March 14, 2008
Google Unveils Tools to Integrate Its Digitized Books Into Campus Library Catalogs
Google has now scanned over a million books as part of its controversial partnership with major libraries, but many students and professors don’t know when Google has a copy of the book they’re looking for. Google wants to change that by getting college libraries to integrate Google’s book search into online library catalogs.
This week Google unveiled a set of software protocols that allow libraries to essentially merge Goolge’s collection with their own.
Among the first to take advantage of the new protocols are the University of Texas at Austin’s libraries. If a user searches the UT library catalog for a book that happens to be in Google’s collection, the catalog entry includes a link that says “Limited Preview at Google Book Search.” The link takes users to that book in Google’s collection, which allows searching of the full text. For books that are still covered under copyright, Google allows only short passages to be viewed, though it offers full text viewing of other books. —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Friday March 14, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Artist Defends Video-Game Exhibit Censored by Rensselaer
Next: Experts vs. Amateurs on the Web
Should make the task of the Research Wrtier easier.
— Richard Buchner Mar 14, 08:13 PM #
I personally enjoy academia’s terror at getting everything digitized and “available”—the horror, available knowledge!!! Are we doomed to plebian vulgarity! The horror! The horror! Imagine how many Harvard personal wealth-building projects will be ruined by available knowledge—papers NOT holding back all their concrete results for lucrative future consults!!!! The Horror! What is the point of truth if it does not bring one wealth!!!!!
— Richard Tabor Greene Mar 15, 10:40 AM #
Computer science once again enlarges the repository of data without turning up the volume on information. Form conquers meaning by mid-morning latte five days a week, in Silicon Valley, certainly, but also at the National Science Foundation.
Of course, in a world that values image over imagination, is meaning even worth mining? Well, is it, Punk?
— S. Britchky Mar 17, 08:13 AM #
As a librarian I welcome this development! With tighter budgets in Academic libraries who can complain about free content?
My dream is that one day soon Google buys Elsevier and liberates Scientific Research for the betterment of humanity.
— Ron Hardy Mar 17, 09:34 AM #
Why are academics intent on steering students away from sources like Wikipedia when they then point students to “official” print encyclopedias that still have 9 planets in the solar system and no mention about the debate over just what constitutes a planet. Wikipedia might not always be right, but it is more current.
— Quig Mar 17, 09:45 AM #
Wikipedia is not always right, therefore, any respectable academic would deter students from using it as a primary information source.
Compared to an encyclopedia, a more reliable source for current information is a newspaper or journal article, or perhaps a report or press release on the International Astronomical Union’s web site. Naturally, new information has not been known long enough to appear in updated editions of encyclopedias.
Students who are more concerned with getting ANY information rather than ACCURATE information scare the hell out of me. After all, they are our future politicians, corporate leaders, lawyers and medical professionals. Hopefully Quig is not in medical school.
— HT (librarian) Mar 17, 04:07 PM #
I’m interested in adding links to full-text items Google has access to, but I’m concerned about adding links to “Limited Preview” items. That could easily swamp our catalog with links to partial books, which might not be worth it.
Guess I need to look into what they’re offering. If I (or other librarians) can have some control about what does and does not show up then I’m all for it.
— Brian Mar 17, 06:22 PM #
“Compared to an encyclopedia, a more reliable source for current information is a newspaper or journal article.”
Wow is that nonsense! The NYT, as a “reputable example” has been wrong as often as right, lately. Sure, wikipedia has some awful areas (political ones), but for immediate content, and relevant links, it blows the print encyclopedias out of the water.
Google books has several texts that formerly were only available at the NY Public Library.
Yeah, I’m a librarian, too, and I love these new developments.
— Bob Apr 1, 12:05 PM #