Well, it is nice to see that some still keep the D with the R. 

It just strikes me as strange, at a time when we can tag and monitor a
species right up until its precise point of extinction, (which will be well
documented of course) that we continue to favour the R without an interest
in the D. I suppose the problem is that we have so few visionaries, who can
point at problem and describe an improvement, and so many “professionals”
who can even consider a broader application, as they have been so well
taught to think inside a square.


I’m with you on the “impact”. It’s a bit like convincing an advertiser their
money is well spent. 

(You know the George Patterson argument. “Half your advertising budget is
wasted. If we knew which half we could save a fortune. In the meantime
you’ll just have to double your budget”.)


I’m not sure when we entered this era of modern scholasticism. Any idea?

I suppose when Google took over the role of librarians. And curators started
looking at the research and not the researchers, or developers.





From: John Milner [mailto:john.mil...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday, 18 November 2011 3:07 PM
To: 'Simon Fenton-Jones'; 'Peter Murray-Rust'
Cc: 'Joy Davidson'; research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk;
Subject: RE: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining


Actually some of us still talk about R&D but we can tell the difference
between the two and understand the important relationship between them. The
idea of “impact” of research has confused things IMHO. If we know the impact
it ain’t research it’s development, the whole point of research is to create
knowledge and understanding, development can apply that knowledge in a range
of contexts and ultimately drive products and services.


Research created knowledge about what content indexing algorithms on the
Internet might look like, development created Google J


John K. Milner 


mailto: john.mil...@btinternet.com  or john.mil...@ja.net



From: Simon Fenton-Jones [mailto:simo...@cols.com.au] 
Sent: 18 November 2011 02:40
To: 'John Milner'; 'Peter Murray-Rust'
Cc: 'Joy Davidson'; research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk;
Subject: RE: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining


Hi John, 


I’ll admit it’s a problem for people devoid of imagination that they will
inflict an old (physical) paradigm on a new (virtual) one. But it’s what
seems to happen when you employ robots to shuffle. I believe the program
this list’s particular species are programmed to respond to is a thing
called LIS. Library and Information Services. That’s the case isn’t it? And
ignore all other aspects of human relations of course. They’re far to
professional to imagine information may have a social need. 


Frankly the last thing I’d want now is another geek to come up with a
programme which tells me “this” is related to “this”. Perception is not a
thing which a dumb machine recognises better than a dumb human, regardless
of how stupid. And I do know quite a few geeks, who are no slouches when it
comes to using bandwidth. 


Yeah, they’d even translate “useful but incomplete” into “constant beta”.
But no difference. The question is “what is the point of Research?” Sorry,
“to produce another paper”. Stupid me.


I do have a reasonable memory though. Do you remember when we used to talk
about Research ....................................... and Development? 

Thank god those days are gone. si


From: John Milner [mailto:john.mil...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 3:19 PM
To: 'Simon Fenton-Jones'; 'Peter Murray-Rust'
Cc: 'Joy Davidson'; research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk;
Subject: RE: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining


I like it! I have often asked the question. “What is different in principle
between paper data and publications and digital data and publications?”
I’ve yet to get an answer. My own answer is “Nothing”. Which implies that
Librarians, archivists and curators need to work out systems along the lines
you describe to deal with digital material alongside paper material.


If those methods initially turn out to be fairly crude, then as long as they
are CONSISTENTLY crude we have the computer power and network bandwidth and
intelligent software writers to develop tools to  trawl digital material
much more easily than trawling the shelves of the planet for books,
journals, logs and lab  note books.


Google wasn’t exactly sophisticated when it took over the world and seemed
to be useful, purely because it was better than the alternative.


We should not be striving for perfection we should be starting a journey.
Remember that “useful but incomplete” is a worthwhile benchmark of new tools
and methods!


John K. Milner 


mailto: john.mil...@btinternet.com  or john.mil...@ja.net



From: owner-dcc-associa...@lists.ed.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-dcc-associa...@lists.ed.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Simon Fenton-Jones
Sent: 11 November 2011 05:45
To: 'John Milner'; 'Peter Murray-Rust'
Cc: 'Joy Davidson'; research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk;
Subject: RE: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining


Thanks John, Peter,


Well, let me play devil’s advocate. Curators are very nice people, sorry
“public servants”, who might say to their institutional researchers. “OK,
you’re paid by the public purse to do a job. Part of that job is to put your
papers, or audios, or videos into a repository which is open to everyone.
I’m a busy person, so put it in our institution’s database. Someone is
probably going to trawl our open space and the suck it up into some huge
repository in the sky. Then you’ll have the pleasure of sifting through
haystacks to find something useful. Hey it’s better than nothing. As for
translations, forget it. OK, we’d better make some noise about the massive
amount of money we have to pay to take a copy of the rapacious publisher’s
database/platform. But what more can we do?


So now we have public money being spent on enhancing private publisher’s
(these days) platforms, and in my world, the functionality of private
platforms like Adobe Connect. Thank you very much Mr. Taxpayer. 


Now no  one could ever accuse curators of original thoughts. They look at
the back end in much the same way as many of my correspondents look at the
front = lecture/event/conference capture. They also make sure that they look
only at information, (sometimes) in all its formats, in the same way my
mates look at the real time communications. Professional courtesy appears to
discourage interest.


So I have to ask. Do remember an old saying “Libraries are not made, they
grow.” The idea it seems was that one needed to a community to build a
library around/on behalf of. These days our communities are global. The web
has made that perfectly obvious. Our curators, meantime, are
institutionalized. So what is there to stop librarians agreeing on a DNS
system, based (perhaps) on a bibliographic classification system, so when a
researcher says, “where do i put my paper?” or “where do I find my peers?”
Curators could say “stick it up on that domain number” like they would if a
researcher had a physical book to put on a shelf. And just like an a
Wikipedia article, when one reads its history, peers could discover one


I know that people who are interested in just classifying ‘things’ would
just laugh. “Classify social media? You’re daft”.

But I’m not suggesting that they just classify things. I’m suggesting that
they curate on behalf of a global community. 


Or is it more to do with the idea that building a public platform on a
global basis is all a bit too hard. 

Hmm. Doesn’t seem like that’s an excuse either.

Just a lack of perspective, imagination and collaboration.

Sounds like it’s time for another conference where, just for a change, peers
do more than invite the usual suspects. 

Hasta Luego, si








From: John Milner [mailto:john.mil...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 2:33 PM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust'; 'Simon Fenton-Jones'
Cc: 'Joy Davidson'; research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk;
Subject: RE: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining


Hmmm so it’s not your money. If you are paid from the public purse too, then
it may not be, but it might be mine and I don’t like it much either!

I thought public policy was all about open access these days.


Moreover I think Elsevier are not even acting in their own best interests.
In my experience defending IPR in that way is always doomed to failure, they
need to start looking at new business models not try to defend a doomed one.


John K. Milner 



From: owner-dcc-associa...@lists.ed.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-dcc-associa...@lists.ed.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 10 November 2011 02:25
To: Simon Fenton-Jones
Cc: Joy Davidson; research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk;
Subject: Re: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining



On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Simon Fenton-Jones <simo...@cols.com.au>

Let me see if I got this right.

"Elsevier, a leading provider of scientific, technical and medical

information products and services", at a cost which increases much faster
than inflation, to libraries who can't organize their researchers to back up
a copy of their journal articles so they can be aggregated, is to have their
platform, Sciverse, made more attractive, by the public purse by a simple
text mining tool which they could build on a shoestring.

Sciverse Applications, in return, will take advantage of this public
largesse to charge more for the journals which should/could have been
compiled by public digital curators in the first instance.

Hmmm. So this is progress.

Hey. It's not my money!

Thanks very much Simon 

No - it's worse. I have been expressly and consistently asking Elsevier for
permission to text-mine factual data form their (sorry OUR) papers. They
have prevaricated and fudged and the current situation is:
"you can sign a text-mining licence which forbids you to publish any results
and handsover all results to Elsevier"

I shall not let this drop - I am very happy to collect allies. Basically I
am forbidden to deploy my  text-mining tools on Elsevier content.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dcc-associa...@lists.ed.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-dcc-associa...@lists.ed.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Joy Davidson
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011 11:59 PM
To: research-data...@jiscmail.ac.uk; dcc-associates@lists.ed.ac.uk
Subject: [dcc-associates] Manchester and Elsevier team up on text-mining

This press release may be of interest to list members.

University enters collaboration to develop text mining applications
07 Nov 2011

The University of Manchester has joined forces with Elsevier, a leading
provider of scientific, technical and medical information products and
services, to develop new applications for text mining, a crucial research

The primary goal of text mining is to extract new information such as named
entities, relations hidden in text and to enable scientists to
systematically and efficiently discover, collect, interpret and curate
knowledge required for research.

The collaborative team will develop applications for SciVerse Applications,
which provides opportunities for researchers to collaborate with developers
in creating and promoting new applications that improve research workflows.

The University's National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM), the first
publicly-funded text mining centre in the world, will work with Elsevier's
Application Marketplace and Developer Network team on the project.

Text mining extracts semantic metadata such as terms, relationships and
events, which enable more pertinent search. NaCTeM provides a number of text
mining services, tools and resources for leading corporations and government
agencies that enhance search and discovery.

Sophia Ananiadou, Professor in the University's School of Computer Science
and Director of the National Centre for Text Mining, said: "Text mining
supports new knowledge discovery and hypothesis generation.

"Elsevier's SciVerse platform will enable access to sophisticated text
mining techniques and content that can deliver more pertinent, focused
search results."

"NaCTeM has developed a number of innovative, semantic-based and time-saving
text mining tools for various organizations," said Rafael Sidi, Vice
President Product Management, Applications Marketplace and Developer
Network, Elsevier.

"We are excited to work with the NaCTeM team to bring this expertise to the
research community."

Notes for editors
Elsevier is a world-leading provider of scientific, technical and medical
information products and services. The company works in partnership with the
global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals,
and close to 20,000 book titles. A global business headquartered in
Amsterdam, Elsevier employs 7,000 people worldwide.

NaCTeM is the first publicly funded, text mining centre in the world
providing resources, tools and services to academia and industry. NaCTeM
collaborates with both academia and industry, nationally and

The University of Manchester

The University of Manchester, a member of the Russell Group, is the most
popular university in the UK. It has 22 academic schools and hundreds of
specialist research groups undertaking pioneering multi-disciplinary
teaching and research of worldwide significance.

According to the results of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, The
University of Manchester is now one of the country's major research
universities, rated third in the UK in terms of 'research power'. The
University had an annual income of £788 million in 2009/10.

For media enquiries please contact:

Daniel Cochlin
Media Relations Officer
The University of Manchester
0161 275 8387

Joy Davidson
DCC Associate Director
Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute (HATII)
George Service House, 11 University Gardens,
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QJ
Tel: +44(0)141 330 8592 <tel:%2B44%280%29141%20330%208592> 
Fax: +44(0)141 330 3788 <tel:%2B44%280%29141%20330%203788> 

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge

Reply via email to