a s idlc - nfais.memberclicks.net · no. 75, spring 1998 a s idlc newsletter association of...

No. 75, Spring 1998 A S IDlC newsletter

ASSOCIATION OF INFORMATION AND DISSEMINATION CENTERS

Committee Reports

reasurer: Jay ven Eman (Access In- T novations) presented the ASIDIC budget. Because of the shift to the accrual method of accounting, the figures for 1997 are somewhat unusual. The net profit for 1997, on the cash basis of accounting, appears to be about $7,000. Some expenses for the document delivery project still re- main outstanding, however. Executive: Tom Hogan, ASIDIC President summarized the items discussed at the Ex- ecutive Committee: 0 Randy Marcinko (Marcinko Enter-

prises) is working on a design for an ASIDIC Web site. The Webmaster will be Deborah Wiley (Next Wave Con- sulting), who hopes to launch the site by June. Comments and suggestions are welcome. ASIDIC’s Web site is currently hosted by Access Innovations and was designed by Jay ven Eman. ASIDIC thanks Access Innovations and espe-

cially Jay for their kindness in making their facilities available to ASIDIC. The document delivery project (see the Fall 1997 Newsletter) concluded with a profit of about $7,000. Randy Marcink.0, ASIDIC’s representative to Documentation Abstracts, Inc. (DAI) reported that DAI has sold Infor- mation Science Abstracts to Information Today, Inc. ASIDIC is one of eight societies sponsoring DAI. The Executive Committee voted to recommend that the assets of DAI (about $300,000) be di- vided equally and returned to the eight sponsoring societies. ASIDIC’s meetings are currently losing about $2,000 to $3,000 each. The meeting registriation fee will therefore be raised to $275 for members, $325 for non-members, and $90 for guests.

Finance: Dan Jones (NewsBank, Inc.) reported that it appears ASIDIC will show a loss for 1997 when the figures are restated as part of the change to the accrual method of

The ASIDIC Newsletter is published by the Association of Information and Dissemination Centers, P.O. Box 8105, Athens, GA 30602, phone (706)-542-6820. Internet: jwebbeuga . cc. uga . edu, and edited by Donald T. Hawkins, InfoResources Corporation. 59 Twin Falls Road, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922, phone (908)-508-9777, Internet: D. T.Hawkins@worldnet .att .net. The opinions expressed herein are not to be construed as those of ASlDlC or of InfoResources Corporation.

accounting. There will be about $75,000 on hand after the document delivery profit is realized. With this amount of cash available, care needs to be taken to avoid IRS scrutiny of ASIDIC's non-profit status. Nominations: Randy Marcinko reported that the Nominating Committee for the fall meeting will soon be formed. Suggestions for Executive Committee members who will be willing to undertake the duties of liaison with local hosts and program chairs, publi- cizing meetings, and recruiting new members are weicome. Constitution: A mail vote of Full Members was held following the last Fall meeting, and the vote was unanimous to approve the proposed changes to the Constitution and By- Laws, so all changes are now in effect. Thanks to Rick Noble (Micromedex) for all his hard work on this project. Membership: One new member has joined ASIDIC since the last meeting.

Fall Meeting

he Fall meeting will be held in Toronto, T Ontario on September 27-29, 1998 at the Intercontinental Hotel. Local host will be Taissa Kusma (Academic Press), and Program Chair will be Dennis Auld (formerly of American Psychological Asso- ciation). The program will be concerned with adding value to information. Be sure and mark your calendars now and plan to attend!

Future Meetings

he Spring 1999 meeting will be held in T southern California. Palm Springs and San Diego are under consideration.

President's Column by Tom Hogan

ur spring meeting in Orlando was a 0 great success, thanks in large measure to John Hearty, who orchestrated a diverse yet highly relevant program. The quality of the presentations was excellent across the board, and John made sure that the speakers tied their topics into the conference theme, which was concerned with new technologies and their impact on the information industry.

I'd also like to thank Kathy Hogan-Bayer on my staff. She did all the logistical arrange- ments for Orlando and talked me into having our Monday-night affair at the Adventurers Club. I was afraid it sounded a little hokey, but she persisted, and it turned out to be the real highlight of the social side of the meeting. I, for one, haven't laughed so hard in a long time.

One of the major things that happened at the executive committee meeting in Orlando was the passing of a motion which called for an increase in the registration fees for our two annual meetings. No president of an association likes to be the one who presides over price increases, and I'm no exception. Having looked at the financial situation as ASIDIC treasurer for the last two years, however, I felt it was absolutely necessary to consider this action, and the executive committee was in full support. I think, however, that people who attend our meetings will continue to share our belief that ASI- DIC meetings are still the best bargain around.

Until now, the ASIDIC Web site has been maintained through the generosity of Access Innovations, Inc., one of our stalwart members, which provided its expertise and facilities to us at no charge. The association is

3 indebted to that organization. In order to further the development of the Web site, the executive committee passed a motion to set aside a small budget to engage the services of a Webmaster who would take the site to the next level. Deb Wiley, a long-time information professional and established In- ternet consultant, will be managing the site's development over the months and, hope- hlly, the years ahead. Anyone interested in giving Deb ideas or comments is encouraged to contact her at 301-261-9012 or by e-mail at deb@consultnw. corn..

Denny Auld of PsycInfo has graciously agreed to be our program chair for the fall ASIDIC conference, which will be held in September in Toronto. The theme for the conference will be on adding value to information services in order to survive and prosper in the next century. Anyone interested in participating or just suggesting topics for the meeting may contact Denny at [email protected].

As current president of ASIDIC, I, too, would welcome your ideas, comments, or criticisms regarding our organization and its future. You may send me an email at hoganiti@aol. corn or give me a call at 609-654-6266. We all need feedback!

New Member

SIDIC welcomes the following new Member:

Micromedex 6200 S. Syracuse Way Englewood, CO 801 1 1-4740 Representative: Rick Noble Alternate: Marilyn Winokur Phone: (3 03)-486-6500 E-mail: rnobleemdx. corn

A

4

Introduction John Hearty, OCLC, Inc.

echnology can be both friend and foe to T information providers and users. While technological advances can improve the quality and timeliness of information services, they can also bring profound changes to an industry already “shell shocked” by the latest barrage of innovations. This meeting addresses the current pace of evolution in information technology, strategies for coping with the many changes on the horizon, and taking advantage of the opportunities these changes present. The presentations focus on the world of information systems in the year 2000 and beyond.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Confronting the Future: Bracing for the

Ron Dunn, Information Industry Association Brave New Information World

[email protected]

went business conditions are very fa- C vorable for the information industry. The U.S. economy is strong and is the most sustained that it has been in decades. Finan- cial markets are robust, and information companies have received incredible valua- tions. There is an increasing global demand for information; the non-U.S. world is finding that information matters and can be a major driver. Innovation is rapid, profits are up, and business is good.

So why do concerns exist? Tim Miller, writing in the December 1997 issue of In- formation Today, wondered if the information industry would soon begin to decline. He viewed the Internet as causing major problems and cited the demise of Dialog, UMI’s failure to sell itself, and the collapse of NewsNet as worrisome events.

Most of the fallout from the Internet is good. It has lowered production and distribution costs, allowed more people to have easy access to information, and spawned lots of innovation and new product possibilities. However, the shifting competitive environment bothers many people who observe that upstarts can do what has long been done by traditional players with lots of turf to protect.

Traditional players still have several significant advantages: specialized content re- quiring lots of expertise to compile, archives which have time value, a high degree of added value through their editing, marketing, and customer service activities, and sophisticated customers who know the value of information and are willing to pay for it. Challenges for traditional players include maturing markets and singie-digit growth, growing price sensitivity, decline in the importance of print materials, the rise of consortia, and even the occasional customer who rejects their product. They also face reduced barriers to competition (it is easier for new people to enter the market), conser- vative traditions among customers, and sophisticated customers who know the value of information and know how to evaluate

competing products to get the best value for their money. Key industry trends are:

Consolidation: mergers and acquisitions occurring for defensive purposes because the market cannot sustain many players, AlZiances: the Internet has changed the market which moves very rapidly, so fewer people can survive alone, Custornization: the Internet is the ulti- mate narrowcasting medium, Rise of consortia: large corporate customers especially are banding together, and Technological advances: change will continue.

There are few technological barriers to growth; all the major issues of three to four years ago either have been solved or are solvable. Legal and policy barriers, however, will continue. We urgently need new forms of intellectual property protection for the digital age. Determining the liability for online copyright infringement is extremely difficult in the Internet age. There is also a rush by the states to tax Internet transactions; a moratorium of five to six years has been proposed to allow orderly development before competing schemes are implemented.

If you have a Web site, you need to be concerned about privacy. Gathering information on users can be dangerous unless you tell them what you are doing with the information you collect. The Federal Trade Commission is surveying Web sites for privacy considerations and will report its find- ings to Congress in June. The IIA has developed a model template for privacy which can be found on its Web site at http://www. infoindustry. org.

Keys to adding value to information products:

0

Build vertical communities and take advantage of what the Internet does well. Incorporate new data or content and develop new applications. Don’t just put up existing data. Customize for corporate customers and customer groups. Match the customer’s environment.

Remember that (quality counts; “good enough” is a path to ruin. Branding is important because re:putations are on the line. The Internet is just a delivery channel, although it is an excellent one. The content is the most important thing.

Predictions: Consolidation will continue because there is nothing to stop it, and there is lots of money available.

The importance of intermediaries (both information professionals and content aggregators) will increase. Their role will be to organize, filter, and analyze data.

0 Paper will persist.

Global opportunities will grow.

The future is very positive. No demise of the information industry, intermediaries, or traditional players is in sight.

As Computer Platforms Blur,

Randy Chalfant, StorageTek Storage Requirements Crystallize

[email protected]

y the end of the decade, there will be B 1,400 petabytes of data capable of be-

ing manipulated by cutting, pasting, sorting, etc. Data remains inert and dead until it is retrieved and its value extracted. Delivery requirements for information systems include differentiating, adding value, and finding cost effective solutions to create a competitive edge. We all have access to the same data; the value added to it makes it different to each person.

Data sharing will be the next “holy grail”. The goal is to store one copy of the data on any platform, without each user having to look at different partitions of it. The problem is that data formats are different, so translation in the application layer is needed.

We need to progress from physical storage, to access, to data sharing, to information. The world has changed; as computer platforms blur, storage requirements have crys- tallized. Content is the name of the game, and users do not care where the data is stored, where it comes from, or how it is delivered. They do care about performance, security, and cost. Money is made on the value added, not the storage.

The driving requirements of content are that it be independent of operating system architecture or distance and that it be high performance and secure to protect the owner’s investment. End users want content-rich availability of data for entertainment, education, telecommuting, interactive advertising, commerce, and tele-medicine. Bandwidth and secure storage will enable this.

The technology for 1 megabyte modems is coming, and they will dramatically improve performance. Storage market trends include large storage needs for emerging applications, hierarchical storage, and constant availability. There is a current shift toward hyperdocuments; 80% of documents today

are prepared on networked PCs. Demand for storage, data warehousing, and data mining will exceed the growth of the Inter- net or Intranets.

StorageTek’s corporate focus is to provide an open environment that is scalable and distributed for networked solutions. They ptan to continue to lead the legacy main- frame storage market, bring the best to mul- tiplatform environments, and develop business applications.

Impact of Advanced Networks on

Ted Hams, University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development

Information Suppliers: Internet2

he mission of Internet2 is to facilitate T the development, deployment, opera- tion, and technology transfer of advanced networks based on applications to further the U.S. leadership in research and higher education. The University Corporation has 125 university members, 15 affiliate members, 16 corporate members, and 10 corporate partners. (Partners are organizations which contribute over $ I miIIion in goods and services to project members.) University presidents and chancellors form a Board of voting members of the Corporation. The Board takes an active role in management and makes progress through working groups. Income (about $25,000 annually) comes from member dues. Each member university must commit to providing desktop con- nectivity throughout its community.

The Corporation is working on a network architecture that will support advanced technologies. The network will have 12 nation- wide connection points with regional points of presence. The engineering objectives are to develop the production network, establish

quality of service functionality, and support native multicasting. The current Internet network does -not differ- entiate between applications; Internet2 will. Applications will be able to request higher performance standards (at an increased price, of course). This configuration will enable the efficient delivery of lots of information to a wide audience. The initial network for Internet2 is up now; major cover- age throughout the U.S. is scheduled for mid-1998.

Internet:! will deliver significant improve- ments in how we conduct research and engineering. New media such as video and audio are difficult or impossible to run on today’s Internet; they will be possible on Internet2. Examples of suitable applications for Internet 2 are network-based research collaboration, real-time sensor-based mod- eling and simulation (in weather forecasting for example), large scale multi-site compu- tation and database processing, and shared virtual reality (“tele-immersion”). Benefits of an advanced Internet are richer content through higher bandwidth (video, audio, visualization, virtual reality), more interac- tivity through minimized delay, and reliable content delivered through high quality service.

In 1998 through 2001, the quality of service will be established, the number of connec- tions will be increased, interoperable mid- dleware will be adopted, and an increasing number of applications will be deployed. Between 2002 and 2003, the effects of this enhanced technology will be studied, and planning will begin for “Internet3”.

The following are some demonstration projects using Internet2 technology:

Indiana University is mounting orchestra recordings in a music archive, freeing

7

0

0

0

a

A

users from having to physically go to a building to listen to them. The University of Michigan is prototyp- ing remote scartning electron microscopy to classrooms and high schools. Using buttons on their screens, users can pan and zoom remotely. The microscopes are located at major university laborato- ries; this service will greatly increase their availability since most smaller col- leges and schools cannot afford them (each one costs ,about $250,000). Gallaudet University is experimenting with video sign language and captioning. The University of Missouri is working with spreadsheets that have images in- stead of numbers on them. University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon are mapping the brain in 3D from MRIs and correlating the images with visual stimuli in real time. The University of Michigan is working with an upper atmosphere collaboration laboratory at several sites. The University of Illinois is experimenting with “tele-immersion” in “caves” to allow remote collaboration.

Web site dealing with Internet2 is at http://www. internet2. edu.

Implications of the Acceptance of a

Stuart Weibel, OCLC Metadata Standard on Content Owners

CLC is developing an “Internet Gom- Omens,, for meladata-structured data about data. Examples of metadata in the library world are MARC and AACR cata- loging rules. The Internet Commons em- braces many formal and informal research descriptions. We need conventions to ex- change descriptive information in the areas of semantics (meaning of elements), struc-

ture (human-readable and machine parsable), and syntax (grammars to convey semantic structure).

The Dublin Core project is concerned with how to improve research discovery on the Web and building an interdisciplinary con- sensus about a core element set of descrip- tors that is simple and intuitive, interdisciplinary, international, and flexible. There are 15 elements of metadata for research discovery, all of which are optional, repeat- able, extensible, interdisciplinary, and international. Extensibility (the “Ukrainian doll” model) improves the sharpness of the de- scriptors with qualifiers and sub-elements. Extended semantics (the “Lego block” model) allow for additional data elements and complementary packages of metadata. Currently, over 50 projects are using the Dublin Core data, including an Australian government locator service and the Danish National Bibliography. In the corporate world, Boeing and Ford are interested.

A Research Description Format (RDF) provides an architecture for metadata on the Web. It is important because people need it to do business on the Internet. The software structure, which will be ubiquitous, provides a framework for metadata. It will support metadata element sets which are developed independently of the standards.

Using metadata, we will have a means for expressing highly structured data on the Web and the tools will be integrated into the Web infrastructure. The foundation for ex- tensibIe semantics is in place; now the big- gest challenge is to promote consistent deployment.

Relevant Web sites: 0 Dublin Core Home Page:

http://purl.org/metadata/dublin - core

D-Lib Magazine: http://www. dlib. org 0 RDF Working Group Home Page:

http://w3. org/RDF

Underpinning the DOI:

Larry Lannom, CNRI A Handle System Overview

[email protected]

aming resources on the Net presents N problems because names are needed to refer to items stored on computers, but they change rapidly over time. CNRI’s Handle system was developed to address this problem; it uses values which do not change. The Handle system enforces unique names which have values (such as URLs) associ- ated with them. The naming system is opti- mized for speed and reliability and provides an infrastructure for applications. Partici- pants in this initiative are the Library of Congress, the International DO1 Foundation, the Networked Computing Science Techni- cal Reports Library (NCSTRL), DTIC, and USIA.

Each naming authority is assigned a unique number which is used as a prefix to the Handle. For example, a valid Handle is

10.15678/279dt8 where 10.15678 is the prefix and the suffix, 279dt8, designates the item identifier and can be in any format. Handles are resolved to a URL or other data type which locates the item.

The complete Handle System is a collection of services, each of which has one or more Handle Servers. The data resides on the servers; users can ask for all data or all data of a given type. Resolution is done through a proxy Web server which retrieves the data; browser extensions have been developed which will carry out this process directly without needing the proxy server. Open

systems are used for development; specifi- cations can be found on the Web at http://www. handle. net.

Abstracting and indexing services will be affected by the Handle System. Search results could be linked to original sources at a publisher’s site, original sources at a document delivery site, or locally owned copies of source materials. A global DO1 process could provide a central source of metadata or a value-added middleman role between small publishers and DO1 registration.

INFORMATIO DISTIUBUTIO

The E-Content Revolution:

Vince Yannuzzi, IBM Digital Library Opportunities and Pitfalls

[email protected]

igital libraries are an emerging tech- D nology with significant impacts on content repositories: 0 Exhaustion vs. extinction: Technology

will not cause extinction of libraries, but it will cause exhaustion as users fiom everywhere inquire about content.

0 Competitiveness vs. obsolescence: The focus is not on becoming obsolete but on leaping into digital content.

0 Success vs. failure.

The e-content vision is still incomplete. Some of its features are listed here; not all may be desirable. 0 Access to all the information in the

world, 0 Decisions being made for users by intel-

ligent agents, 0 Multimedia repositories of content,

0 State-of-the-art search engines, 0 Intuitive user interfaces,

Enormous financial opportunities.

Everyone empowered to be a publisher, and

E-content opportunities include increased access by a large number of people, enhanced library services at reduced costs, availability of software tools to increase learning effectivene:ss, asset protection, reduced distribution costs, and the ability to tap the intrinsic vaIue of the content.

There is a rush to digitize today; pressures on libraries are being applied by users, content managers, investors, vendors, system integrators, and governments. All these players are urging digitizers to get started and do something-digitization has become a craze! We can learn from Confucius who said, “Leaping a chasm in two jumps is un- wise.” We must pause at the edge of the chasm and assess the situation. There are many unanswered questions related to digitization; it is necessary to get clients across the chasm safely.

The following pitfalls need to be considered: 0 Lack of a strategic plan. There is too

much rushing to digitize without a purpose, which is causing opportunities to be missed and is asking for trouble.

0 Information overload. Offering electronic access to all the information in the world is an overwhelming task. Con- sider the 80/20 rule; most people need access to only ‘20% of the available information. The amount of content available in electronic form is growing faster than the process; to manage it.

0 Uncontrolled creation of content. We do not need to digitize everything. Eve- ryone is not quallified to be a publisher.

Financial expectations are often un- founded; business models for e-content are often nonexistent or outdated. Eve- ryone thinks their content is unique and very valuable! Many digitization projects are started without considering what will happen if the money runs out. Flexibility and scalability. Don’t just grab applications without considering the possibilities of other ones as well. Rights management. Information use can be a violation of the law. Redistri- bution of content can compromise security, intellectual property, or legal com- pliance. These issues must be carefully considered. Control. Who has access to your information? Are you getting compensated properly?

It may be unpopular to insist on a pause to build a framework for converting content, but it is vital. There must be a business model, content model, and management model. The business model should address:

Goals: What are you trying to do and why? Audience: Specifically, who are you doing it for and how many potential customers are out there? Assets: What do you have to do it with (technology, content, people, money)? Financials: Who is paying whom? Howmuch? Why?

The content model must consider: Audience: What content is required by specific audiences? Content: Specifically, what is the content product or service that fulfills the customers’ requirements? Service: Who is the owner?

The management model:

10 Procedure: Who is doing what and what are the steps? Policies: What would compromise the establishment?

0 Guidelines: How do you want it done?

Important technologies are in the areas of storage and management (WWW servers, groupware, and downloading), searching (text mining, query by image, multisearching of text and patterns, multiple database searching, and preference engines), and rights management (access granting, authentication, encryption, and watermark- ing). Even if asset protection and content administration capabilities are provided, the system will not work without policies, pro- cedures, and guidelines. It is important to pause and build a framework which will be a bridge across the chasm!

The Future Impact of Intranets on Content Providers: What Functionality Will Information Professionals and End Users Expect?

Howard McQueen, McQueen Consulting [email protected]

n Intranet is a network behind a fire- A wall which has a knowledge server, routers, and sometimes dialup modem pools for remote users. Each user’s workstation has a Web browser with helper application plug-ins and possibly Java facilities. Ex- tranets are external networks which allow trusted external users to get behind the In- tranet firewall. They are typically used by suppliers, partners, and contractors of the host organization.

Traditionally, each application must be installed on every workstation on the Intranet. Its initialization ( h i ) files must also be installed and maintained on users’ PCs. This

configuration causes heavy traffic over the Intranet backbone. Many administrators re- fuse to install CD-ROMs on the Intranet because of their potential to cause this traffic.

The solution to the traffic problem is to use a “thin client” and an application server (one example is WinFrame by Citrics). Only one copy of the application is installed on the server, and each user loads a copy of the thin client. In this configuration, only screen changes are sent to end users. Microsoft has just released a new product, the MS Termi- nal Server. The thin client configuration lowers the total cost of ownership and cen- tralizes control of applications, so information technology managers like it.

Information service interfaces can be either the standard Web interface or a proprietary interface developed by publishers. Small libraries without technologists on the staff like the standard Web interface, but information professionals would like to see a standardized interface. The Web interface gets good marks for currency and its features for novices.

Many librarians feel that simple HTML searching screens are not sophisticated enough. They like to maintain their own external lists of Web links, and they also like to create their own hyperlinks with embed- ded search strings so users can just click on a subject and have a search on it run automatically on a search engine. This suggests a new role for librarians: writing scripts to search multiple sources using multiple search engines. The script could then inter- cept the search results, remove duplicates, and rank the remaining results by relevance.

Good Intranets must show management the value that the users are receiving, so the site must provide the metrics. Publishers could

1 1 provide a password protected URL, with a report generator to allow librarians to pre- pare statistics in a variety of ways. The data could even be downloaded in ASCII for im- porting into a spreadsheet program.

Some libraries may wish to license data for internal use, preparing their own indexes to it. In-house indexes could feed into systems like Lotus Notes or a corporate search engine. Large investments are being made in indexing systems such as Verity or Fulcrum; aggressive sites will want to index content internally and find creative ways to update it automatically. Librarians will be involved in meta-tagging this content.

Information professionals need to identify the content that people need and get it to them as quickly as plossible. They should set up a means whereby users can express their opinions on the content available to them. Information professionals want advanced system features like Boolean searching, formal classifications, and full text search engines with thesauri. End users want a single novice interface allolwing them to access all content, natural language searching, and search engines aggregating results from as many sources as possible.

Beyond Push to “Smart Push” Elise Soyza, WavePhore Newscast

avePhore was started in 1995; today W most of its customers receive news from WavePhore’s service via e-mail or Lotus Notes. Aboui 95% of WavePhore’s customers use the Internet or an Intranet for many applications. In 1996, the Web opened access to information for 2% of power users; by 2001, over 40% will have access to information services. According to Cowles/Simba, by mid-1998, 20% of all

Fortune 500 companies will have an In- tranet, and by 200 1, the Intranet information services market will amount to $5.4 million.

Information needs have evolved as the pace of technological change increases. Other trends affecting information needs are ease of access, changing roles of professionals, empowered end users, personalization, and Intranets. Information providers are looking to provide more value and customization for both individuals and organizations. Organi- zations are becoming more decentralized, so when, how, and where users need to have information is important.

Intranets have opened corporate services to a wider audience. Organizations want to have control of the user interface so they can dis- play their logos, corporate colors, etc. The new corporate universe is made up of power users (librarians and knowledge workers), seekers (casual information users), and all other Intranet users (non-users of information). The dilemma for Intranet information managers is what sources to access, how to make information cost effective, and whether to use pull or push services.

WavePhore’s new universe is served by three products:

Newscast Today for power users provides personalized news, value-added business information, company dossiers, stock quotes, and multimedia clips, all pre-packaged from a profile library. Newscast Alert for casual users offers headlines based on interest profiles. There are no graphics, and the service can be turned off at will. This product is an example of “smart pushing”. It is corporate-friendly, personalized, and compatible with several platforms. Newscast Access is a new product designed for Intranet knowledge centers. It

will deliver modules of information suitable for customizing by the knowledge center staff. It has a plug and play com- ponent and is an easy way to add value to information services.

WavePhore uses a pattern-matching search engine developed by TRW for the Depart- ment of Defense and capable of handling non-Roman languages such as Hebrew and Cyrillic. It can also cope with and recover from corrupted data.

Information sourcing has several benefits. It meets the needs of the enterprise as well as individuals, adds value to corporate In- tranets, increases Intranet usage, and provides a competitive advantage to its users. It provides the tools of information ownership without the corresponding cost of ownership.

Virtual Communities as Distribution

Steve Moss, Elsevier Engineering Channels

Information

nitially, Web sites accessed single data- I bases and served one purpose. All users wishing to access information had to be able to operate in the provider’s Web environment. Now, users wish to search information residing in collections of databases. Web sites therefore must provide a single channel of information for niche markets, focused information, and broad markets. To be successful, they must attract a critical mass of homogeneous users and become a predominant distribution channel.

Ei’s first product based on the community model was the Ei Village, “The Engineering Channel On the Internet.” Its development

was driven by the needs of Ei’s customers, and it provided access to:

Compendex, Ei’s premier database of 5,600 journals and conference proceed- ings, Links to other databases via Silverplat- ter, Elsevier, Dialog, etc., Push and pull alerting services, Standards and patents, 19,000 evaluated Web sites, 1,300 product catalogs, 5,000 experts and peer groups, Technical librarians, and All other “must data” that engineers need to operate in their profession.

The Village is a broad-based service, much wider than just Compendex and its allied products. It has attracted a critical mass of users; Ei has 380 site licensed customers, which gives them access to 42,500 engineers and 140,000 engineering students. The Vil- lage receives about 1 million page hits or searches per month.

The Village is sold on a site license basis; the average annual license for corporations is about $14,000. The fee is based on the user population, number of concurrent users, or total number of potential users. The Vil- lage can be mounted on corporate Intranets behind the firewall, or small companies can purchase a CD-ROM for offline searching, and then connect to the Web for additional information.

Some of the reasons for the success of the Ei Village are:

It is focused on the engineering community and has more than data. It has therefore created a virtual community. Users have navigation choices: clicking through a map or menus, free language searching, or technical alerting. The price is fixed.

Ei makes a performance commitment that the Village will be up 160 of every 168 hours a week, and queries will be processed within 7 seconds. E,i’s customers can view a graph of performance on the Ei home page. Cost values for Compendex searches and Village pages are assigned, and a value statement comlparing this modeled usage with the cost of comparable information elsewhere is reported back to the customer, expressed as a return on investment. Links to databases offered by other information vendors are provided. Document delivery is available from Compendex within 24 hours. The Village was the first offering of this type in the market.

Success and expansion of the Village will depend on several factors:

Access to full ‘text. The recent merger with Elsevier provides Ei with the full text of over 600 Elsevier journals already being abstracted in Compendex. More content. Creation of specialized villages designed for the Intranets of large customers and suitable for integration with internal data. Development of regional villages and mirror sites which will allow Ei’s partners to create seirvices tailored for ia local area or in another language.

Success will guarantee the Village as a virtual community for distribution of information to the engineering marketplace.

Distance Learning in Higher Education Martin Dillon, OCLC, Inc. [email protected]

istance learning is the delivery of in- D struction to anyone anywhere using telecommunications. It can be thought of as technology-based teaching. In the March 1997 issue of Forbes, Peter Drucker pre- dicted that large university campuses will be relics 30 years from now. Distance learning is the model for post-secondary education in the 21’‘ century because: 0 Technology is having a major impact on

distance learning. Printed textbooks and journals will disappear in favor of multimedia in the hture. The growth of the Web has transformed the world in two to three years; it is already having a major impact on education as publishers make their products available on the Web. The costs of higher education have al- most doubled in the last 20 years and are still out of control, which is providing a strong impetus for distance learning.

0

0

The evolution of distance learning has progress through the following technological stages:

Correspondence courses I 1960s Cable TV. mass education I late 1960s- 1970s I CAI I late 1970s-early 1980s Videoconferencine I Late I 980s-~resent CD-ROM based education I Early 1990s-present Web-based training 1 Future

14

Key attributes of distance learning are: 0 Digital vs. non-digital 0

0 Group or individual 0 Interactive vs. non-interactive 0

Synchronous vs. asynchronous (i.e. at scheduled times or on demand)

Direct faculty participation vs. via video or software

Technology-based learning can be presented on several levels. Programmed learning (computer-aided instruction) requires mini- mal teacher interaction, while a “talking head” approach via video, cable TV, or the present-day Web requires teacher interaction in real time. Videoconferencing via satellite or Web conferencing requires major teacher interaction. Two key questions are: 0 What part of the student’s educational

needs can be met without direct student- teacher interaction? The less teacher interaction, the greater the economies of scale.

0 Assuming that videoconferencing can take care of the rest of the student’s needs, when will the technology be available? (Internet2 will be significant in this area.)

Some major distance learning projects are currently underway: 0 The University of Phoenix offers com-

petence-based degree and certificate programs. It is the second largest private university in the country and has 42,000 students, 371,000 past students, and 54 campuses. Western Governors University is a com- pletely virtual university championed by the governors of Utah and Colorado. It is administered by a 14-member Board of Trustees. Corporations donating at least $250,000 can be members of a Na- tional Advisory Board. All courses are

0

presented using computer technology. The university has a virtual library, online bookstore, and virtual faculty. It is planning to advertise its services on Ya- hoo!. The University of Illinois is offering a distance learning option for its School of Library and Information Science. It has invested significant human and capital resources to provide a satisfying learning experience without fistration, failed equipment, and other problems. Its per- student costs are high.

Conclusions: There is still much hype about distance learning; many projections are optimistic at best. There is a great potential, particularly for training. The success rate can be higher than with traditional learning. Today’s technology infrastructure lowers the barriers to entry; its increased power will lead to breakthroughs in learning. For many people, distance learning will be the only way they will receive advanced instruction. There will not be much change in the current situation over the next three years.

Schools in the Next Millennium David Burr, Illinois Mathematics and

Science Academy [email protected]

he Illinois Mathematics and Science T Academy is a three-year residential high school with 650 students who are talented in science and math. The school is used as a laboratory to test innovative education programs. It is collaborating with other institu- tions remotely and using remote resources.

15

Schools in the 21” century will look less like schools and more like learning centers. Learning deals with more than just facts; it is also concerned with cognitive habits of the mind and concepts. In the future, learning will be more independent (self-directed and initiated), individualized (selected and paced), interactbe (socially constructed), integrative (interdisciplinary, synthetic), and intuitive. Mediation can take place by teacher (“I know :it, you don‘i”), textbooks (which may be abandoned in the future), discipline (concepts), format (print or multimedia), and place/time (distance learning). Some of the materials used may be pre- organized, and there is a huge need for such primary materials. The Internet is helping to satisfy some of that need.

Learning is becoming more problem-based; real-world problems are solved using vari- ous resources. Eclucators need to learn to use new media and adapt new mediation methods. Information providers are in a good position to provide information for the new media. Together, information providers and educators can develop tools and dissemination channels for new information needs. They can also help learners develop a new set of knowledge skills for future information environments.

In business terms, tlhese developments mean: There is a declining market for old media and mediation tools. The market for less mediated information is growing. There is a huge new market for new media materials.

It is important that we do not lose our markets by rehsing to change.

Purchasing Trends in Academic and

Becky Clarke, R. R. Bowker Public Libraries

[email protected]

he following forces are impacting pur- T chasing decisions: 0 Changing demographics 0 Computer literacy 0 Economics 0 Automation 0 Debates about the library’s role

Changing demographics: Most college students are over 25, mar- ried, and working full time. People starting working careers will change them at least four times during their lifetime. The Baby Boomers are reaching 50. Businesses are moving to the suburbs. Workers are telecommuting, and they expect to have the same resources as they have in their offices. 40 million Americans are functionally illiterate. The average American spends 348 hours a year reading printed materials, but 1,460 hours watching TV. Information must therefore be delivered in a quick easily assimilated format and customized to the user’s needs. Immigration continues.

Computer literacyflnternet Access: 0

0

0

60% of households with children under 7 have computers. 89% of chief executives have a computer on their desk. The item most purchased on the Web is a book. 64% of public libraries in metropolitan areas and 44% of public libraries in rural

0

16 areas provide some Internet access for their users. The Gates Foundation has pledged $400 million to help poor libraries provide Internet access.

0

Publishing economics: 0

0

Mergers and acquisitions are changing the face of publishing. Electronic delivery is having a huge impact. Although it lowers the cost of distribution, the cost of creation is higher.

0 Customers are consolidating. Publishing is a $20 billiodyear business, 25% of which goes through large vendors like Borders or Barnes & Noble. Library consortia are having a large effect on the publishing industry. Globalization and the Web are causing rights sales to vanish.

0

Third generation automation: Fundamental changes in processes are occurring. Integration into meaningful information systems is required. Accountability is being demanded. Peo- ple think accountability is simple, but system incompatibilities make it difficult. All stakeholders in the library arena are affected by automation. Wholesalers must offer automated system features directly to their customers. Subscription agents have lots of staying power and are moving into new areas such as managing electronic documents for geographically dispersed organizations. Campus and city administrations are becoming involved in providing data to users.

There is a heated debate about the library’s role in purchasing. Some viewpoints are:

Libraries should give patrons what they want if it is easy to do so, otherwise let them go elsewhere. (Charlie Robinson, Baltimore) The 80/20 rule will not be acceptable any more. If only 20% of the collection is being used, why was the other 80% purchased? If library users cannot prove they need materials, libraries will not buy them. (Nancy Eaton, University of Iowa) Libraries should not get rid of books. (Nicholson Baker, San Francisco Public Library) Public libraries are now full of children playing on computers. They need to be focused on the research needs of their users. (Sallie Tisdale) Universities will disappear. (Peter Drucker)

Library responses to current trends: Consortia are a large factor in purchasing, for both print and electronic resources. Government fimding is being used to fund consortia purchasing: in most states, the holdings of every library are now online. Library consortia are very organized and cohesive, presenting a united front to vendors. They often include not only the academic sector but others as well. The demand for customized products and services continues to grow. Librar- ies are very good at tracking usage and only want to pay for items actually used, even if they have access to a large database. Flexible pricing is based on unique situations; every account is unique! Regardless of privacy considerations, libraries want more information on usage, such as comprehensive customized reports that can be downloaded and manipulated by standard office software.

17

Outsourcing is not unique to libraries, nor is it a new :idea for them. It louches on fundamental questions about the role of the library and the librarian. A greater perceintage of budget and staff time is now devoted to finding and providing access to electronic resources. Distance learning and remote users are affecting libraries, who are being called on to serve the needs of the entire local community, inclluding business schools. Many libraries now prefer CD-ROM resources over print and Web resources over CD-ROM. Libraries like to feel that they are partners and collaborators with vendors. Service is as important to them as the content the vendor is offering. Within the library, decision making on electronic purchases remains decentralized.

Electronic Commerce and

Nancy Knighr, I-Mar k Technologies [email protected]

New Distribution Opportunities

-Mark provides services to publishers I selling information on the Web, primarily automating and coritrolling “back office” functions such as metering, usage reports, and copyright processing. Today, we can sell both physical things and “bits” such as information, so&var(e, and electronic content. The techniques of selling the two types of products are diverging-one does not subscribe to a tennis racket! In the information environment, there is no time gap between delivery and payment.

By 2002, the market for professional reference materials will grow to $37.5 billion, and electronic distribution will be taken for granted. High bandwidth will deliver information to both corporations and individuals.

Corporations will control the access to information by their employees. Timely, up to the minute delivery will be required, using push technologies. Intranet site licenses will be common, and metering will be necessary for cost justification.

Access to electronic publications will be through personalized knowledge-driven Web sites with security. Push delivery and knowledge-based agents will deliver information to users who will also have access to natural language search engines that work. (See http://www. upside. corn for an example.) Electronic documents will be media- rich with audio, video, and animation; agents will monitor access to them and sug- gest similar documents to readers.

Information protection will use redistibut- able document technology which will be secure, mature, and trusted. Positive identifi- cation of users will be via smart cards, bio- metrics, and electronic keys. In time, electronic distribution will become more secure than paper. Printing, e-mail forwarding, and duplication will all be controlled by the content provider.

How will information be paid for? Content will be linked to owners through the DOI, with rights information and restrictions em- bedded. Pricing information and rights transactions will be supported by information systems. Mature branded online billing systems with trusted and accepted electronic cash will collect and transmit payments. (A good article on DOIs appeared in the Jour- nal of Electronic Publishing; it is online at http://www. pr ess. urn ich. eddjep/03 - OZ/doi. html.)

Marketing will be a new game. Knowledge, not data, will be the key (i.e. what answers the user’s question). Broad-based selling

18 will give way to content-driven marketing. Value added will be a key differentiator. More data is not more knowledge. Value will be added by content providers who must develop tools to manage the information glut. Visualization and analysis will be closely tied to content.

How to survive and prosper in the new environment: 0 Choose partners who understand the

0

0

business. Standards will drive the process. Don’t try to reinvent the wheel!

Former ASlDlC President Maureen Kelly

Rick Noble Jeanette Webb ASIDIC Secretariat

Dan Wilde ASlDlC President

Tom Hogan

Academic Press Access Innovations, Inc. ADON IS American Economic Association American Institute of Physics American Medical Association American Petroleum Institute American Psychological Association American Society of Health-System Pharmacists BIOSIS Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Canadian Institute for Scientific & Technical Information Chemical Abstracts Service Defense Technical Information Center Department of Energy Office of Scientific & Technical Information Dement lncorporated EBSCO Publishing EBSCOdoc Engineering Information, Inc. Forbes, Inc. Georgia Institute of Technology Library H. W. Wilson Company IEEE/INSPEC Department IFI/Plenum Data Corporation IMARK Technologies Information Canada, Ltd. Information Express lnformation International Associates, Inc. Information Sources, Inc. Information Today, Inc. Inforonics, Inc. lnfoseek Cop. Institute of Paper Science & Technology Institute for Scientific Information Knight-Ridder Information, Inc. Library Corporation, The Life Oftice Management Association Manning & Napier Information Services Medical Economics Micromedex, Inc. Micromedia Ltd. Microsoft Corporation Modem Language Association National Library of Medicine National Science Council-Science and Technical Information Center National Technical Information Service NERAC, Inc. Newsbank, Inc. NlOSH OCLC, Inc.

Taissa Kusma Jay Ven Eman Paul Ashton Drucilla Ekwurzel Timothy Ingoldsby E. Patrick Shareck Mary Beth Campau Dennis Auld Dwight R. Tousignaut Maureen Kelly James McGhty Mary Van Buskirk Ellen Shanbrom Rusty Delorie Karen J. Spence Marilee Winiarski Joseph Tragert Sam Pointer Bill Bartenbach Anne Mintz Miriam A. Drake Geoff Worton Michele A. Day Hany Allcock Nancy Knight Randy Marcinko Bruce Antelman Bonnie Carroll Ruth K. Koolish Thomas H. Hogan Lawrence F. Buckland Steven T. Kirsch Robert G. Patterson Michael J. Tansey Anne Delvillano Annette Murphy Patricia Touchstone Toups Mike Weiner Suzanne Bedell Rick Noble Robert Gibson Katie Hover Terence Ford Lois Ann Colaianni Ching-Lung Liu Walter Finch Daniel U. Wilde Daniel S. Jones Vivian Morgan Larry Olszewski

OVID Technologies, Inc. Pacific Data Conversion Corporation Personal Library Software Public Affairs Information Service Sociological Abstracts, Inc. Solutia, Inc. Sport Infomation Centre-Canada University of Iowa Drug Information Service University of Tulsa Petroleum Abstracts UMI Company U. S. Patent & Trademark Office

Deborah Hull Iris L. liugoff-Hanney Matthew Koll vacant Miriam Chall Kathleen R. King Gilles Chiasson Hazel H. Seaba Joan Mi. Ahrens Peggi Id. Clark Edward M. Johnson

Aubergine Information Services Bedford Advisors Copyright Clearance Center Eagle Communicatons Elsevier Science Publishers ERlC Processing & Reference Facility InfoResources Corporation Japan Association for International Chemical Information Next Wave Consulting Ohio Resource Center LISH Open Source Solutions, Inc. SEMATECH

Reva Basch John1 C. Harned lsab~ella Hinds Margaret Russo H. V. Ainscough Ted Brandhorst Donald T. Hawkins Shindchi Sasaki Deborah L. Wiley Mary Binion Robert D. Steele Beverly Evans

a s idlc - nfais.memberclicks.net · no. 75, spring 1998 a s idlc newsletter association of...

Documents