You can tell the sort of industry we are becoming by the language we use to describe what is happening. Does an industry which refers to data “mining”, or entity “extraction”, seem to you to want to align itself to the softer values of literary publishing? Our senior management teams are now replete with data or content “architects” working alongside data or process “engineers” to ensure that we handle data as content in the right way for today, while staying “agile” in terms of new product development. We are “solutions” orientated because now, for the first time in history, we really can tell how our content is being used, what problems users commonly encounter, and how we can ease their processes, help their learning, improve their workflow or deepen their insight by adjusting, or helping them to self-adjust. The way in which data-as-content is recorded in our systems creates new dataflows which are all about those reactions. We used to throw that data away, some of us, because we could not “read” it. Now the “exhaust data” blown out of the back of our machines when they are running full tilt, could be just the place to pan for gold.

And just as diesel is apparently more noxious than petrol, and heavy vehicle than modest family car, there are clearly many different varieties of exhaust. I have always worried greatly about the use to which events organizers have used the rich data derived from registrations, exhibitor profiles, attendee tracking and preference listings. Given privacy constraints there is clearly scope here to add third party data from venues and elsewhere and go beyond the needs of an individual show and into service development for the target group more generally. I have been told in the past that there is too much data to handle or too little to give significant results – all excuses which become increasingly pale in the age of data. And the same opportunities exist in the creation of usage data in online services universally.

But much of the exhaust data potential is less obvious. Jose Ferreira, founder and CEO at Knewton, notes in his latest blog (http://www.knewton.com/blog/ceo-jose-ferreira/):

“OER (Open Education Resources) represents a tectonic shift in education materials. Try typing “mitosis” into Google. Almost every search result on the first few pages is for OER exploring the process of cell division. The same is true for nearly any other concept you type in: “subject-verb agreement,” “supply and demand,” “Pythagorean theorem” — you name it. And what you can find today on the Internet is probably less than one tenth of one percent of the OER out there. Most is trapped on teachers’ PCs.”

And I bet he is right. Services already exploit this exhaust from the teaching processes of individual teachers (TES Connect, www.teacherspayteachers.com). But Jose’s argument goes further. If you are able to employ the OER (what I think I used to call the “learning object” then you are able to see who stumbled over it, what the exhaust data of assessment shows about understanding and accomplishment of learning objectives, and then you should be able to move towards a genuinely adaptive learning that understands learning difficulty and recognises speed of learning acquisition.

Another form of feedback loop came to light this week in a note from f1000Research, the Open Access service in STM which is clearly bent on adding fresh layers of meaning to the expression “on the fly”. Using studies of Drosophila Melanogaster (fly – geddit ?) in his paper on genetic variations in different populations (http://f1000research.com/articles/3-176/v1.) the Professor of Neurogenetics at Regensburg and f1000 release for the first time an article in which not only are the professor’s data changeable as fresh evidence emerges, but other labs are invited to add their own data to one part of the data to get a comparative view. This article is then a “living” entity, showing fresh results – “on the fly” – every time it is opened. It also, of course, allows every lab to make comparative studies of its results to the Regensburg results, introducing a fresh instance of the “repeatability” principle to peer review. And the interactions of other labs with the article produces a fresh stream of exhaust data, some of which may itself be citable in this instance.

Like “robotic milking”, the new craze in farming, this should be seen as a great gift to publishers. A robotic cash cow that milks itself! But I fear it will be very specialised in its applications, since looking a gift cow in the mouth, or swatting a data fly, are more traditional pastimes for those-once-called-publishers than searching for gold in the exhaust.

“Its a moral and an ethical system”. Richard Charkin, in a passable imitation of the new business-like Archbishop of Canterbury, defended copyright at last week’s epic Publishers Forum in Berlin, though we all knew that he was referring to a set of trading rules which led Byron to tell his publisher, John Murray, that “Barabbas was the first publisher”. Klopotek’s Berlin show, over 250 strong this year, has become a stadium for opposing positions and sharply contrasted stances. Consider for example, the contrast between the aforesaid Mr Charkin, and Harald Greiner, his fellow opening keynoter on the first day. The Bloomsbury Executive Director remains the delightful iconoclast of his earlier years, though he moves in illustrious establishment circles as an ex President of the Publishers Association now about to become President of the International Publishers Association. A Prince amongst Publishers and our Renaissance Man, in fact, with a track record second to none in STM, reference, mass market paperback, fiction, professional, and in print and digital. Our old world looking into the new with the same passion, argumentativeness, curiosity and determination. A dealer and collaborator – his deal with Faber in drama is a clear sign of the times, as was his half-joking suggestion that Writers and Artists Yearbook was a portal for self-publishing.

Then step forward Mr Greiner. Here we saw the necessary technocrat preparing to create another world that all “publishers” (whatever that now means) increasingly recognize. Mr Greiner runs the IT infrastructure – an increasingly strategic component – of Holtzbrinck. For those of us who recall the German newspaper group, this is now a publishing corporation which owns only Die Welt, which has 75 % of its revenues outside of Germany and which has built a powerful science and education interest to replace its former news organization. With technology hubs in the US and the UK as well as in Germany, Harold Greiner’s drive was towards the industrialization and the professionalization of the industry. Older readers will recall the 1960s lament that the accountants were taking over publishing: the equivalent today is the new men of technology, and, if they are like Mr Greiner, they will be very impressive colleagues (as well as the people who return the margins to the business).

They talk the talk of services and solutions, and walk the Agile way, these New Men. Another who surfaced later on the first day was Marcello Vena, CEO of Digital Publishing from RCS Libri in Italy (think Fabbri, Rizzioli etc) Here was the Technologist as Digital Adventurer – from his eBooks Aboard experiment of making eBook reading free on the fast trains of Italy (clever marketing – get stuck in then you have to download to finish it when you arrive at your destination) to Big Jump, a joint venture with Amazon (yes, that is correct!) on a self-publishing, contest-based, crowd-reviewed platform which has generated 500 new books and 500,000 views. This excitingly followed Bob Stein, who pointed us back to the steady march of social reading , reminded us that writing will change as the Social Book becomes more important, and then pointed to the future of independent bookselling – in recommendation and review sites like www.brainpicking.com.

Day 2 set us different challenges. Put your head into 2020 and tell us what you see, the keynoters were asked. Nigel Newton, founder of Bloomsbury, saw the revival of the SME as the technology allowed small start-ups in a world where Amazon had sliced and diced the margins of big players. Francis Bennett, Deputy Chairman at Yale University Press and well-known as the creator of the book trade’s first digital metadata system, saw the role of publishing in the branded competition of universities struggling to attract research funds and grants. Monograph publishing was commercially exhausted and scholarly communication which had value needed immediate availability. Sven Fund, CEO and architect of the rebirth of Walter de Gruyter, saw focus and specialization and size as the answers to the fragmentation he saw around him, and stressed the need for partnership and technology standards in the world we are entering. Matt Turner, CTO at MarkLogic took up that theme. There was no time at which it was more important for publishers to concentrate their working capital of data on one platform, to have complete control over it and access to it, to be able to search it fluently within the platform and relate it to third party or remotely held data, and to be able to fully enhance it with semantic analysis.

And as we began to debate the future that these voices described it became ever clearer that the “publishing” community is not owned by those who self-described themselves as publishers. Baldur Bjarnason of Unbound challenged the very right of publishers to exist in a Viking raid on the high ground of publishing morality (a very different concept from that of Richard Charkin), and the Prince of Self Publishing, Hugh Howey, earnt real respect from an audience which might have felt challenged as he displayed some of the potential of self publishing, pointed out that it is a larger activity than most people think (and larger than “publishing” itself), and guided our thinking away from selection of original works and towards investing in the marketing and development of existing self-published work. And with Fionnuala Duggan and Eric Razenberg (CEO, ThiemeMeulenhoff) underscoring the revolution in education around learner-centric networks and the arrival of real personalised learning, the revolution seemed complete. Hugh Howey, Porter Anderson and Ed Nawotka ended the day in style, but the voice I recalled that night was that of Brian O’Leary. A quiet voice calling for a new architecture of Collaboration. A calm and rational presence embedded in two days of high excitement in a publishing conference that really did bring all the voices to the table.

Helmut von Berg, indefatigable organizer of this event for a decade, retires this year. He earnt the grateful thanks of all of us present in Berlin. He is succeeded by Ruediger Wischenbart and an editorial board who now know how hard it will be to improve on this.

« go backkeep looking »