Also: I’ll be on a panel at NYLA tomorrow (Friday, 11/6/2008) afternoon at 4:00 PM- please say hello if you’re going to be there! As usual at these sorts of things, I’ll know almost nobody. But hey- I might get to meet Polly Farrington!

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

| View | Upload your own

Amanda Etches-Johnson

| View | Upload your own

Melissa Rethlefsen

| View | Upload your own

Bart Ragon

| View | Upload your own

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

Jon noted that science stories get released online and bookmarked, commented upon, and blogged about all over the Web.

It’s all happening on the web, but it’s happening in isolated ghettoes with few points of actual contact. How could we bring those worlds into closer contact?

Jon also suggests how this might best be done.

Here’s one approach that could help. When the citation engines in the blogosphere find references in blog entries to scientific articles on the web, they could resolve those to their most canonical forms: DOIs, PubMed records. And they could make equivalences among those forms. That way, conversation in the blogosophere about a scientific article, and scientific conversation about the same article, would tend to hang together and would be discoverable in the same contexts.

Alf Eaton seemed to think this was a good idea and built a tool at Scintilla to do this. Go give Scintilla Conversations a try.

There’s also a Scinversations bookmarklet you can drag and drop on to your browser’s toolbar: Scinversations

Peter Suber points out a perfect PubMed Central article with which you can take the Scinversations bookmarklet to a test drive.

Nicely done, Alf!

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

I added a bunch of XFN ‘rel’ attributes to this blog’s links so I can do a little more playing (if you’re using WordPress, you can do this quickly and easily).

Someday I’ll get around to writing about microformats here- but not today.

For more on why this new API is interesting, see this item from Tim O’Reilly.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

(My emphasis here is on free and low-cost resources)

Explaining RSS

• Introduction to RSS for Librarians by Luke Rosenberger
• How to Explain RSS the Oprah Way by Stephanie Quilao
• Five Best Tips for Reducing RSS Information Overload by David Rothman
• Video: RSS in Plain English
  

Resources to help you choose a feed aggregator

• RSS Compendium-RSS Readers
• A Directory of RSS Aggregators
• Comprehensive List of Aggregator Options
• 20 Free Aggregators Reviewed and Compared

(My favorite is Google Reader)

RSS Plugins for Outlook

(2003 or earlier- Outlook 2007 has a feed aggregator built-in)

• RSS Popper
• BlogBot for Outlook
• Inclue!
• IntaVnews
• NewsGator Inbox (Now Free)

Google Reader Tips and Plug-ins

• Two more ways to trick out Google Reader
  (Includes Greasemonkey Userscript for Google Reader Subscribe and Google Reader Notifier Firefox extension)
• More toys for tricking out Google Reader
  (Includes Gordita, Google Reader Optimized userscript, and Controlling Google Reader with a Bluetooth Phone)
• Unofficial Google Reader Notifier (for OSX)
• Unofficial Google Reader Notifier (for Windows)

RSS-to-Email tools

• SendMeRSS (formerly R-mail)
• RSSFWD
• Squeet
• FeedBlitz
• FeedBurner
• ZapTXT (Also does neat things like RSS-to-IM)
• Feed My Inbox
• Turning Feeds into Emailed Alerts by David Rothman

Publishing RSS content on Web Pages

• Screencast: Using RSS to Add Currency to the Library Web Site (via streaming server – faster for those on slow connections | via blip.tv) – Melissa Rethlefsen, Education Technology Librarian, Learning Resource Center, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
  Web page to supplement presentation.
• Live examples of various tool outputs

Web-Based RSS-to-Web-Page tools

• BlinkBits
• Feedo Style
• Feedroll
• FeedSweep
• Rss2Java
• RapidFeeds
• RSS to JavaScript
• RSSxpress-Lite
• Feed2JS Build JavaScript and Preview
• FeedTwister
• Grazr

Hosted RSS-to-Web-Page Tools

• Feed2JS
• JSMFeed.pl
• rss2html.com
• rss2html.php
• SimplePie
• zFeeder
• RSS-PHP

Feed mashing and filtering tools

• BlogSieve (mashing and/or filtering)
• FEEDblendr (mashing)
• FEEDcombine (mashing)
• FeedRinse (mashing and/or filtering; step-by-step tutorial here)
• RSS Mix (mashing)
• FeedSifter (filtering)
• FeedTwister (mashing)
• FilterMyRSS (filtering)
• FeedSifter (filtering)
• ReFilter (filtering)
• Yahoo! Pipes (Massively versatile and powerful feed manipulator, much beloved by David)
• Microsoft Popfly (Microsoft’s answer to Yahoo! Pipes)

Creating feeds for pages that don’t offer them

Sometimes called “scraping”

• PonyFish: Perhaps the easiest and most intuitive to use
• Feed43: May be among the most powerful, but has a steeper learning curve. Detailed walkthrough available here.
• WotzWot
• Feedfire
• Feedwhip
• Feedity
• Page2RSS
• Dapper
• FeedYes

Creating feeds from PubMed

• PubMed RSS Tutorial (From the NLM)
• How to: Generate a Custom RSS feed from PubMed
• How To: Create an RSS Feed for a Feedless Journal with PubMed
• How to: Create a PubMed RSS Feed for 30 Journals

Creating feeds from LibWorm (/MedWorm)

Although structured slightly differently, MedWorm and LibWorm have similar interfaces and identical search operators.
LibWorm FAQ
LibWorm-Fu for Beginners
Intermediate/Advanced LibWorm-Fu (Power Searching)

Okay, your turn: What good stuff did I miss?

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

“You’ve written quite a bit about Web 2.0 tools and medical librarianship [...snip...] Are there ways in which you see health sciences librarianship 2.0 as differing from Library 2.0?”

I answered that I’m actually not all that fond of the the “2.0″ suffix, whether it is applied to “Web,” “Library,” “Medicine” or “Health.”

This answer was lame and incomplete, something I’m not proud of. Even though I’m not entirely happy with it, maybe this one will be better.

The term “Web 2.0″ is a metaphor representing the idea that the Web is in it’s “second version”. It is not, in my view, a particularly good metaphor.

Some trends commonly associated with “Web 2.0″ are tools for collaboration (and other “social” activities), applications that live online and in your Web browser, rounded corners (and other aesthetic choices), and the blurring of the line between content consumer and content creator. The term “Web 2.0″ can be a useful shorthand with which to describe these tends and in aggregate and I’m not opposed to the idea that these trends are, taken together, significant enough to collectively merit a term referring to them. My impression is that this term is most especially useful when marketing Silicon Valley investment opportunities to potential investors.

Some other critics of the term have asserted that “Web 2.0″ as a term is meaningless. I disagree. This piece by Tim O’Reilly does a great job of explaining what he means when he says “Web 2.0.”

However:

• The Web hasn’t been upgraded. There’s no new version of the Web. The longer a medium is around, the more interesting things people figure out how to do with it. This isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) surprising. Tim Berners-Lee, the person generally credited as having invented the World Wide Web, said¹:
  

  “Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along…the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be as a collaborative space where people can interact.”

• Many things that are new and cool on the Web are not “Web 2.0.” Sometimes, new and cool things are the Web are just new and cool and really don’t need a numeric versioning suffix.
• Although some might see it as semantic nit-pick, I believe that there’s no such thing as “using Web 2.0“² and that Web 2.0 doesn’t have “features”.³ “Web 2.0″ isn’t a program, a movement or a standard. It is jargon used to describe a set of trends in the sorts of things people are doing on the Web.

There’s nothing wrong with jargon in and of itself- but the term is now so widely and varyingly used that it needlessly creates more confusion among those who most need clarity. More and more, I read things about “Web 2.0″ that drive me up the wall.

And now we’ve got people talking about “Web 3.0″

There are a number of things about Dean Giustini’s recent BMJ Editorial on “Web 3.0″ with which I am unhappy.⁴

First, to continue and enhance the confusion that now comes with every use of a versioning suffix by using “3.0″ is a significant disservice. Librarians should be demystifying confusing terms and clarifying definitions. I’m disappointed that neither BMJ nor Dean decided to describe some of the the ways that evolving Web technologies may impact healthcare. Instead, the article appears impressive to people who aren’t familiar with the buzzwords (most of BMJ’s readership are not, I am guessing, professional technologists) and says almost nothing to those for whom these buzzwords are all too familiar.

Second, the entire editorial about “Web 3.0″ or “The Semantic Web” lacks a definition either term. Is the assumption that perhaps these terms are familiar to the average BMJ reader?

Now, with apologies, some fisking:

Dean writes:

“Each new version of the web should be a better iteration of its predecessor, and web 3.0 should be no exception.”

Except that there has been, as Berners-Lee points out, no new version of the Web. Part of the problem with the hype surrounding “2.0″ is that people who should know better forget that it is a metaphor.

Dean writes:

“In medicine, we should focus on the ability to locate trusted clinical information, while creating the means to produce new knowledge.”

What, because we don’t focus on these things now…?

Dean writes:

“Information retrieval in web 3.0 should be based less on keywords than on intelligent ontological frameworks, such as the National Library of Medicine’s Unified Medical Language System, Medline’s trusted MeSH vocabulary, or some other tool.”

I do not believe that we will live to see a time where the World Wide Web is thoroughly indexed and made searchable with a controlled vocabulary like MeSH. It is a poor analogy for what technologists mean when they speak of “the Semantic Web” and it is a disservice to lead librarians to think that searching the Web will eventually be like searching MEDLINE. It won’t.

Dean writes:

“The question of whether http://del.icio.us and www.connotea.org—two popular social tagging sites—will be useful in web 3.0 remains doubtful.”

This statement confused the hell out of me. Allan Cho (with whom Dean collaborated in writing this article on the Semantic Web) has said one of my favorite things on this topic:

“…use of folksonomies could help overcome some of the inherent difficulties in ontology construction, thus potentially bridging Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. By using folksonomies’ collective categorization scheme as an initial knowledge base for constructing ontologies, the ontology author could then use the tagging distribution’s most common tags as concepts, relations, or instances. Folksonomies do not a Semantic Web make — but it’s a good start.”⁵

Nicely said, Allan.

Dean writes:

“In medicine, finding the best evidence has become increasingly difficult, even for librarians.”

I don’t think I can agree with this premise. I think that Web tools have made the best stuff increasingly easier to find for those with the skills to use the tools.

Dean continues:

“Despite its constant accessibility, Google’s search results are emblematic of an approaching crisis with information overload, and this is duplicated by Yahoo and other search engines.”

Huh? How are Google search results emblematic of information overload?

Dean continues:

“Consequently, medical librarians are leading doctors back to trusted sources, such as PubMed, Clinical Evidence, and the Cochrane Library, and even taking them to their library bookshelves instead.”

Okay, maybe- but how is this a “Web 2.0″ trend? Haven’t librarians always struggled to get their patrons to use the best tools?

Dean continues:

“Unless better channels of information are created in web 3.0, we can expect the information glut to continue.”

Dean has previously blamed “Web 2.0″ for “information overload”, now he seems to say that Google is responsible for an “information glut”. Both of these assertions are just silly.

The Web makes a whole lot of information easily available to a whole lot of people (which I see as a good, desirable thing) and many people lack the information skills to get just the stuff they want- but to assert that “Web 2.0″ or Google cause information overload (with absolutely no support) is just beyond my ability to comprehend.

Why?

Because in the hands of a skilled user, Google is a powerful tool for filtering out the chaff. Because I routinely use “Web 2.0″ tools (like RSS feeds from del.icio.us or blogs) to benefit from the readings and tags and opinions of friends and colleagues- this helps me stay focused just on the good stuff. How else would I keep on top of all the stuff this blog covers?

Okay. Enough fisking.

What about “Medicine 2.0″ and “Health 2.0″?

“Medicine 2.0″ bugs me perhaps even more than “Web 2.0″. It is a way of marketing tools that apply newish Web trends to the needs of health professionals. How does the term serve anyone but investors and those who have something to sell investors? Why the heck should healthcare professionals embrace and adopt this marketing schtick when they could instead demand terms that are clear and descriptive?

“Health 2.0″ is term for hyping the application of newish Web trends to the needs of healthcare consumers. Again, it appears to be useful in selling investment opportunities. Do the rest of of need the term? No. We can instead refer with more clarity and simplicity to Web sites and Web services for healthcare consumers.

So what about “Library 2.0″?
I think that I have come to agree with T. Scott⁶. The work is important and good, but the term is not. I urge librarians, particularly bibliobloggers, to use the term carefully (if at all). We don’t need it to describe the application of Web trends and technolgies to library work, we REALLY don’t need it in order to describe making libraries more patron-centric, and when we use it (usually failing to explain/define it) we add to the confusion and needlessly alienate potential ALLIES for improving computer literacy in libraryfolk and in patrons.

I like Wikis and blogs and RSS and APIs and mashups and portable data and rich user experiences and social networking tools and online productivity tools and social bookmarking. I’m fascinated by the new and interesting things people keep doing with the Web. I believe that librarians need to be technologists and need to know what “Web 2.0″ means- but that doesn’t mean they need to add to the existing confusion. It means they need to help smooth it away.

Jargon is fine in small groups of specialists- but information professionals, I think, have a special responsibility to help others overcome and dismiss jargon when it gets in the way of sharing information. Not only to bring the benefits of these new technologies to all our colleagues, but to all our patrons.

For that reason and to keep me sane, please: No more talk of “Web 3.0.”

In case it isn’t obvious by now: I’d like to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree with mine. Leave a comment, wouldja’?

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

[Via]

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

Where Papers, iPapers, Sente and BibDesk are personal PDF managers, Librarian is a server-side application to allow groups of people to collectively build an annotate a shared PDF library that is managed from inside their Web browsers.

Librarian was designed to enable a small trusted group of researchers to create an annotated virtual library of articles in portable document format (PDF). All users may participate in the creation of the virtual library, and all users may then browse and search articles by words or phrases, much like at journal sites. The difference is that you have instant access to full text of the article, which you identified in seconds.

Metadata about each article is imported from PubMed and users can annotate articles. To get a better idea of how it works, check out the demo.

If this might be useful to you, check out the requirements, note the fact that it is free, open-source software (GPL) and give it a try.

If you try it, please be sure to let me know what you think- I may install this myself, if only because it looks neat and I’d love to start a little article-sharing database with a few friends.

ExpertMapper is similar in purpose to Authoratory. It uses bibliometric analysis of MEDLINE data.

ExpertMapper examines all medical publications that are indexed in the National Library of Medicine’s MEDLINE database. We rank the expertise of each author according to the number and type of articles that each expert has authored on the specific condition, disease, or treatment of interest to you.

However, ExpertMapper can only do this for 105 pre-defined topics from which the user can select. (The site indicates that they’re open to adding new topics based on user feedback.)

But my favorite thing about ExpertMapper is that it allows the user to narrow his/her search geographically and find the nearest “most expert” institutions or persons. I might look for what institutions are most expert in IBD and find that the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN is highly ranked. From there, I can see which individual persons are most expert and what the top articles are on the topic from persons at Mayo.

The interface is wonderfully straightforward and easy-to-use, but ExpertMapper has a nice walk-through and a short FAQ page.