On 8/3/13 9:01 AM, Stephen Paling wrote:
> Karen,
>
> I find your response baffling in a number of respects.
>
>> Stephen, Google is only one way to create a graph, and their graph is based on keywords.
> I'm always nervous when librarians say that Google provides "keyword" searching. I think anyone who uses the term should define how they are using it, because it whiffs to me of traditional catalogs and rudimentary databases. Google's indexes take into account a whole lot more than the presence of keywords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
Pagerank is the ranking algorithm, not the search. The search is on
words, primarily, although since the algorithm is proprietary, no one
knows for sure. But there is no classification, no "this is broader than
that", etc.
>
> Just to be clear, are we talking about the same kind of graph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28mathematics%29
No.
>
>> Here are three instances of graphs based on library data:
>>
>> http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-129204
>> http://openlibrary.org/subjects/philosophy
>> http://agris.fao.org/openagris/searchIndex.action?query=fisheries
>>
> "Based on library data." Were these tools built based on user testing? How much post facto testing has there been? I've never known a non-librarian to utter the word "WorldCat". I think of this as "cooking with what's in the kitchen." Here's the bibliographic data we have, or the databases we have access to, so let's work with those.
Now THAT'S a shift in topic, aimed to derail the discussion. These
systems use library catalog data. Whether or not they've had user
testing is another issue -- are the cataloging rules based on user
testing? Are the catalog displays based on user testing? Is your catalog
based on user testing? Why change the subject?
>
>> The LIBRIS system at the Swedish national library works similarly, linking out to data sources like DBpedia using graph technology.
> I don't mean to sound tart, but how is this not riding on the backs of the content providers? Other than lack of a profit motive, isn't LIBRIS just doing something similar to what Google does, but over a more restricted set of information?
Again, a change of subject. Anything you do on the internet that
combines resources rides on the back of content providers. That's what
the internet is all about - sharing. If you don't want someone using
your data, don't put it online. Why shouldn't LIBRIS link to information
resources, like VIAF or DBPedia, that have been made available SO THAT
PEOPLE WILL LINK TO THEM? That's what some of us are trying to create
with the semantic web. Where are you going with this? Do you think that
scientists and governments and academic disciplines should not share
their data online?
sheesh,
kc
>
>> Drawing the line at what is in the library makes no sense.
> But you very nearly did that exact thing. Sorry, but I see old wine in new bottles.
>
> Steve
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sat Aug 03 2013 - 12:45:08 EDT