Just started David Siegel's new book, Pull: The Power of the Semantic Web...
Have been thinking a great deal about information, reading, books, internet, libraries, knowledge management basically. I'm finding that I am not reading books less these days, but with computers and the internet, I'm reading a bit differently.
I'm reading in both medium simultaneously. I'm broadening my reading experience by in-filling from the web. It is a brave new world with lots of scary big brothers and uncle sams looking over our shoulders, but it's a world where governments will be more transparent along with our personal lives. As with most things, we've got to take the good with the bad and make the most of it.
Back to PULL. Here's one of the ways I'm reading these days, I guess we could call it reading for future reference. (In the not too distant future, I'm sure this blog post exercise will become unnecessary as all the links from the book will be made available as part of the publishing package. But until then, here's the wysiwyg where "structured data comes out of the deep web and onto the open web, forming the foundation of the semantic web."
sciencecommons.org
ARTstor.org
McMaster.com
NIN.com
rhapsody.com
LiveLeak.com
crunchpad.com
jolicloud.com
freebase.com
semantic-mediawiki.org
instedd.org
thepowerofpull.com
commonapp.org
LarKC
Cyc
umbel.org
viaf.org
id.loc.gov
neighborrow.com Zoe member of readers anon???
onix.com pub format
zillow.com
transparensee.com
adaptiveblue.com
zantaz.com
daylife.com
autonomy.com
healthline.com
microformats.com
seamless.com
siri.com
delicious-monster.com
goodguide.com
dpreview.com
linkeddata.org
grainger.com
superpages.com
youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE
xbrl comp lang
fpml comp lang
rubee new rfid
Dvorak keyboard
jolicloud.com
optimus maximus keyboard
crunchpad.com
liveleak.com
yammer.com
revolutioncard.com
ibm.com/think
fairtax.org
iousathemovie.com
y-t-c.com
e-patients.net
monitor.creativecommons.org
digital signatures
Ambient Findability Peter Morville
identityblog.burtongroup.com
srmsblog.burtongroup.com
identityblog.com
dataportability.org
mismo.org
trulia.com
streeteasy.com
dwellicious.com
ambient intelligence
3ds.com
legalzoom.com
hResume microformat
voice.google.com
inames.net
w-41.com
spime.com space + time (sterling, b)
widetag.com
gsi commerce
Web 3.0 = context Semantic web Get used to it. It's upon us.
Except for content metadata or format metadata. Intended use of data or content can determine designation.
Web 3.0 = smart data or metadata: maps, menus, manuals, receipts, invoices, catalogs...etc. The only thing that isn't metadata is content.
"...if you're not findable, you're not relevant. ...Bot to be relevant, you'll have to make a difference in people's lives." Peter Morville
"...the solution to the overabundance of information is more information." David Weinberger
"In a time of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future." Eric Hoffer
Today at the gym, in the sauna, young woman reading an ebook on her iphone. Welcome 21st century readers, this twit's for you.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Library Journal Oct09 "Have We Created a Monster"
We librarians live in a nonprofit world founded on a belief in serving the common good. Trusting by nature, we have yet to learn how to protect ourselves when doing business in the competitive world of information brokering. Businesses supposedly price according to the old adage "Charge what the market will bear." As purchasing librarians, we are the market, yet we have allowed the cost of databases to get completely out of hand. The time has come for the market to correct itself—with a little help from us.
In 1993, the year I started working in libraries, there were reputedly 284 locations on the entire World Wide Web. Within a few years, over 170 million domain names were in use. Between 1998 and 2001, when I was lucky enough to have my first directorship in a small library in Pennsylvania, spending on subscription databases had increased from $17 million to $50 million a year. Fortunately, Pennsylvania had instituted a program called AccessPA Power Library (now facing state cuts, see News, p. 12), which made a host of subscription databases available to libraries free of charge from the State Library. At the time, we were all aware that we needed to market our databases to the public, convinced that they were not being used simply because the public did not know what was available.
Usage-based pricing
Back then, the advantages of simultaneous users, remote access, and freed-up shelf space had us all giddy, and we allowed anticipation of usage to define pricing. We accepted the idea of billing based on population or number of patrons, even though we had no usage statistics to show whether this made sense economically.
Now that we have these statistics, we must ask whether the original pricing model makes sense. Perhaps a pricing mechanism based on actual usage would be better, especially as rumblings are being heard about the need to increase database usage, cut database budgets, or both. By looking at current usage statistics, rather than projected usage, we could see more easily whether we could justify the expense of a particular database.
If we insisted on making usage statistics the focus, so that pricing reflected actual demand rather than what we hoped to achieve, we would be doing due diligence—and reducing upfront costs. Certainly, vendors would then have to take a more active role in promoting their products to the public. Database publishers would have to recognize that while there are costs associated with access and updating, they are saving on printing costs and cannot indulge in price gouging. (Are we subsidizing the costs of print with our online subscriptions?) And both vendors and pubishers would have to recognize that we are now beyond the need to price by expectation—the results are already in.
Supply and demand
How closely do we follow web page statistics, much less individual database stats? Probably not as much as we should. In our defense, maybe the technology for measuring these statistics was not there before, but why didn't we ask for it to be created? And why aren't we demanding that it be used now? Of course, vendors might be reluctant to volunteer this level of support; it could mean lower fees for their products. But, as the market for these databases, we would save.
At the moment, there is no meaningful relationship between database supply and demand in the library world. We have created the demand for products that we helped produce. We are effectively testing the products, but our vendors often capture information from our tax-supported programs or projects, use it to create new products, and then turn around and resell these products back to us. No question, there's "learning by doing" here for publisher, vendor, and library, but we aren't being smart about our contribution to the process and the need to fight for what serves us best.
Subscription-based vs. general
Maybe we are trying too hard. Often a patron comes into the library wanting a simple answer for a simple question, and we bombard them with a range of resources. Given a choice between vertical, specialized databases that are subscription- or fee-based and horizontal, general databases or search engines, we opt for the former under the assumption that they alone are authoritative and can be trusted. But as more information becomes available for free, this argument holds less sway.
Right now, librarians are essentially marketing often unknown products to the public, but shouldn't our mission be simply to provide these products, not create a need we have no hope of filling? And shouldn't the cost of these products be based on actual demand? In classic McLuhanese, the quality of the massage/message can only be determined by the receiver. What kind of deals have your sales reps been offering you recently to renew? Do you think that this has been out of generosity and good will? Or perhaps we are seeing a crash of the authoritative database market comparable to the current fiscal crisis, giving us an opportunity to reinvent a world where information just wants to be free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, the year I started working in libraries, there were reputedly 284 locations on the entire World Wide Web. Within a few years, over 170 million domain names were in use. Between 1998 and 2001, when I was lucky enough to have my first directorship in a small library in Pennsylvania, spending on subscription databases had increased from $17 million to $50 million a year. Fortunately, Pennsylvania had instituted a program called AccessPA Power Library (now facing state cuts, see News, p. 12), which made a host of subscription databases available to libraries free of charge from the State Library. At the time, we were all aware that we needed to market our databases to the public, convinced that they were not being used simply because the public did not know what was available.
Usage-based pricing
Back then, the advantages of simultaneous users, remote access, and freed-up shelf space had us all giddy, and we allowed anticipation of usage to define pricing. We accepted the idea of billing based on population or number of patrons, even though we had no usage statistics to show whether this made sense economically.
Now that we have these statistics, we must ask whether the original pricing model makes sense. Perhaps a pricing mechanism based on actual usage would be better, especially as rumblings are being heard about the need to increase database usage, cut database budgets, or both. By looking at current usage statistics, rather than projected usage, we could see more easily whether we could justify the expense of a particular database.
If we insisted on making usage statistics the focus, so that pricing reflected actual demand rather than what we hoped to achieve, we would be doing due diligence—and reducing upfront costs. Certainly, vendors would then have to take a more active role in promoting their products to the public. Database publishers would have to recognize that while there are costs associated with access and updating, they are saving on printing costs and cannot indulge in price gouging. (Are we subsidizing the costs of print with our online subscriptions?) And both vendors and pubishers would have to recognize that we are now beyond the need to price by expectation—the results are already in.
Supply and demand
How closely do we follow web page statistics, much less individual database stats? Probably not as much as we should. In our defense, maybe the technology for measuring these statistics was not there before, but why didn't we ask for it to be created? And why aren't we demanding that it be used now? Of course, vendors might be reluctant to volunteer this level of support; it could mean lower fees for their products. But, as the market for these databases, we would save.
At the moment, there is no meaningful relationship between database supply and demand in the library world. We have created the demand for products that we helped produce. We are effectively testing the products, but our vendors often capture information from our tax-supported programs or projects, use it to create new products, and then turn around and resell these products back to us. No question, there's "learning by doing" here for publisher, vendor, and library, but we aren't being smart about our contribution to the process and the need to fight for what serves us best.
Subscription-based vs. general
Maybe we are trying too hard. Often a patron comes into the library wanting a simple answer for a simple question, and we bombard them with a range of resources. Given a choice between vertical, specialized databases that are subscription- or fee-based and horizontal, general databases or search engines, we opt for the former under the assumption that they alone are authoritative and can be trusted. But as more information becomes available for free, this argument holds less sway.
Right now, librarians are essentially marketing often unknown products to the public, but shouldn't our mission be simply to provide these products, not create a need we have no hope of filling? And shouldn't the cost of these products be based on actual demand? In classic McLuhanese, the quality of the massage/message can only be determined by the receiver. What kind of deals have your sales reps been offering you recently to renew? Do you think that this has been out of generosity and good will? Or perhaps we are seeing a crash of the authoritative database market comparable to the current fiscal crisis, giving us an opportunity to reinvent a world where information just wants to be free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, September 11, 2009
Weed them and weep...
Today, while undertaking the gargantuan task of getting the shit off the shelves, many thoughts clamored for attention. One of the most electrifying was considering that I am taking an active part in defining "the new world order" (for lack of a better turn of phrase at the moment.)
Whereas, only a brief time ago books were kept on library shelves for content, we are instead entering the arena as a browsing venue. I was pulling things off the shelves and throwing them on the floor. (We were closed so I was alone listening to the trees falling in the forest.) Books that have been securely assured of a space in some instances for 20 or 30 years were now tossed into a heap.
The name of the game is changing beyond limits of my imagination. In the simplest terms, I am getting rid of books that are tired, worn and/or dated in order that our patrons can see the forest.
Our circulation has been sickeningly low. For six years I've poured everything that I am into turning that around. Even with usage doubling and tripling, I'm still embarrased at the numbers. As I am making my way through the 160,000 volumes in our library, I now envision the tripling tripling and even quadrupling as our collection becomes smaller and more inviting.
One glimmering thought and then I'll see what else surfaces from the day's memory, we are feeding more on the image than the word in the 21st century library. This is a complete turn around for civilization. With the internet, computers, and the tendency toward identifying according to iconic, rather than an alphabetic vocabulary, we are participating in "herstory" (read The Goddess Versus the Alphabet by Leonard Shlain.)
Viva la revolution!
Whereas, only a brief time ago books were kept on library shelves for content, we are instead entering the arena as a browsing venue. I was pulling things off the shelves and throwing them on the floor. (We were closed so I was alone listening to the trees falling in the forest.) Books that have been securely assured of a space in some instances for 20 or 30 years were now tossed into a heap.
The name of the game is changing beyond limits of my imagination. In the simplest terms, I am getting rid of books that are tired, worn and/or dated in order that our patrons can see the forest.
Our circulation has been sickeningly low. For six years I've poured everything that I am into turning that around. Even with usage doubling and tripling, I'm still embarrased at the numbers. As I am making my way through the 160,000 volumes in our library, I now envision the tripling tripling and even quadrupling as our collection becomes smaller and more inviting.
One glimmering thought and then I'll see what else surfaces from the day's memory, we are feeding more on the image than the word in the 21st century library. This is a complete turn around for civilization. With the internet, computers, and the tendency toward identifying according to iconic, rather than an alphabetic vocabulary, we are participating in "herstory" (read The Goddess Versus the Alphabet by Leonard Shlain.)
Viva la revolution!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Library Journal Article on "Self Service Library"
Congratulations Susan Kantor-Horning on an article well-done . I know this article is a little overdue (pun intended) but that's on par with the whole project. In Yuba County at our Wheatland location, the GoLibrary has yet to offer uninterrupted service for more than 3 weeks running. The good news is that the problems these days are minor, usually a book/box is stuck. The bad news is that it means a 30 minute trip for someone to go out to the machine and back in order to un-stick it.
For those interested, I wanted to add a vendor to the list mentioned in your article. mkSorting has designed and created a state of the art version of book dispenser and it would seem mkSorting intends to beta test the machine before bringing to it market. We have heard from the vendor that they anticipate their machine to be ready for release before the end of the year.
For those interested, I wanted to add a vendor to the list mentioned in your article. mkSorting has designed and created a state of the art version of book dispenser and it would seem mkSorting intends to beta test the machine before bringing to it market. We have heard from the vendor that they anticipate their machine to be ready for release before the end of the year.
Monday, August 10, 2009
ARRA's auras
Figuring out what's up with the fed funds potentially out there for libraries, is like pppp'ing in the wind. Funding will go mostly to commercial applications and we will be tasked with providing the markets, then training the markets, then providing free access to the well-trained markets. We must play the knowledge management card in order to take a stand as the great equalizers in the middle of the great divide.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
