Raising visibility of local data collections through linking with international publication databases (Belgrade, Serbia)

11th International Conference on Scientific Digitalization of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, University Repositories and Distance Learning

UPDATE – The video of the presentation is now available.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to visit Belgrade as a speaker at the 11th International Conference on Scientific Digitalization of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, University Repositories and Distance Learning.  It was an excellent conference with even better hosts.  My presentation discussed different ways that finished publications can be connected with related data.  The below matrix summarizes the different options and the examples covered in the presentation:

Publication/Data Linking Matrix

The full presentation is below along with my notes:

View more documents from Michael Habib
Abstract:  Connecting locally hosted data repositories to internationally hosted related articles has never been easier.  With APIs and other web services becoming standardized at the same time that new linking standards, such as Datacite DOIs, are being adopted, new ways to distribute and mashup content are now possible.  This presentation will explore emerging trends in linking scholarly literature to data.  Both entity linking and data linking will be discussed.  Examples will be presented demonstrating how these technologies are being employed by publishers and A&I vendors in cooperation with local data repositories.

Research 2.0 Concept Model and Presentation

Research 2.0 Concept Model
The above is an evolution of the Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models developed for my Master’s PaperWhile the original model primarily focused on academic library services for students, the new model focuses on services for researchers.

Like in the original models, the top represents communication spaces grounded in physical space, while the bottom mirrors this in the online realm.

Two ends of the spectrum are informal communications and formal communications. My argument is that Research 2.0 falls somewhere between these extremes.  I developed the model for the presentation below.

(Update: A video of the presentation is located here.)

This model is meant to capture Research 2.0 as concerns scholarly communication and not research conducted through 2.0 methods such as Galaxy Zoo.

I am eager to receive feedback on how well this model represents the concept of Research 2.0.

  • Where is it limited?
  • Where is it right? Wrong?
  • Please feel free to leave comments below (or on FriendFeed)

I had the opportunity to revisit my concept models and develop this variation when preparing for recent lectures hosted by the University of Belgrade Libraries with support from the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development and the Serbian library consortium KoBSON. While there, I also had the opportunity to visit the Institute of Technical Sciences Library and the National Library of Serbia; both of which are working on a number of interesting projects.

The first of these lectures is above, the second lecture (and another new model) will follow in a separate post that explores the concept of Scholarly Identity 2.0.

I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.

links for 2008-08-28

  • via David Rothman on Friendfeed — “But librarians are more relevant than ever, if only we can disengage ourselves from privileging our buildings and collections the way that we do and utilizing our individual skills in more effective and relevant ways.”

links for 2008-01-29