS, Printers & Plotters, Motherboards, and
more.
http://www.venus.it/homes/spumador/driver.htm

If you need to update your drivers, DriversHQ.com provides a well-organized, easy-to-use site
that offers the latest drivers in categories such as video adapters and monitors, fax modems,
SCSI controllers, printers, and more. A unique feature of the site is their Driver Detective, a
downloadable program that will show you all the hardware drivers used by Windows on your
system, as well as retrieving all the vital information on them.
http://www.drivershq.com/

Robin Nobles is a freelance writer who can be reached at smslady@netdoor.com.
Robin Nobles
smslady@netdoor.com
Robin's Nest for Writers and Web Surfers
http://www2.netdoor.com/~smslady/
 

=============================
10.-ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME :======
A WORLD COLLABORATIVE PROJECT=====
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

Les paso este mensaje, para quienes estén interesados en este tipo de proyectos.

Forwarded Message Follows
From: Carmine Marinucci <c.marinucci@quipo.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998

I am Mr. J and I am here to guide you through our project 'All Roads Lead to Rome'
http://www.quipo.it/tuttelestrade/HomeIng.html
As you know the project was launched on the occasion of NetDays Europe 1997 with the
collaboration of Internet Scuola
http://www.quipo.it/internetscuola/homeing.html or
http://campus.sede.enea.it/internetscuola/homeing.html
We have 14 schools enrolled from Italy, the US, Cyprus, Germany. and others are about to
join in. Shortly we will show you some previews of the works under way. They are all
stimulating and entertaining. Here is a brief list of some of the topics chosen: Flowers and
plants as a tool to communicate and navigate across European sites to focus back on a local
reality; the Cherry Tree; the Chestnut Tree; the Charm of Lavender; the Pinetrees of Rome;
Capers in ancient monuments; the Groane River Park; Irresistible Apples; Growing Centaurea
Tauromenitana Guss Pistachios and the Olive Tree. Some schools are developing the 'Teddy
Bear Project', proposed by the Dade County Education Office, within 'All Roads Lead to
Rome'. Several 'teddy bears' are packing their suitcases with their most precious mementoes
and are about to start their long trip to Florida
http://dcps.dade.k12.fl.us/inst/rome.html.
We will make you share some of their adventures and hope you want to follow their example.
If you would like to participate in our imaginary trip to Rome, please fill in the Assistant
Detective Registration Form on line in
http://scienza.quipo.it/scripts/tspr/inserteng.asp
Well, let's get to work now and have fun with All Roads Lead to Rome.
 

============================
11.-T@LK EUROPE! CHATLINE!===============
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998
From: "Graciela J. Caplan" <pinsky@einstein.com.ar>

Para conocimiento.

Forwarded Message Follows
From: Carmine Marinucci <c.marinucci@quipo.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 16

K EUROPE! CHATLINE!
http://www.quipo.it/parlaeuropa/ in
INTERNET SCUOLA
http://www.quipo.it/internetscuola/homeing.html or
http://campus.sede.enea.it/internetscuola/homeing.html

T@lk Europe! is an ideal meeting point for all the parties concerned in the field of education:
schools, students, teachers, researchers, parents and all the young people throughout Europe
and the world. The T@lk Europe! chatline was launched on the occasion of Netd@ys Europe
1997 as to offer a space where to meet people and exchange useful information. The new
virtual context envisages a totally new social dimension, where a computer-mediated
communication enables users from different areas of the world and with completely different
cultures and traditions to interact one with the other. These users are so brought to develop
and share a common view of the world and foster new collaborations for the pursuing of
common objectives.
"T@lk Europe! triggers new forms of communication: on-line conversations in both the
public and private sectors, e-mails, forums etc... In the near future, all the contributions of our
users will be gathered in easily-accessible databases. All types of schools are invited to
participate to our activities, that include writing stories with other people, meeting new
friends in Europe, fostering initiatives in the field of educational tourism, learning new
foreign languages on-line etc...
T@lk Europe! can be tailored to meet different needs in terms of education, communication
and information. Anybody is free to invent and propose new applications! The sections of
Parla Europa:Initiatives and ideas
School Tourism
Talk to Me
A Bit of Everything
Email Friends
The Market
We are looking forward to receiving yuor contribution
Best regards
carmine marinucci
director of Internet Scuola
 

===============================================
12.-APPLE EDUCATIONAL OBJECT ECONOMY PROJECT===
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998
From: Marina Umaschi Bers <marinau@media.mit.edu>

Les paso este mensaje de la gente de Apple que trabaja con JAVA aplets educativos. Hay un
URL con un repositorio de Applets que pueden resultar intersantes (tambien algunos applets
vienen con el codigo, para adaptar y modificar a gusto).

http://marinau.www.media.mit.edu/people/marinau/

Forwarded message
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998
From: Mitchel Resnick <mres@media.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:44:26 -0800
From: Ted Kahn <ted@designworlds.com>

Dear Friends and colleagues interested in the use of Java and Web-based interactive learning
environments,For those of you who don't know about this already, I highly recommend
browsing and participating in Apple's Educational Object Economy (EOE) community
http://trp.research.apple.com
This is an example of how a new technology (Java and component software architectures) can
help create a virtual community of learners and users. Under NSF and TRP funding, Apple
has designed and developed the EOE site listed above; they have now collected and indexed
over 1,100 different Java applets for education, along with reviews, discussions of issues
relating to economics and development partnerships, etc.
 

=======================
13.-W3C EASES WEB USE=====================
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>

Internet 2
Link at: http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker
Select:
Internet Resources, then
Global Communications & Community Networking
This project has been underway for almost two years now. Details on the U.S. and Canadian
version called CA*net II are available.

Space is still available on courses starting 1 May 98. Check
http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker/course.htm
for registration information on:
1. Introduction to the Internet and On-line Learning
2. How to Search the World Wide Web.

W3C Eases Web Use
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980413j.html
By James E. Gaskin
Special To Inter@ctive Week

At the Seventh International World Wide Web Conference, to be held this week in Brisbane,
Australia, the World Wide Web Consortium is expected to show technologies that will make
it easier to work on the Web. The W3C will detail the new HyperText Transport Protocol
Next Generation (HTTP-NG) and the newly recommended Synchronized Multimedia
Integration Language (SMIL). HTTP-NG is a high-performance upgrade to HTTP with
features designed for commercial applications - such as allowing many requests to be sent
over a single connection. SMIL is an eXtensible Markup Language-based language that
enables multimedia to be presented on the Web in a way that has been agreed to by many of
the major companies involved in synchronized audio and video streaming content. "The
easier the Web is to use, the more users we see," said Sally Khudairi, a
spokeswoman for the W3C. W3C[24] can be reached at
http://www.w3c.com

================
Fin de IER num. 47
04/05/98