This was turning out to be a really good presentation and then, just as we began to dig into the rich black dirt of the discussion forum, the fire alarm goes off in the hotel! That has never happened before. Everyone sat a little confused looking at each other and then we all got up and left. It's too bad. I was really looking forward to the interactive portion and the Q & A's.
In any case, here are my notes of the session:
Monday, Jan. 26, 2009
Reference Sources and Web 2.0: Publishers’ Perspectives
Discussion Forum
Intro: David Killian, George Washington University
Panelist: Stephen Rhind-Tutt, Pres. Alexander Steet Press; Jeff Penka, Manager of Cooperative Reference Services, OCLC; Samir Singh, Innovation Officer, ProQuest; Semmel Nunn, VP for Product Development, Readex
First up: Jeff Penka
2 different types of consumers from oclc’s perspective: our customers in the cooperative and their customers – they keep this in mind in their planning and structure for 2.0
their cooperative is worldwide
referring to O’Reilly’s notion of harnessing collective intelligence is at the heart of oclc’s cataloging, resource sharing, and virtual reference cooperative activities: - touch the entire web, users and attributors…
building web-scale for libraries: Maximize uptake, create local value, build web-scale, move to the network, increase efficiency – think big but go local
create a compelling user environment
make oclc web services a valued part of library operations
increase oclc’s global reach – grow it
build it in small parts, built on 2.0 principles:
visibulit
traffic
linking
sharing
manage
profile management:
nearly 300,000 registered users in worldcat
showing users locations near them with resources they are looking for
managing your own lists, share with others, watch what others are doing, building it seamlessly to build into their own spaces
tagging, embedding into worldcat
reviews and ratings
just putting it out there isn’t good enough, people need to see and feel it, why its useful for them
partner reviews with other places like amazon…
embeddable search boxes, downloadable widgets – being out where they are, point of need
embed search, with results, never have to leave your page
Visibility, traffic:
Worldcat library profile page, get a better picture of your library than what they might find at google…
WorldCat Local: all the small pieces, localized to you the user
QP Widget:
Chat widget, html snippet, facebook, myspace, etc…
Make oclc web services a valued part of library operations
WorldCat API-
10-15 developers from cataloging institutions in North America and Europe
leveraging shared resources
Engagment, participation, and conversation – products works page where people can go to see what oclc is building, trying to be transparent, can comment there
Blogs, wikis…
Making sure we’re connected within the community
WoldCat Hackathon
http://worldcat.org/devnet/wiki/2008NY…. (sorry, lost it)
Next up: Remmel Nunn
Readex is a publisher of academic resources whose users are students and teachers
Proxima.com
Trying to make easier the research process for undergrads but especially grad students
Referring to the web: there are changes of degree and changes of kind:
Changes of degree is like water getting warmer
Changes of kind is when water turns into steam, completely transformational
Are we at that transformational stage yet with the web? No,
Web 2.0 for readex was a way for us to assist humans to give them a tool to work with
We don’t use the phrase, web 2.0, (perceived as bogus)
One thing researchers deal with is annotated text – hugely demanded and age fast
Selective annotative text, was a way for scholars to be isolated from all printed sources
Crossroads: toolbar, opens up references about what was said, commented about that text (must subscribe)
What we found with crossroads (there are over 200 projects going with crossroads) – virtually all the projects are being used by faculty members. Allows them to communicate with other scholars across boundaries on the same subject area
Interactive teaching tool as well as annotative tool
Finding the tagging and annotations are more of a collaborative effort among scholars
I think there is a transformation coming out of this, digital humanism
Web 2.0 is going to create a different way of doing research of how scholars go about research. It will start asking different questions for them.
Next Up: Stephen Rhind-Tutt
Will be talking about 2 aspects of 2.0:
-participation & community
-folksonomy and taxonomy
2.0 for the publisher:
-surrendering control
-loss of proprietary gateways to content
-expensive, new technologies
-most content not created by publishers
-large new players with enormous network advantages
-mission statements of smaller presses (like Alex. Street Press) similar to libraries mission statements
ex.: Primary sources in the women’s movement
a scholarly community that brings together feminist thinkers, scholars, others
Carol Hanisch, wrote Personal is Political, over 260,000 times cited, important article, did a follow up to the article and published directly online through alex. Str. Press. Allowed her to have a more relazed form to her writing and clearer thought
Some bad examples as well. Author wanted to do metadata for an article and completely mislead with wrong subjects and tagging…
Usage and importance of different versions of an article – most in the community want peer-reviewed work
Without some form of editing a lot of the material brought to the plate can’t be used
Alex. Str. Press has streaming music and videos, subscribers are invited to created their own playlists, for classes, research…
The playlist harnesses what people want to do and builds on this, sharing
Folksonomies
Tagging, overtime they improve with use
Taxonomy v folksonomy
Taxonomies are bad with new terms and evoloving terms, folks. Are better
Tax. Are better with structure and hierarchy
Search precision, customization (better in tax.) and effectiveness (better in folk.) vary.
Variable most important is popularity
Ex: for folk. With flickr, if you try a search for cirrus it can’t differentiate between the airplane and the cloud, taxonomy is great with this
Both are really helpful, useful
Last up: Samir Singh
What is web 2.0
Read/write web – encodable, task oriented
Ex: siteulike.com great example of a task that use to be done inside a vertical piece of software that is not connecting people
Embracing users as relevant source of information – users to users interaction over time is envaluable
Tagging, personal, selfish need – doing it for yourself to organize yourself
Improved user task performance:
-doscpveru
-assessment
-personal organization
-sharing and co-creation
increasingly common interaction model
ex. At ProQuest
product Development
-wikis to coordinate design discussions across distributed teams
-collaborative (vote based) feature requestiong and ranking in our GradShare q/A community
-blogs to share news and keep distributed to keep teams up to date on new information
GradShare Q/A Community for Graduate Students – very new, just announcing here are ala
-free site to help graduate students get advice form peers across achools
-recommends local reference solutions from Library
recent version of Elibrary (K12)
-users can create and share interactive timelines and presentations
-more features coming soon
recent bowker inverstment and distribution of librarything data to libraries
-it’s a community that successfully formed itself on the public web and being brought in to library world
some challengers:
-identity (registration)
-moderation
-privacy
-adoption and network effects
mission: create indispensable research solutions that connect people and information
Q & A:
What can you share about your experiences with time management?
Readex – we have a full-time person that monitors this, there hasn’t been an instance where we’ve had to go in and moderate our users.
Sighn- choose between moderation – pre/post moderation – felt both were overkill
-firealarm went off!!!
Pretty much ends discussion…