The Search Principle blog

This is very interesting. Allan and I have just submitted our semantic web paper to the Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, but many of the themes from our paper are mentioned by Greenberg in this YouTube video: tagging, semanticization of the web, standards, the differences between librarianship and computer science fields. Notice the discussion views similar concepts from different perspectives here with Spivack/Scoble.

Differences of opinion between librarians and computer scientists seem inevitable. But, our end goals are similar. Why don’t these groups get together is my question? – Dean

One of the forward-looking thinkers of the web, Nova Spivack from Radar Networks, answers some questions about the semantic web. Check out an even more recent discussion with Robert Scoble about Radar Networks’ new semantic tool called Twine.

He mentions ‘fragmentation’ and information overload as problems with the current web.

When I posted the introduction to the Cho/Giustini paper the other day, I had a few e-mails from readers asking about where/when it will be published. It depends on who wants it.

**********
In the meantime, I am including another preview from the paper – this from the section before the introduction entitled “key messages” which is a feature used at the Health Information and Libraries Journal out of the U.K.:

Key messages
• Web 3.0 refers to the third decade of the web from 2010-2020. Some experts believe we are entering a pre-web 3.0 period.

• The current web is characterized by global information overload and repetitive searching/browsing using Google.

• Debates about web 3.0 are still somewhat theoretical, but a common theme is ‘developing an integrated web of data’ based on sound principles of information systems design. Some experts say that the principles of librarianship should play a role in improving how the web is organized.

• In 2008, semantic technologies are being used to solve information retrieval problems in bioinformatics, which may have specific applications in medicine. The term ‘semantic web’ is occasionally used as a synonym for web 3.0 (and vice-versa), though some disagree with that usage.

• Health librarians should be thinking ahead about how to design better domain-specific search tools and user experiences (including virtual experiences) in web 3.0.

How much fun would this be? We could discard all of our print journals and create some space for librarian aerobics. Who knows? It might make us more agile as we move into web 3.0. (I know, wishful thinking.)

**********************

The friendly folks over at the Read-Write-Web (sometimes called web 2.0 unless you hear read or write web) have come up with Eleven (11) Things you Need to Know about the Semantic Web:

In brief, my favourites about the semantic web:

1. Don’t apologize for calling it web 3.0 – repeat 3x!

“The web does not upgrade in one go like a company switching to Vista. But there is a definite phase transition from current technologies.” Oh, how sweet it is…

2. “The Semantic Web will start the long, slow decline of relational database technology.” I couldn’t agree more, especially those horrible ol’ silos we call our library catalogues.

3.Hey, maybe I could be a manbrarian? “If you have a firm grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of the semantic web, things like RDF, tuples, Sparql and OWL that make my brain hurt, you will be able to charge a fat premium in consulting fees for a while, as not many people really understand this stuff.” Me, a consultant?

4. This is my favourite: “The Semantic Web could slow the Google steamroller.” How sweet it is …no really (but librarians should get involved in moving to the SW faster).

5. “Vertical Search is the pragmatist’s Semantic Web.”

Again I couldn’t agree more.We really do need something like Google medicine. But what, exactly, are they building over there??

A teaser from Allan’s and my paper:

**************************************

Introduction

“This paper introduces some of the main concepts and principles of web 3.0 for health librarians. In doing so, it aims to explore some of the issues and terminologies associated with the web’s projected development over the next ten years, and at a level of generality that we hope will raise awareness and encourage debate. Many health librarians have recently adopted the underlying principles and social software tools of web 2.0 into practice [1]. Can we be moving into the early stages of web 3.0 already?

To answer that question, let’s explore some of the many (conflicting) definitions of web 3.0. According to Wikipedia, “There is considerable debate as to what the term web 3.0 means, and what a suitable definition might be.” [2] Web futurist Nova Spivack suggests that web 3.0 refers to the web’s third decade of development from 2010-2020 [see table 1] during which several information trends will converge and predominate. Internet experts say that we are already moving toward the technologies that herald this new era [3]. However, one librarian blogger is vehement that ‘web versions’ do not (or should not) exist [4].”

**************************************

First, the petition, endorsed by the CHLA/ABSC. Then, some brief discussion (via e-mail) about my OM post. So far, not much interest in this subject from our American counterparts!

Former BMJ editor, Richard Smith, wrote a good piece in 2003 entitled “Do patients need to read research?”, with some interesting commentary and responses. Reading it, I was reminded of the Cochrane Consumer Network.

****************************************
I came up with some (more) questions.

1. Do Canadian consumers read medical research? How many understand it? Is there any data supporting the contention we need Canada-wide Cochrane access? How many public libraries even point to Cochrane summaries from their websites?

2. What is the awareness, health librarians, of the Cochrane summaries that are available for free? Shouldn’t this guide whether we open up all systematic reviews to the Canadian public? How many public libraries have had requests for Cochrane reviews in their ILL departments over the last five years?

3. Am I being crabby about this, or does it seem odd to other health librarians that so many have signed the petition, but not questioned it. How many signees to the petition are consumers?

Of course, Cochrane has great value. It’s indispensible in Canadian healthcare. That is not in dispute. What is, is the notion of providing Canada-wide access, and doing this by petition. I believe health librarians should be looking at ways of making more reliable health information open access, and by supporting ventures like Open Medicine and placing a bib record in their OPACs (Yes, I know, conflict of interest).

“To do two things at once is to do neither.”—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.

*********************************

The Kaiser Foundation reports that American teens are very adept at multitasking. If you think about it, these elite net gen’ers are using a kind of information literacy skill that they have honed over years of texting, IM’ming and e-mailing. How did these youths acquire these skills? From librarians??

Trial and error? Probably not.

Perhaps this is something librarians need to think about as we move further into the information age. Is being able to scan across documents, manage information and sift through it an information skill we can teach? Why is it that brilliant physicians you know can’t use e-mail efficiently? How do we teach physicians how to manage the onslaught of text and research coming their way, daily?

Information overload costs the economy $588 billion dollars annually in lowered productivity, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Report. Information overload is shown to lower comprehension levels, increase stress and affect work/life balances. Each of us loses an average of 2.1 hours per day due to unnecessary interruptions and recovery time.

What causes information overload? For me, it’s a number of things: too much information (think trying to write a paper and your bibliography has even 10 references), can’t find the right information (or don’t know if it exists), don’t know where to look, can’t access it, can’t tell if information is accurate. …no librarian 🙂

You get the idea.

Related:

1. Kirn W. The Autumn of the Multitaskers. Atlantic Monthly November 2007.

2. Pew Internet & American Life Project. A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users. May 2007.

3. Leighty J. Information Overload? NM Medical Librarians Offer Help Feb. 11th, 2008.

News conglomerate Reuters has introduced a new semantic web service, called Calais. Calais uses ‘natural language processing’ and ‘information extraction technology’ from ClearForest to find structures of meaning in web content (ie. places, jobs, facts, events, etc.) and brings that information together. Think separate card catalogues for each website, analyzed, parsed and linkable to other relevant content. Calais’ byline is: “Connect. Everything.” Gotta love that.

Reuters says that “we want to make all the world’s content more accessible, interoperable and valuable. Some call it Web 2.0, Web 3.0, the semantic web or the Giant Global Graph…” With its own metadata schema, Calais users can extend the tagging they do already. Reuters is generous with how much you can annotate during beta. Check out this blogger’s perspective on using Calais…

Scholarly publishing is clearly in transition, everywhere librarians look, and the changes are radically transforming our work. At UBC, library administration has repurposed an AUL Collections position by adding a new area they style ‘scholarly communications’. Good luck to the librarian taking that one on.

However, in health libraries in Canada, I’ve been surprised by the lack of discussion about this issue so perhaps more positions are needed. Three things rarely mentioned in connection with scholarly publishing are ideas from my December 2007 BMJ editorial on web 3.0: information overload, poor search tools/findability on the web and the possibilities represented by the semantic web.

And so, I’ve started a wiki article stub on Scholarly Publishing and Communication on the UBC Health Library wiki. Yesterday, after I had briefly drafted something, I had 300 hits. Subsequently, I invited Marcus Banks if he were up to collaborating with me on writing an article for JMLA but he has little time. If someone else wants to work with me on publishing something let me know.

From the introduction to scholarly publishing in the UBC Health Library wiki:

“Generally speaking, scholarly publishing and communication is a process by which new knowledge is created and then broadly disseminated to research communities. In biomedicine, the scholarly communications cycle begins with new ideas for treatment and/or persistent clinical questions that researchers and faculty want to address using clinical trials. The researcher starts the process by writing grant proposals and making formal application to various funding bodies. Often, the key to applying for funding stems from the ability to cumulate the evidence, identify new areas for research and formulate questions into identifiable objectives.“