Excellent comment, Tim!  My experience at UT Austin has been the same --
it is quite amazing what can be accomplished my a small group of people
willing to think outside of traditional/current models, be they
business, administrative, or even technical infrastructure models.  By
refusing (or even being hesitant) to look beyond those models is simply
missed opportunity.

--peter keane

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:24:32PM -0400, Tim Spalding wrote:
> I'd like to say we should not get sidetracked by discussions of
> "business models." I particularly object to the idea that LibraryThing
> can't experiment in the way that OL can because we have to have a
> business model.
>
> I won't toot my own horn, but I think LibraryThing has experimented a
> good deal?and we're a handful of people. We have the budget of a small
> library in rural Maine. I suspect Open Library is costing about the
> same.
>
> None of this is about money. None of it. The people on this list could
> revolutionize libraries on web for what Albanian-Americans spend on
> tic-tacs.
>
> As Emerson wrote "What are you waiting for? You're faster than this.
> Don't think you are, know you are. Come on. Stop trying to hit me and
> hit me."
>
> Tim
>
> On 3/14/08, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >  I think there is still a lot of potential to make machine readable
> >  >  metadata available at the same URIs that provide human readable
> >
> > >  bibliographic descriptions...
> >
> >  It almost seems insane not to do this since adding this tiny bit of
> >  highly useful functionality is trivial.
> >
> >
> >  >  I think this is an area where OpenLibrary can afford to experiment a
> >  >  bit, and break new ground--without having to worry (like you and OCLC)
> >  >  about a business model.
> >
> >
> > However, I think the business model aspect of any data problem is
> >  interesting because it has an enormous impact on what can be done at
> >  all, what is easy, and what is hard. Some high value data simply costs
> >  a lot to produce on a large scale, and there has to be a way to pay
> >  for it.
> >
> >  One thing I'm particularly encouraged by are developments like the
> >  Google API. In a bizarre way, Google can help libraries by diverting
> >  business from them. For example, if a library displays TOCs using the
> >  API, users are more likely to be able to determine whether they need
> >  the book -- reducing the to request the book or obtain it through ILL.
> >
> >  This reduces demand for library services if you're into bean counting
> >  metrics like number of requests. However, it also reduces costs for
> >  the library so resources can be diverted where they can do more good,
> >  helps the user get what s/he really needs, Google gets ad revenue when
> >  the user views the TOC at full size, and presumably, those paying for
> >  the advertising come out OK too. The incentive is to make everything
> >  easy to use, and everyone wins.
> >
> >  kyle
> >
> > --
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------
> >  Kyle Banerjee
> >  Digital Services Program Manager
> >  Orbis Cascade Alliance
> >  [log in to unmask] / 541.359.9599
> >
>
>
> --
> Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding