 |
Enjoy the conversation.
Amplify is a place to talk about what's going on.
It's as simple as that.
|
|
 |
IntroductionEager to prove their relevance among scholars leaving print behind, libraries have participated vocally in the last half-decade's conversation about digital research data. On the surface, libraries would seem to have much human and technological infrastructure ready-constructed to repurpose for data: digital library platforms and institutional repositories may appear fit for purpose. However, unless libraries understand the salient characteristics of research data, and how they do and do not fit with library processes and infrastructure, they run the risk of embarrassing missteps as they come to grips with the data challenge. Whether managing research data is ‘the new special collections,’[1] a new form of regular academic-library collection development, or a brand-new library specialty, the possibilities have excited a great deal of talk, planning, and educational opportunity in a profession seeking to expand its boundaries. Faced with shrinking budgets and staffs, library administrators may well be tempted to repurpose existing technology infrastructure and staff to address the data curation challenge. Existing digital libraries and institutional repositories seem on the surface to be a natural fit for housing digital research data. Unfortunately, significant mismatches exist between research data and library digital warehouses, as well as the processes and procedures librarians typically use to fill those warehouses. Repurposing warehouses and staff for research data is therefore neither straightforward nor simple; in some cases, it may even prove impossible. |
Conclusion
None of the challenges presented herein should discourage librarians from engaging with the research data challenge. Our unique expertise in metadata, digital preservation, public service, and technology translation will serve researchers well, as will our sturdy common sense and the domain expertise of our subject librarians.
However, unless we proceed with clear understanding of researchers and their data, as well as our own systems and habits, we will simply trip over ourselves. Research data are too important, and our role in curating them at present too insecure, to allow that to happen.
Read more at www.ariadne.ac.uk
This speaker is so entertaining in a dry way, love it. And what an intriguing concept - he actually claims, and with good scientific backup, thar kindness leads to success. Enjoy!
I have been obsessed by curation and technology for curation. This post is about my experience curating a topically-organized channel using the Kiffets social indexing system that we are developing at PARC.
The word “curate” derives from Latin roots and means “to care for”. A web curator takes care of the subject matter, giving attention and providing context and organization for articles. A web news curator differs from a traditional news editor or wire editor by selecting stories from many sources, rather than working with in-house reporters or a news wire.
In the Trenches
At any time I curate about a dozen channels on Kiffets, supported by its machine-learning, classification, and collection capabilities.
Curation begins with my personal interests. I define a channel — choosing sources and creating topics. I refine the channel as I use it. When it is good enough I share it with others. This act of sharing transforms me from a user to a curator. For a simple single-topic channel this may take just a few minutes. For an interesting channel that I feel like sharing, this is a more extended effort.
As an example of my adventures in curation, I started a channel on the Future of Journalism as we began thinking about engaging news organizations as partners and clients. I was fascinated by the turmoil and change in the news industry.
A few people — such as Jeff Jarvis, Clay Shirky, and Kevin Kelly — were appearing at conferences and speaking about how the web was bringing fundamental changes to the news industry. I chose their writings and related feeds as initial sources and began looking at the articles that came in. My initial topic structure reflected the charged issues that were rising — such as the loss of advertising revenues for classified ads (such as to Craig’s List), the rise of hyper-local news and citizen journalism, and the rise of new digital distribution platforms.
New themes arose and I continued to learn. For example, I discovered schools of journalism doing experiments across the country. As different kinds of related stories came in, I added new topics and sources.
- Story: Google was criticized for its use of news without payment to publishers. (Topic: aggregation.)
- Story: Court cases reflected issues of distribution, copyright, and fair use. (Topic: copyright.)
- Story: Online ad revenues were in steep decline as numerous sites competed for advertising dollars. Failing newspapers appeared in dead lists. (Topic: advertising models.)
Over time I sensed a shift in the topics that interested me.
- Story: Amazon’s Kindle appeared and was changing how books were sold. It inspired competition. Amazon began offering portable newspaper subscriptions. (Topic: mobile delivery.)
- Story: Subscription model were being tried on tablets. (Topics: subscription, ereaders.)
I discovered bloggers and designers who were engaged in the new digital platforms. I felt a shift in tone from worry about the uncertainty in the future of journalism to enthusiasm for creating practices that worked.
Reflecting this shift in tone, I started a second channel on “New Media Practices”. When the iPad appeared, news organizations experimented with apps. There was a flurry of excitement about ad revenues on the iPad. The magazine-style ads were more acceptable to readers and more profitable than ads on the web. Issues about competition arose as Apple changed its rules for advertising networks on the iPad. Later I began tracking the rise of content farms, topical analytics, and the relationship to citizen journalism.
The overlap between my two channels became too high. I reworked the topics and pulled the channels back together. At this writing, the top-level organization reflects major categories for Business Models, Practices, and Structural Change in journalism. I am considering categories for legal issues and ethics of journalism. (Feel free to subscribe to the channel).
Questions about the Future of News
I am mainly a technologist and not a journalist. Nonetheless, I now feel involved in the open questions for the future of journalism. My adventures in curation reflect the original roots of the word — “to care for”.
Some of my current interests:
- DIY Curation. Will other people build channels for themselves and then share their channels with others? Will do-it-yourself curation catch on? (Currently about one user in three on Kiffets builds a new channel. One in four of those builds a multi-topic channel.)
- Personalization. How satisfied are people with the news coverage of mass media? How can personalization become a more potent force in media consumption?
- Convergence. I have noticed that the apps from media companies mostly reflect the medium of their non-digital news business. To a large degree, the NPR app is audio, the ABC app is video, and the New York Times app is text. How far will the boundaries between television, radio, and print dissolve as these news media coexist and co-evolve on the same digital platforms?
- Social meets curation. How can we best combine the power of social news and social networks with curation?
At PARC we have been experimenting with augmented curation, news information services and design principles. We invite news organizations and news consumers to experiment with these ideas using our Kiffets system.
Read more at kiffetsvoice.com
In reading the Mashable story about how Starbucks is going to create their own digital network of content as their way of justifying "free Wi-Fi" I had to admit I was intrigued. Over the past few years Starbucks has done pretty much all they could do to alienate the long stayer. They have cranked up the volume, turned up the Air Conditioning, reduced the number of "comfortable" chairs in many locations and worst of all, brought in AT&T to replace T-Mobile, and with that, dropped the capacity and speeds of connectivity from business grade service to some kind of DSL in many locations.
First, I was intrigued by the concept of content curation, and I applaud the effort. But like their burnt coffee bean flavor, I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth of questions unanswered. For example, are they storing the content locally by caching the data on a server, or will each new patron "pull" the content? I think it should be the former as it will reduce network overload, and also reduce the load on AT&T's network for upstream backhaul. Second, how does this multimedia rich experience impact those of us who go to Starbucks or any hotspot for essential access to email, web browsing, file downloading and IM? Translation, will the pipe be clogged with "fat" content, vs. essential transport?
I for one want an open broadband connection to the Internet, not a walled garden of someone else's idea of content, when I'm in a public hotspot. And, I'm willing to pay for it. I paid, and continue to pay T-Mobile $19.95 a month for my access where they are, and I pay client Boingo $59.99 for Global Roaming access. With both, I get an open pipe, that's free of clutter. It's the same with BT OpenZone in the UK, Orange or SFR in France or SwissCom in Switzerland. The pipe is there for me to do what I want, how I want (within reason of course).
So, while Starbucks is right in creating a curated content network that is really all about lifestyle, largely as an instore entertainment effort, there are still those of us who simply want to connect to the open Internet, and are willing to pay for that option, and receive the kind of connectivity that allows us to make VoIP calls, have a video conversation with someone, upload and download files (work, not hijacked P2P content), send emails with rapid upload and have web pages load in the blink of an eye.
To put it in terms they'll understand. Some of us just want a good cup of coffee, without foam, sugar, flavoring, or any other special additives. We want the same in the way of 'net access. Deliver both and you'll have a customer for life.
Now, back to the Mashable post:
"In fact, when it comes to SDN, there’s no money changing hands between Starbucks and the content providers. Content providers are giving away restricted access in the hopes of attracting new business, and Starbucks wins by having something completely unique and customers benefit from by getting something of value at no cost. Brotman says, “It’s a win-win for everyone.” "
Plain and simple, this is called Sampling. It's not new and it's been consistently one of the most most successful forms of marketing in a retail environment for many, many years. Sampling is what you see at Costco, where the nice man or lady offers you a taste of new food products, lets you try a new health and beauty care product, or offers you a trial of a new electronics item. It's not breakthrough, it is all just packaging. And, what Starbucks is doing is simply providing a new sampling venue for content and downloadable media. Now how can it be made better? Quite simply. More power outlets, more comfortable chairs, couches that don't look like they've been slept in for years and a more sun blocking/tinted windows. Also, less "canned" audio that is so loud you can't talk to your spouse, colleague or new found friend without leaning over like you're going to make out with them.
I'm thrilled that Starbucks has recognized that Sampling is a wonderful entertainment opportunity, and applaud them for their efforts. But to make this work means more than what's on the laptop, it's the whole experience that matters.
P.S. I'm a Starbucks Gold card member, and never once was I, as an early adopter, and frequent user of Starbucks and heavy consumer of coffee and Internet access in many locations, ever surveyed about what I would like my in-store experience to be and have been in their stores chasing Internet access since the day they started offering it.
Read more at andyabramson.blogs.com
After searching the Online Artifact Database, students from “Conversation,” a Spanish class at Wake Forest University, work with objects and paper copies of database records in the Museum of Anthropology’s curation room. (Museum of Anthropology)
The March 2009 issue of the SAA Archaeological Record focused on International Curation Standards. In that issue, Julia King wrote, “The digital delivery of archaeological information has tremendous promise and is the wave of the future, but the creation, management, and long-term preservation of digital information is challenging, complex, and…expensive.” This is a case study of how the Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University developed and implemented a database system and online information service to support archaeological research and teaching at multiple levels.
The Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University creates awareness of global cultures by collecting, protecting, managing, and exhibiting archaeological artifacts, ethnographic objects, and visual arts of past and present peoples, and providing opportunities for intercultural learning. The museum was established by the faculty of the Department of Anthropology in 1963 to broaden learning opportunities for students. The museum’s collections, exhibits, educational programs, and outreach have since grown extensively.
The Museum of Anthropology’s collections of approximately 28,000 archaeological and ethnographic objects represent ancient and contemporary traditional non-Western cultures from around the world. No other museum in North Carolina has such a diverse collection. The first and only exposure many people have to the cultures represented in this collection is through exhibits and outreach programs. The collections are used for teaching university and K–12 students, in public outreach, for long-term exhibits and loans to other institutions, and are the basis of scholarly publications and academic theses.
Read more at www.archaeological.org
Much to the chagrin of the museum crowd, the last few years has seen a steady degradation of the term “curate.” A recent New York Times piece noted that the term “has become a fashionable code word among the aesthetically minded, who seem to paste it onto any activity that involves culling and selecting.” In this sense, everyone perhaps is a curator.
Now, as stimulating as an etymological debate on the word “curate” undoubtedly would be (e.g., Florida still uses the phrase “probate curator”), I’m not really interested in doing it here. I raise the issue because I am attracted to its current mutation as it relates to Web 2.0 (as opposed, say, to music or fashion), and more specifically how it is and can be applied to analytical content.* And in this vein, one commentator has offered an observation:
We’ve just recently latched onto the idea of curation as though it were something new. The need for curation in the old media world wasn’t as obvious as in the internet world because, on the web, ‘everything carries the same weight’ and the average user has difficulty discerning good content from bad. … The buzz word ‘curation’ does carry with it some logic: As the sheer amount of information and content grows, consumers seek help parsing the good from the bad. And that’s where curation comes in. The amount of content available to consumers—much of it free of charge, but scattered across thousands of websites—is growing exponentially every day. At the same time, consumers are increasingly doing independent research and attempting on their own to source important information to support their increasingly complicated lives. Questions or information relating to healthcare, finances, education and leisure activities represent a small sample of the range of topics on which consumers look for accuracy and relevance, yet encounter an immense sea of specious or outdated content. In many ways, the web—in its entirety—is the new dictionary, directory or reference encyclopedia, but users with specific interests are increasingly beginning to understand they need to spend as much time validating what they find as they do consuming their research. In the old days, it was as simple as pulling the volume off the shelf and, while the web offers a depth and accuracy of content that far outstrips any from the old days, finding content of similar veracity can be a challenge.
In its broadest sense, there is plenty of legal-content curation going on. Slaw is a curator, with experts creating original content, link publishing, and editorializing on specific topics, cases, legislation, etc. And while this is important and useful, it is not what I consider to be a challenge to traditional legal publishing, which is something Slaw contributor Jordan Furlong suggested nearly four years ago that blogs might ascend to:
Legal publishers need to understand that the number of competitors is not going to shrink—it’s going to multiply tenfold. And these competitors won’t have overhead, distribution, payroll or marketing costs to deal with—they’ll write when they want to, promote themselves by word of mouth, sell as much focused advertising as they like, and establish themselves as individual brand-name forces. Seth Godin is right: blogs are going to create thousands of expert media outlets with a total staff complement of one. It’s already started.
And indeed, since 2006 we have seen a rapid growth in legal media outlets, although I don’t think we could characterize all of them as “expert.” Regardless, thousands of lawyers and legal professionals are creating content, and more specifically, analytical material. Little of that content, however, is curated (i.e., evaluated, authenticated, and categorized). And if digital outlets are going to compete against traditional publishing companies, their collective analytical content—which is fast becoming substantial—will need to be managed.
Curating this growing body of analytical content will be difficult. It suggests a person-machine process of locating and separating good content from bad, and categorizing, verifying, authenticating, and editorializing that content. It will undoubtedly require the creation of a rich taxonomy to help organize and manage the content for later discovery, clean metadata, and a good search engine, and raises issues from data permanency to copyrights to brand dilution. It’s a mess. But a worthy one I think.
Last year, Seth Godin wrote a post on when the writer becomes the publisher. He concluded it with the following comment:
Mark this down as another job for the new economy: someone who can collate, amplify and leverage the work of writers and turn it into cash. I don’t believe that there’s one solution, not this time. But I’m confident that around the edges and deep into niches, there’s money being made.
I think if someone wants this badly enough, they will find a way to make it happen and monetize it. When that occurs, we’ll have a real challenge to the status quo. In the meantime, let’s hope the duopoly doesn’t get to it first.
______________________
* I would add that the theft of the word here is not, as the museum crowd might have you believe, an act of self-aggrandizement. If it were, I would have opted for something like, “connoisseuring” the legal web, instead.
Read more at www.slaw.ca
If you're a typical computer user today, you have lots of data that you've created or participated in creating. The data takes several forms, typically including:
- Personal documents: writing, drawing, photographs, home movies, etc.
- Purchased media: music, movies, software, etc.
- Electronic records: receipts, account records, etc.
- Communication: email, chat logs, & other social media messages.
There are several things about how you keep this data today which ought to bother you.
First, it's probably inadequately backed up. By this, I mean that you don't back it up frequently enough, and when you do, it's probably either (a) on a USB hard drive or (b) on cloud storage. Taken alone, either of these is inadequate. Typical hard drive backups are inadequate because on most file systems, the data's neither pervasively checksummed nor stored with redundant error-correcting codes; as a result, all your files are subject to random corruption. There's also the small matter that you probably don't archive your backups regularly to a remote location that's safe if, e.g., your home burns down. Cloud storage alone is inadequate because (1) any compromise to your account could result in malicious deletion or corruption of your data and (2) Amazon/Google/... may seem like permanent institutions today, but on the scale of decades I am somewhat dubious; DEC and SGI and Sun were once lords of Silicon Valley; ultimately one must consider Phlebas and all that.
Second, the data's stored in a mishmash of formats, some of which will be exceptionally difficult to read in years to come. Microsoft's file formats are particularly egregious, but I also have my doubts that, for example, today's video file formats, or an iPhoto or Picasa metadata database, will be readable by commonly available software in twenty years.
Third, a lot of your data's stored in multiple related forms, and the relationship between those forms is totally ad hoc and not captured by future-proof software. For example, you might have a batch of raw photos, of which you pick a few to clean up, rescale to lower resolution, and upload to the web. So now you've got multiple versions of the photo. If you need to go trawling through this mess some years from now, you're in for a lot of curatorial tedium reorganizing it and figuring out what's redundant and discardable versus what's a pristine original that you must keep.
Conquering any one of these problems, let alone all of them, requires serious geekery today. For example, if you want to have good backups, you need to store data both in cloud storage and on multiple media, and you need software that records and verifies the checksums of all your files. The other two problems are just as gnarly, if not more so.
This may seem like a totally anorakish concern that doesn't matter to most people. Maybe most people are OK with most of their data being ephemeral, except for the rare object that they print out into physical form. Maybe it's just me, because I've been thinking about posterity a lot lately — including photos and video, my raw data generation rate has risen to something like a couple of GB per month. But I suspect I'm merely one of the people on the leading edge of this problem. Someday, everybody will generate a couple of GB per month and they really will want to share the family albums with their grandchildren without inordinate curatorial effort.
So, as far as I can tell, there's a big gaping hole in the market for personal digital curation software — software that would help you not only back up your data (there's plenty of software out there for that) but that would take care of ensuring the posterity of your data. This implies at least (1) backing it up to multiple distributed locations, (2) transcoding it into future-proof forms, and (3) remembering the relationship between different parts of your data.
This software would not be simple to build. It would have to be cross-platform. To offer a credible promise of future-proofness, it would have to be built on well-documented protocols and file formats so that if your organization went bust, someone else could write software, from scratch, that at least recovers the data. It would have to either include software that manages common file types like photos, or to hook into existing software that manages them, or compute relationships between the files after the fact (for example, it would have to either replace Picasa, or hook into it, or be able to figure out by post hoc analysis when two files were really variants of each other). It would have to be performant. It would need a nice UI.
I suppose the difficulty of building such software is one reason it hasn't been done. Much easier to just build a social networking doodad or a little timewasting mobile app or whatever the next Valley flavor of the month is. On the other hand, I think there's actually a reasonable (although perhaps tough to pitch) business case. There's probably at least tens of thousands of digital obsessives in the world who'd pay Photoshop CS-level prices for a credible digital curation package. The need to support new file formats or cloud storage APIs as they come online could provide a steady stream of upgrade revenue. If you built it right, then there's the potential for standard licensing deals where you bundle value-subtracted versions of the software with new computers, digital cameras, and other doodads.
Oh well. Anyway, add it to the list of stuff that I wish existed but does not, and also the list of things I wish I the time and focus to write but will probably not get to in my lifetime.
UPDATE 2010-08-03: Apparently you can actually learn something by blogging in ignorance and waiting until Reddit sends some commenters your way. There's an IT service category called digital asset management (DAM), and it's a big deal for enterprises (which shouldn't be surprising). (In library science, the analogous problem is called digital curation, which IMO is closer to the problem I care about.) The question, I suppose, is whether DAM can be scaled down, made sufficiently comprehensive, and encapsulated in a mixture of consumer-grade software and services so that individuals can have credible assurance that their data will be preserved on decades-long time scales. I'm somewhat dubious that Expression Media or Bridge can really offer that kind of promise (for example, those packages seem media-focused; do they back up stuff like email and source code?) but of course I haven't looked very deeply. Thanks interwebs!
Read more at abstractfactory.blogspot.com
