Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Open Library Project Takes Flight

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jul 16, 2007 05:34 PM
from the alexandria-green-with-envy dept.
Aaron Swartz today announced the launch of the new Open Library project. The goal of the project is to produce the world's greatest library on the Internet free for anyone to use. Starting with the Internet Archive's book scanning project and organizing the insertion of new content via a wiki-type model the project seems to be off to a great start. The demo, source code, and mailing lists were all opened up today in hopes of drawing interest from the public at large.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Open Library Goes Online With Public Domain Books 103 comments
mrcgran writes "A competitor to Google Book Search emerges as the Yahoo-backed Open Content Alliance launches an 'open library' of its own. After several years of scanning and archiving, the Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance this week unveiled the Open Library, their attempt at bringing public domain books to the masses. The Internet Archive has hosted texts for quite some time, but the Open Library makes fully-searchable, high-quality scans of books available, along with downloadable PDFs. It offers an experience designed to match paper: there's even a page-flipping animation as readers move forward and backward through the book. Ben Vershbow of the Institute for the Future of the Book says that when it comes to presentation, 'they already have Google beat, even with recent upgrades to the [Google Book Search] system including a plain text viewing option.'" We have previously discussed this project, though this is a bit more complete rundown on the initiative.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Project Gutenberg(sp) never really had a large enough selection to interest me. I would like to see how they do this new library.
    • Well, you can thank extensive copyright for that fact.

      Go Disney.
      • Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)

        by illegalcortex (1007791) on Monday July 16 2007, @06:22PM (#19882287)
        Yes, I particularly enjoyed Human Genome Project, Chromosome Number 08. Some fine reading there. [gutenberg.org]

        C'mon, I would be fairly disappointed with a library of 21,000 real books even if it contained only fiction from random authors from 1900-2000. Gutenberg doesn't even have that much depth.

        That's not to take anything away from them. But to make claims about it being a good selection based on "21,000 - gee that's a big number" is a bit ludicrous.
        • As another poster mentioned, you can thank extensive copyright for that. Most books written between 1900 and 2000 are still under copyright, and therefore can't be in project gutenburg. I don't like most of the stuff in project gutenburg either, but it's the best we can hope for with the current state of copyrights.
  • by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:43PM (#19881987) Journal
    FALTWSBTFA: (From a link to what should be the feature article [openlibrary.org])

    What if there was a library which held every book? Not every book on sale, or every important book, or even every book in English, but simply every book
    It would probably be sued for copyright infringement.
    • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday July 16 2007, @05:53PM (#19882077) Homepage Journal
      I find it depressing that if someone came up with the concept of a free library system today, they would be sued out of existence by the book companies. What is perhaps one of the greatest triumphs ever for the poor uneducated masses would not stand a chance in our current legal environment.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Speaking of which, do you think people would be allowed to drive cars or own guns if they were invented today? I don't.

        Anyways, the good news is that libraries do exist, and aren't going away. If the electronic library is to exist, it should be pursued as an extension of existing libraries. In other words, we must ensure that electronic access to text grows out of the familiar library setting, not Napster. There are lots of ways to do this.

        For instance, current library filing systems are really jus

        • by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday July 16 2007, @07:48PM (#19882845) Homepage Journal
          Anyways, the good news is that libraries do exist, and aren't going away.

          No, of course not, because they're protected by copyright law, which in turn grew out of article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Just there will never be a restriction on keeping and bearing arms... uh, oh, wait. OK then, like there will never be restrictions on speech... no, no, turns out there are plenty of those. Mmmm, ok, just like the feds can only take action on interstate commerce, because you know, that's an enumerated power they can't step outside... aw, no, they do that all the time. Well, it'll be like how they can't do searches or seizures without probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a warrant... oh... I guess that's no longer true. Well, of course they can't make ex post facto laws... except for the ones they've made, that is, you know, thinking of the children and such.

          Wait. Why is it again libraries "aren't going away?"

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Wait. Why is it again libraries "aren't going away?"

            Aside from the already mentioned fact that all books aren't digitized, it may be because Internet access is not universal, the barrier to access is still high (computers aren't free, right?) and one of the few places that you can get free access and access to a device to do it is, of course, a library.

      • Copyright law is no threat to libraries. And book publishers certainly aren't looking to close them down.

        The truth of the book publishing business today is that the American public, on the whole, just doesn't read very much. Libraries, on the other hand, stock books -- multiple copies of books, in many cases. And there are thousands of libraries in America.

        How do they get all those books? They buy them.

        Each year, public libraries buy thousands and thousands of books -- books that individual readers aren't b
        • I've also bought way more music online that I ever did on CD (I hate trying to find stuff in record stores, especially since my tastes aren't mainstream). That didn't stop the music industry from totally flipping out over the idea of digital sales, and just think about what they did to free online music. I think you overestimate the average corporation if you think they would realize that libraries would be good for them in the long run. They would just see someone using their tax dollars to let people r
          • I've bought more online than I ever did as well. First with p2p, heavily non-mainstream. Usually a fairly high percentage of off label stuff. Then, since pandora and lastfm I've bought even more. The thing is though, it's been 100% non-label. And I think that's what they're worried about.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Even in these litigation-happy days, physical book libraries don't get sued, and indeed they normally get direct governmental funding to continue their work.

      If an electronic library can find a way to obtain support as a literacy project, there are plenty of traditional avenues open. Suits against council literacy efforts don't go down well, at least in Europe.
      • Even in these litigation-happy days, physical book libraries don't get sued...


        Of course not, because they've paid for their copies. Makes a difference, doncha know?

        • Of course not, because they've paid for their copies. Makes a difference, doncha know?
          --
          There is no such word as "alot," and if there is, there shouldn't be. It's "a lot." Two words, not one.

          There is no such word as "doncha," and if there is, there shouldn't be. It's "don't you." Two words, not one.
          • There is no such word as "doncha," and if there is, there shouldn't be. It's "don't you." Two words, not one.

            It's interesting you should note that. I would like to point out that it's actually three words: "do not you". The word "don't" is a contraction of "do" and "not", which has somehow found its way into spelling as well as in verbal usage.

            The word "doncha" is common enough that I, a man who does not live in an english-speaking country, and does not have english as my first language, has been expose

            • In other words, it's up to you to document that "doncha" is not current usage, if you are to claim it's not a word.
              Look up sarcasm [m-w.com] and then read my post again.

              Now, it is up to you to document that my post wasn't sarcasm, if you are to claim my post was sarcastic.
          • Doncha wish your words rolled off your tongue like me?
            Doncha wish your words had no apostrophe?
            Doncha?
            Doncha baby, doncha?
    • Where are the Pirate Bay kiddies on this? Wouldn't that fit their idea of all the information belonging to 'the people?'

      Or does it only apply to stealing popular movies and music?
  • Have these guys not heard of Project Gutenburg [gutenberg.org] ?

    It's been around for years, and I thought it was pretty well-known.
    • Re:Project Gutenburg (Score:5, Informative)

      by AaronSw (598481) <me@aaronsw.com> on Monday July 16 2007, @05:53PM (#19882075) Homepage
      Hi, Aaron Swartz here. Project Gutenberg is about putting up text versions of out-of-copyright books. This project is about creating a catalog of _every_ book, with links to PG, scans, Amazon.com, PDFs, print on demand, etc. -- anything we can get our hands on. Gutenberg books are in our catalog, of course, but so are millions more.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I've been using the openlibrary.org site for a while now. I find these scanned original pages FAR more restful to the eye than any other form of electronic book. This way, I can sit down and read a complete book on the screen -- without suffering the eye fatigue that comes from reading large swaths of ordinary onscreen text. I think it has a lot to do with print fonts being designed specifically for the eye, and somewhat to do with the normal yellowing of paper that produces a less glary background.

        Also, ma
        • by PMBjornerud (947233) on Monday July 16 2007, @07:22PM (#19882683)

          I find these scanned original pages FAR more restful to the eye than any other form of electronic book. This way, I can sit down and read a complete book on the screen -- without suffering the eye fatigue that comes from reading large swaths of ordinary onscreen text. I think it has a lot to do with print fonts being designed specifically for the eye, and somewhat to do with the normal yellowing of paper that produces a less glary background.
          This does not make sense. A scanned document will always have artifacts and imperfections from the scanning process and should by definition be harder to read. A well-sized font on a pleasant background should beat scannded text every single time.

          Your issue is more likely that there are a lot of crappily designed webpages out there.

          If you're reading "large swaths of ordinary onscreen text", do this:
          - Copy-paste in into any word processor
          - Choose a nice, big font. (Small is good for UI, not for 400-page-novels.)
          - Use a dark background. A page reflects light, a screen projects it. You do not want glaring white.
          - Use 8-10 words per line.
          - Profit! Err... less mental exhaustation, at least.

          Pay extra attention to words per line. It's a key reason onscreen text is often hard to read. Too many words per line, and you'll have a mental overhead every few seconds trying to figure out which line you just read and which is next. Basically, books do it right and you want to display onscreen text at a similar width. Scrolling is easy these days, and wide lines is a remnant from when computers required a click-and-drag to scroll.

          Wide books and newspapers are divided into columns. There is a reason for doing this, but almost nobody seemed to think about that when they display text on screens.

          Heck, even slashdot defaults to a glaring white background and text stretched all over my 1920 pixels. Go figure.
          • Wide books and newspapers are divided into columns. There is a reason for doing this, but almost nobody seemed to think about that when they display text on screens.

            For me, quite the coincidence to run across you comment. Just in the past few days I have taken to resizing my browser to half the width of the screen - like folding a newspaper - because I realized that my eyes tire when reading lines of text running the entire 1280 pixel width of my monitor. It seems to work out great - I am even reading S

            • I don't know if there is a good way of doing it directly through firefox, but I know you can add an user style sheet through the web developer plugin (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6 0 )

              In the case of ./ you just have to make a css file with the following code in it ...

              #wrapper {
              background: #ccc; /*put desired background color here*/
              color: #999; /*font color*/
              }

              Of course, this isn't a very good solution for browsing because it seems to remove the style sheet every time the page changes and

      • Re:Project Gutenburg (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Fallingcow (213461) on Monday July 16 2007, @07:58PM (#19882897) Homepage
        What I really want are some modern, well-written footnotes and introductions to older works. Maybe throw in some good annotated maps when appropriate.

        Older books are often hard to relate to without some context, and that sort of thing is what makes or breaks many editions of the "classics", IMO. If, when shopping for books, I pick up a copy of a book that was written more than 200 years or so ago, and it has no foot notes, most of the time I won't buy it. This is doubly true of translated works.

        Wikipedia can usually stand in for an introduction, but there's nothing like footnotes to get you closer to an older text, and nothing that I know of provides that. If someone started a project to provide that kind of information for Project Gutenberg books, I'd get on board to help. Bonus points if they're also putting them in formats that don't suck (making plain text look good on the screen is a pain in the ass).

        I'd start it up myself, but alas, I am poor (college). I'd definitely help out if someone else got it going, though.

        Until someone does that, PG is practically useless to me.

        Will this project do anything like that, or do you know of anyone who's doing this?

        It seems to me that 500-1,000 really well-edited, footnoted, and formatted free books are better than 21,000 books worth of plain-text barf.
  • someone asked a good question on the website; how does this relate to Gutenburg?

    http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page [gutenberg.org]

    they have a great collection of ebooks online already and your free to grab and share them. I wish that they would have the base for this though in a country which doesn't have insanely long copyright laws, then it could really add value over gutenburg
  • As long as it is limited to rather dusty tomes that are "out of copyright" this is going to have limited, if not zero, value to most people. What exactly is the difference between Open Library and Project Gutenberg? Aren't they going to have 99% overlapping content?

    • Project Gutenberg is a collection of full text works.
      The Open Library is a database of books, which sometimes includes the full scanned text, and sometimes does not.

      So if the same work was published a dozen different times, it would have an entry in The Open Library for each edition, and usually just one entry in Project Gutenberg assembled from all of the out-of-copyright printed editions.
  • so basically they are building a library that works a lot like Wikipedia but it is like an online library [creative commons I presume] how do they incorporate editing into the system without it having the same problems that wikipedia has? what does the project do that couldn't just as easily be done by expanding Wikipedia? any thoughts?
  • by krelian (525362) on Monday July 16 2007, @06:19PM (#19882275)
    Don't compare this to Project Gutenberg. This is the supposed to be the Internet Movie Database" [imdb.com] for books (as far as I understand anyway). Anyway, I am pretty sure that a big part of this information can filled with calls to Amazon web services.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      This is exactly what I was going to say. It is basically an overview of books with links to Amazon or wherever. I forsee reviews, quotes, and links on par with IMDB. Only there is a benefit of being able to have full-text books too.

      I had a play with it and it is quite limited at the moment. I did manage to add a book, but there was minimal instruction on how to go about this, and uploading covers at the moment is not available (as far as I could determine in 5 minutes anyway).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Except that they'll also store and supply the books themselves (scanned and/or as text), if available.
  • is an error like this:

    <type 'exceptions.TypeError'> at /search
    unbound method remove_node() must be called with LRU instance as first argument (got NoneType instance instead)Python /1/pharos/code/production/pharos/infogami/tdb/tdb. py in remove_node, line 607
    Web GET http://demo.openlibrary.org/search

    Traceback (innermost first)
    /1/pharos/code/production/pharos/infogami/ tdb/tdb.py in remove_node
    ...
    node = LRU.remove_node(node) ...
    &#9654; Local vars
  • This is great news, I hope it actually works. Related: I recently discovered my local library has about 50% of the books I usually buy. Why didn't I think of this earlier? Must of lost about $10K from that during the last decade. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go check out a copy of "How to Make a Your Very Own Video Game in 16 Days Using ONLY...Wordstar!"
  • Kinakuta (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EnsilZah (575600) <EnsilZah @ G m a i l.com> on Monday July 16 2007, @09:51PM (#19883695) Homepage
    How about placing the servers somewhere where copyright law hold no sway?
    Are there really any working data havens?
  • Vandalism controls? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Creosote (33182) on Monday July 16 2007, @10:25PM (#19883933) Homepage

    First thing I did on the site was pull up an entry for a book my university press publishes. It had no "Buy" option. I edited the metadata to add the ISBN-10 number for it, and voila, a Buy option.

    It then took a certain amount of self-control for me not to go into various titles dealing with George W. Bush and enter the ISBN-10 of the storybook [amazon.com] containing "My Pet Goat". Purely as a proof of concept, you understand.

    This is simply the Wikipedia vandalism problem writ large. What controls will OpenLibrary put in place to guard against it?

  • Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harmonica (29841) on Tuesday July 17 2007, @04:24AM (#19885453)
    I know the project is just starting, but here it goes.

    They should republish the raw data the same way Wikipedia and even IMDb does. I for one am not going to contribute to any data collection project that I can't later use myself.

    Their schema [openlibrary.org] doesn't differentiate between editions. If I understand it right, that means that for the 3000 existing editions of "Tom Sawyer" released over the years, by different publishers in different countries and languages, the book's description has to be replicated for each one. That can't be good. I don't have a quick solution to this myself. Sometimes (esp. with tech books), a new edition changes content significantly compared to the previous one, sometimes they're exactly the same.

    Collecting the cover images is a great service. However, doesn't this infringe on the publisher's copyright? Is this still fair use? What about countries like Germany without fair use laws--will German books still be OK because the data is collected in the USA (I guess)?

    Add a feature to upload book descriptions as XML. Suggest a DTD. I have a list of my book collection stored as an XML file, so have others (maybe not natively, but book collection management software usually has an export function). It should be possible to automate the process of adding book information already stored in some digital format.

    There should be some category system to pick from. Some may put Tom sawyer into "Novel, USA antebellum", others into "Novel, USA 19th century".

    Somehow connect this to Wikipedia. The more prominent books have article pages. Maybe data could be retrieved from it as well. There are currently Tom Sawyer articles in 16 or so languages.

    The edit page should group items better: stuff everyone understands (year published, title) first, then those things only specialists know.

    The edit page's descriptors shouldn't be images but text which links to an explanation page for the same reason. BISAC? LCCN? UCC13? I know, I can find out what those are with a search engine, but I shouldn't have to.

    Prepare for i18n. I guess LCCN is a library of congress code number? Those types of libraries exist in other countries, too. Each book can have a gazillion codes. Make this another tuple in the database: (book_id, code_id, code_value) instead of (book_id, lcc_id, isbn10, isbn13, 10 other codes in the same record).

    Also i18n: store language codes with all textual columns. A description is most likely going to be Hungarian for a book published in Hungary in Hungarian.

    This complicates the schema a lot. Having very few tables is tempting, but it usually doesn't work well with the real world.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Here is some additional food for thought about this idea.... coming from somebody who has only given this concept just a few minutes of thought, but having dealt with this issue extensively in the past (of trying to catalog e-books):

      The kinds of skills necessary for doing actual cataloging work.... classifying and organizing knowledge... are so rare as to be a very precious jewel of a person if you ever do find somebody like that. And developing these skills is not something very easy to accomplish either.
    • Or creative commons, like Cory Doctorow's work (which is on par with most similar fiction).
      Or just old, almost like James Joyce's work, which arguably nobody reads, but for Joyce at least, a lot of people talk about it.

      And as for getting stuff...at least for now, the experience of an ebook is a lot less enjoyable to most people than that of a dead tree book. Dead tree books have portability advantages as well. So if someone likes a book they find on Open Library, they might well buy it on Amazon.
      • Mod parent up (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        She is correct. This is not a 'library' per se but a catalog of books, with links to PG, Amazon, B&N, etc. Most books are NOT free.

        The difference between this and other catalogs (Library of Congress, etc.) is that presumably you can customize it more.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Actually, you're wrong -- to "take flight" primarily means to take off, or to start a project. So the usage was correct.

      • take flight
          v : run away quickly; "He threw down his gun and fled" [syn: flee,
          fly]

        taked from the Gnome's "Dictionary look up" panel widget. I have no idea which dictionary(-ies) is/are being used by it.
    • Re:IPL? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TTK Ciar (698795) * on Monday July 16 2007, @07:04PM (#19882569) Homepage Journal

      OpenLibrary is a lot more complete, for one .. searching on "Ogorkiewicz" in IPL yielded no hits, while OL gave me several. The Archive is well-connected to various institutions like the Library of Congress and Bibliotech, and is able to pull a lot of help from these other organizations into making a more complete service.

      OpenLibrary is also a catalog of metadata, providing information for each book like physical format, publisher, ISBN#, number of pages, and so on. This metadata has a lot of holes for now, but hopefully that will change as publishers and/or people who own copies of these books fill in the blanks, much like the Internet Movie Database.

      Finally, OpenLibrary has its own staff which is dedicated to working with Internet Archive partners to make this the most complete catalog on the planet. IPL is cool (I like it!) but it does not seem to be very actively maintained.

      (disclaimer: I work for The Internet Archive, but I do not speak for it, and the OpenLibrary team is in a completely different department from mine so DO NOT treat this post as necessarily any more authorative or correct than any other slashdot post.)

      -- TTK

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      By being a listing/index/catalog of all books with references to where to get them instead of being a site dedicated to reproducing the source material of stuff in the public domain, perhaps?