 |
 |
John - Such as, say, PostGenomic? (http://postgenomic.com/) Repositories have done an OK job on the functions of preserving and searching for papers. They have been largely useless as a way of keeping tabs on interesting developments in your domain and inspiring new research ideas. This is where the SN approach shines - augmenting our existing social networking we do via conferences, research seminars, and (aargh) mailing lists with some new techniques. S On 13 May 2008, at 18:10, John Smith wrote: > > David, > > I can see social networking techniques replacing (or supplementing) > coffee break meetings and even the old invisible college idea. > However, unless you have specially designed social networking > services focussed on the needs of researchers (and subject specific) > the possibilities seem limited. > > Although now quite an old idea I still see a role for virtual > journals. The idea of paying a group of subject experts to filter > and rank the most relevant items available on the net seems to make > sense if it saves me more time (ie, money) than it costs. We still > need to have humans who actually ‘understand’ rather than compare > keywords in the loop. Only with understanding can you see analogies > and recognise the possible usefulness of discoveries in other fields. > > I agree entirely about watching what people do with these social > networking (and other information related) tools. I think what we > can predict with certainty is that they will do things the designers > never intended :-) . > > Regards, > > John. > The Templeman Library > University of Kent, UK. > > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of David Kane > Sent: 13 May 2008 11:34 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Semantic Web (was RE: Google, OAI and the IRs) > > Hi Peter, Everyone, > > On the Semantic Web: I think a key problem of the 21st century for > scholarly communications is, or will be, information overload. > Search technologies retrieve information that best matches any given > search terms, but this does not determine quality. Even in the > world of scholarly information, where there are ways to determine > quality, the problem exists in a relative sense - which is the most > relevant quality information? Furthermore, the notion of quality or > relevance will be different, depending on who you are and what you > want do do. > > As far as I can see, two technologies hold promise for dealing with > this. These are; > 1) The Semantic Web > 2) Social Media > > The semantic web is based on a fundamental assumption that language > is the basis of intelligence. It is also based on the assumption > that individual humans are logical creatures. Neither of these > assumptions are true. First, there is ample evidence of problem > solving in the animal kingdom from slime moulds to apes. Second, > human decision making (including information evaluation) is driven > by many competing impulses, of which reason is only one. I also > sense a hubristic undercurrent to the semantic web movement - the > unwritten sense that one day the whole thing will coalesce into a > singularitarian intelligence that will solve all our problems and > sweep us into rapture. The fact is that language is only a tool for > transferring information between intelligences and its inherent > ambiguity makes it a poor building block for creating internet-sized > edifices of syllogistic logic. This may be why the semantic web > only seems to work in the petri dish at this point in time. > > Social media I like better. It 'keeps it real' - staying close to > what humans are and do best, which is to be community. Communities > have more knowledge than individuals, and this is *the* reason we > pay attention to cues from our wider community, rather than > depending purely on our own logical deduction. Therefore, > information technologies that bind communities together, I think, > provide for enhanced decision making in terms of information > evaluation, with respect to that particular community's aims. > > We should be watching what communities of people are doing with > these technologies today. The real changes in information > evaluation and dissemination are going to come from the grass roots > and this will apply as much to scholarly communities as to any other > grouping. > > David > 2008/5/13 Peter Crowther <[log in to unmask]>: > > From: Les Carr > > Linked Data is another name for the Semantic Web, and we were > > celebrating its 10-year anniversary at the WWW conference in 2006. > So > > that has been getting off the ground since [1996], three years > before > > OAI-PMH! > > Speaking as someone who's been pretty close to that effort, and > ended up very disillusioned at the behaviour of the acolytes of the > Great Prophet Tim, isn't the Semantic Web still *on* the ground as > far as broad practical applicability is concerned? > > - Peter > > > > -- > David Kane > Systems Librarian > Waterford Institute of Technology > http://library.wit.ie/ > T: ++353.51302838 > M: ++353.876693212