[12256] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Agent-based Cooperative Collection Development
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gerry Mckiernan)
Mon Jun 15 20:03:23 1998
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:13:17 -0500
From: Gerry Mckiernan <GMCKIERN@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
_ Agent-based Cooperative Collection Development_=20
In response to my recent posting _Content Analysis of Academic Departmenta=
l Homepages_, a respondee raised one of the major issues relating to Web =
resources of the day -- Quality. In considering a means of identifying =
Quality of resources that might be presented for consideration by the =
Model presented in this posting, it occurred to me that one could =
adopt/adapt the technology employed in Recommendation Agents, i.e., agents =
that present a user with candidate resources based upon criteria establishe=
d from an initial questionnaire _and_ subsequent interaction with =
recommendations made by the Recommendation Service. For example,_Firefly_, =
one of the oldest and well-known Web-based services that employs Recommenda=
tion Agents, is a personal software agent that understands people's tastes =
and interests, and allows users to access reviews and receive personalized =
recommendations on movies and music."=20
In the context of Collection Development, I see a parallel service that =
would initially generate a set of candidates resources based _not_ upon a =
completed questionnaire, but on a Research Interest Profile (RIP) that =
would automatically be derived from individual faculty members and =
departmental homepages from a Content Agent [No doubt, we would also want =
to consider integrating a Conceptual Agent here at some point such that =
the 'text-expressed' content would be massaged with appropriate synonyms, =
BT, RT, etc. for the subject domain to represent the homepage _not_ as a =
collection of terms _but_ of concepts. This massaged RIP would become the =
basis for searching Internet accessible resoures using an associated =
Search Agent. The Search Agent would submit the RIP to such sites as =
electronic bookstores (e.g., Amazon.com) to identify candidate monographs =
works publisher sites (e.g. Elsevier) to identify possibly relevant print =
or electronic journals for the 'local' collection', professional society =
clearinghouse (i.e.,Scholary Societies Project (http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca=
/soc as well as significant Web resources (e.g., OMNI for Medical =
resources)=20
The results of these submissions to these sources would be sent based to =
the Review Agent that in turn would collate all the results from a Hard =
Night's Day [:->] and present teh results based upon the relative =
importance of an individual's RIP or a collective departmental RIP, using =
an appropriate algorithm. Based upon the selection of items of these =
retrieved results by a selector, a profile established for a Selector or =
Bibliographer would be modified to reflect their new and ongoing choices, =
subsequently affect the dynamics of teh algorithm and the ranked presentati=
on of subsequently retrieved items from future Search Agent searches [One =
could consider integrating this feedback activity into a Duo RIP that =
would be the synthesis of a faculty member RIP and that generated from the =
selecting activity of a bibliographer].=20
Likewise, as noted in the original post, as a subscribed member of The =
Service, the activity of a individual faculty member in his/her selection =
of material could be feedback to his/her RIP by a Feedback Agent such that =
the RIP exists in Real Time and at a high level of specificity.=20
One could also envision bibliographers who have similar subject =
responsibility be subscribers to the Service, such that _their_ selections =
for _their_ cleintele as well as _their_ faculty and departmental RIPs are =
integrated into a larger System, and that the _collective_ behavior of =
those of a Similar Mind represents Colelctive Good Judgment. =20
It is here through the Combined Group behavior within The System and =
Service that we can _indirectly_ determine Quality. To more formally =
establish Quality, we would need other agents, notably an Acquisitions =
Agent and a Citation Agent. The Acquistions Agent that would provide =
feedback t The System and The Service to identify a work as formally =
Acquired [Here we believe that formal Acquisition is a manifestation of a =
Quality judgment] [The Acquisitins Agents of course would need to be =
integrated within the institution's Acquisition system]. The Citation =
Agent would monitor the publications of a researchers to determine if =
he/she cites/sites works made known by The Service.=20
Whew!=20
In preparation for an article I will be writing in July on Agent-based =
Cooperative Collection Development, I would much appreciate any reactions =
to this scenario. As Always, Any and All contributions, questions, =
concerns, comments, citations, or queries are Most Welcome!=20
Joy!=20
Gerry McKiernan Curator, CyberStacks(sm) Iowa State University Ames IA =
50011=20
gerrymck@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/=20
"The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Use An Agent! {;->] With =
Possible Apologies to Peter Drucker=20
