Interoperability And Impact in the Philosource Federation
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
0 gostou•415 visualizações
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Destaque
Destaque (17)
Semelhante a Interoperability And Impact in the Philosource Federation
Semelhante a Interoperability And Impact in the Philosource Federation (20)
Mais de Christine Madsen
Mais de Christine Madsen (14)
Último
Último (20)
Interoperability And Impact in the Philosource Federation
- 1. This project is funded by the European Commission under the eContentplus programme, a multiannual programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable. Design: Michele Barbera Content: Christine Madsen Interoperability and Impact of the Philosource Federation Christine Madsen CNRS Oxford Internet Institute Discovery Project PHILOSOPHY IN THE DIGITAL ERA Read, study, cite and publish in a Semantic Web environment
- 2. Discovery Project Research Cycle
- 7. Discovery Project Michele Barbera <barbera@netseven.it>
- 8. Discovery Project Michele Barbera <barbera@netseven.it>
- 9. Discovery Project Michele Barbera <barbera@netseven.it>
- 10. Discovery Project Well served by SEO
- 11. Discovery Project Not well served
- 13. Discovery Project Europeana Metadata
- 15. This project is funded by the European Commission under the eContentplus programme, a multiannual programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable. Discovery Project Michele Barbera <barbera@netseven.it>
- 17. Discovery Project Well served by catalogues
Notas do Editor
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?
- So if having a good product is the first step, the next is figuring out how to get people to use it. This means going back to the basics and understanding why humanities scholars in general adopt technologies in their working lives and practice. Taking information-seeking as just one example, what I have found over both the course of my research and my work with Discovery is really quite simple--technologies are adopted when they have a real, tangible benefit to practice. For years there has been this myth of humanities scholars as luddites, but the truth is that they are just practical. Scholars don’t reject an electronic catalogue and go back to using the card catalogue because they don’t like technology, but because the technology fails to provide any benefit--it often isn’t faster, or more comprehensive. And if it doesn’t save someone time or work, and they can’t do anything with it that they couldn’t be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, why should they use it?