 |
 |
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