Experienced Open Data advocates realize that making data available costs money, making people aware of the data costs money, and creating a community of users costs money. And that data aren’t that easy to open.
A new social search engine comes onto the scene, sporting some moves borrowed from Google’s playbook. It’s an interesting approach. But will Aardvark just put ants in Google’s pants?
More people are using social networks, but different ones at different ages, but mostly by choice. Will professional usage of social networks ever be worthwhile enough to drive adoption?
How custom is custom publishing? Will custom publishing ever move fully into the user’s hands?
OK, I’ve read enough — there are 5 things about the iPad that might just annoy me (and others).
The fact that scientific publishing hasn’t been disrupted may be a sign of a problem, not an advantage. A future choice may be disruption or irrelevance. Which will we choose?
Highlights from this week’s reader comments, pointing the way to dialog you might have otherwise missed. Also, let me know if you like this as a weekly feature.
Publishers and librarians are creatures of the Information Age. How can they cope with the coming Systems Age?
The new Nook is over-packaged, and has design and technical issues that keep it from competing well with the Kindle. Too bad.
As Google adds real-time Web features to its search over the next few days, it may be the last nail in the coffin for publisher-centric commodity information.
“Sports Illustrated” is showing off a new reading tablet for TIME properties. Is it also a preview of an Apple tablet?
When we lose track of the social role of our materials, we miss opportunities to accomplish our goals in refreshing ways.
A three-year NSF grant will create new tools for arXiv e-print repository.
Can the model used in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records be extended to embrace e-works? Or should it be trimmed instead?
A mixture of traditional and new that is effective, simple, and rather astounding.