From jilloneill at nfais.org Tue Apr 3 10:44:08 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] ORCID Names New Executive Director Message-ID: <1333464248.32295112@webmail.nfais.org> ORCID has named Laure Haak, formerly the Chief Science Officer of Discovery Logic, as its new Executive Director. As part of her background, the press release announcement notes her previous experience as a researcher, policy analyst, writer and editor. See full text of that press release at: [http://about.orcid.org/sites/default/files/Press_Release_ORCID_2012-04-02_0.pdf] http://about.orcid.org/sites/default/files/Press_Release_ORCID_2012-04-02_0.pdf Jill O'Neill Director, Planning & Communication NFAIS Email: jilloneill at nfais.org Voice: 215/893-1561 Web: [http://www.nfais.org] http://www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Tue Apr 3 11:14:26 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] Job Postings, Thomson Reuters Message-ID: <1333466066.65779624@webmail.nfais.org> NFAIS member organization seeking to fill three positions. Click through on the links to see full write-ups. Thomson Reuters Seeking To Fill 3 Positions: 1) Director, Product Strategy, Search and Discovery: [https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006684] https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006684 2) Product Manager, Web Service and Usage: [https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO000065134] https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006513 3) Product Manager-Web of Knowledge: [https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006510] https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006510 Product Manager, Web of Knowledge: In this role, the Product Manager, Web of Knowledge will report to the Director of Product Strategy and will assist in all product activities for this $200 million product-the largest in the company. This person will be managing 2 direct reports-product management associates. This role is more technical in nature. This person will drive innovation and revenue growth. They will oversee the understanding of market needs and problems; define the strategy & business case for new products. Create a product road map for the information products. Focus of this role: Market//Strategy/Business side. $200 Million dollar revenue generating product. We are looking for someone who can interpret and apply analysis- a financial analyst will do number crunching. We need someone who is more commercially minded-apply it in a way to build more value to Thomson Reuters-very customer focused-serve a need with a product-pragmatic marketing approach. This is a fast-track, highly visible role working collaboratively with our internal businesses as well as external stakeholders and our users. To apply to the position, please go to the following link: [https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006510] https://toc.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=PRO00006510 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Fri Apr 6 08:40:36 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, GIGO Message-ID: <1333716036.851621169@webmail.nfais.org> NFAIS Enotes, January 2012 Written and Compiled by Jill O?Neill GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) Back in August of 2009, I wrote an Enotes that discussed a laborious search experience I had in trying to track down a somewhat obscure artist whose work I?d seen in a museum that summer. The piece focused on my perceptions of Google?s failures in support of my information seeking. Some of the sample search queries were these: ? Rhead illustration ?Arthurian myth? ? Rhead illustration ?King Arthur? ? Golden Age ?American Illustration? One pull quote sums up my disappointment --: ?...Google (even in its ?personalized? version) did not (and perhaps truly cannot) piece together two hours of consecutive search queries and understand the nature of my information need. On August 28, 2009, Jill O?Neill is searching for 19th century American book illustrator and graphic artist, Louis John Rhead, and related concepts. Based on queries and click-through behavior during the current 30 minute search session, she appears to have an interest in viewing examples of his artistic output. Based on her previous Web history with us (Google), result sets should be predominantly from high-quality, high-ranking informational sites (.edu or .org) with preferred reading level at or above 8th grade...? Recalling this, I was interested in (if somewhat skeptical of) Google?s announcement on January 10, 2012 of their release of ?social search.? Would the enhancements announced improve my overall search experience? (see: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-plus-your-world.html] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-plus-your-world.html). Google made it clear that they were going to offer me results influenced by the sharing habits of my personal networks -- Google+ and Twitter -- and thereby direct me to the content that friends and colleagues had found to be of interest based on what they had shared on the Web. Looking for a broad search query that would transcend pre-conceived expectations, I decided to see what might pop up if I searched Google for the wildly popular BBC period television series, Downton Abbey. Those two words were the only elements to the query. Immediately Google offered me the option of viewing 120 items gathered via my social network on Google+ or the millions of results from the broader Web. In an effort to attract my attention to the personal results, Google included one or two photo avatars of people Google recognized as being known to me -- Peter Scott, John Blossom, etc. Clicking on a button to the right hand side of the screen generated a new page of results. At the top of the personal results were items from PBS, Newsweek and the Daily Beast, items shared specifically from those organizations? brand pages on Google+. Just below the top result was another item with the caption, ?Tim O?Reilly shared this on oreilly.com,? and an indication of the date and time for that posting. Further down the page were items I?d seen via bloggers whose RSS feeds I captured in my Google Reader. Not all blogged references to Downton Abbey from my Google Reader subscriptions were displayed -- only those items that friends had shared in some specifically-social environment. Only if I clicked through on the link did it show me a particular context. Oddly enough, Google did display on that first page of results one of the items that I myself had shared with a limited group on Google+, a gleeful note from last September that the first season of Downton Abbey had won an Emmy (see: ([https://plus.google.com/100676333436662376518/posts/6JDn5AdFrsm] https://plus.google.com/100676333436662376518/posts/6JDn5AdFrsm). Perhaps a little more baffling were items displayed that came to me out of a somewhat convoluted pattern. Friend X from a particular Circle I had on Google+ had shared a link to a blogspot item via her own blog on Wordpress. The peculiarity was that I couldn?t locate that link when revisiting her Wordpress blog. Somewhere the citation chain had been broken and I could only hope that Google was honestly delivering something to me that my acquaintance had at some point shared online. Clicking on a globe icon brought back the 108 million Web items that were also available to me, but as might have been anticipated, those were cluttered with retail sites hawking the DVDs as well as with duplicative hits from newspapers running syndicated content. But what if I had run the same queries within the social environments Google was aggregating for me? What did the search query retrieve on Google+ if that was all I was searching? Just as with the unfiltered results, the issue here was the sheer number of duplicative hits. I was directed to the same video of Dame Maggie Smith over and over and over because so many had shared an identical link to YouTube. There was no restriction to items shared only by those within my circles. Running the query in Google Reader surfaced some items I hadn?t paid attention to upon their initial publication, such as one from the Oxford University Press (OUP) blog at [http://blog.oup.com/2011/11/remembrance/] http://blog.oup.com/2011/11/remembrance/. This is one of the cracks in the Google platform. Even in my personal results, while I subscribe to the OUP RSS feed, the social search in place did not include it because no one in my social network had actually shared that individual item. Serendipity still is part of discovery it would seem, but you have to rummage about a bit. To be fair, I spent time using other search tools to see what I would get, running the same query. Phil Bradley, librarian, maintains an excellent resource list at [http://www.philb.com/webse.htm%20] http://www.philb.com/webse.htm. Wolfram Alpha - certainly a dark horse for this kind of query -- surprised me with data from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Using the relatively new search engine, Duckduckgo.com, I saw results primarily from big media and well known Internet entities -- MSNBC, Salon, and the like, but nothing on the first page from individual content creators. More amusing was the visit to Exalead where the system asked anxiously if I was sure I didn?t mean Downtown Abbey. But I did notice something about Microsoft?s Bing result set. The screen was heavily weighted towards advertising. This was an interesting wrinkle. Google has recently been criticized for abandoning search. Journalist Peter Yared on CNET indicated that this implementation of social search by Google was a ?tacit acknowledgement that its stalwart search links are largely irrelevant and might as well be replaced with social results. Google search results are essentially gamed results produced by search optimizers.? (see: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57358850-93/why-google-is-ditching-search/] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57358850-93/why-google-is-ditching-search/). He continued to note that these algorithmically-generated ads and ?answers? which appear on the user?s initial screen of results are pushing actual search results lower and lower on Google?s page. The screenshot Yared used to illustrate this point was picked up by Kent Anderson of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery on the Scholarly Kitchen. (see: [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/01/25/the-end-of-the-salad-days-where-is-google-headed-next/] http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.o/2012/01/25/the-end-of-the-salad-days-where-is-google-headed-next/). I was actually somewhat puzzled by both of those pieces linked in the previous paragraph, because in my experience, the ads on Google rarely overwhelm the results page. Even when I ran the Downton Abbey Google search, I was not inundated with advertisements in the same way that I was on Bing. I scrutinized the search query proposed in the original CNET article. The query was in fact a lazy, but not implausible one, ?flights from ny to sf.? There was no use of the airport codes LGA or SFO to specify the actual points of origin and destination and two of the query terms -- from, to -- might easily be dropped out by the system. In such an instance of garbage in, garbage out, the user is naturally inundated with inane results. In my own experience, the levels of advertising that were being touted as indicators of Google?s abandonment of search actually appear on results pages in instances where (a) the user types in an ill-considered, natural language search query or (b) the user inputs a brand name. Put in different queries of a more specific nature and the noise on the page is reduced. With a little specificity (such as airport codes), the top search result is a list of flights between LaGuardia (LGA) and San Francisco (SFO) for 48 hours out from the searcher?s current point in time from name brand airlines such as Delta, American, Air Tran and US Air. Also included is time-in-flight and proposed fare. There are still ads, but not to the same extent that Yared documented. So what happens today if I input that initial query used in August of 2009, noted at the beginning of this piece? ? Rhead illustration ?Arthurian myth? Perhaps unsurprisingly after running the same query, there are still neither ads on my page nor any social results from my network. In fact I had to tweak the query (Rhead illustration idylls) to generate any social results and even then Google offered fewer than six. Yes, my social network may not have the same level of interest in a 19th century illustrator as they have in a currently popular television program, but my point is that the Google search experience hasn?t been dramatically altered over the interval of three years. Google still has not delivered personalized results that meet the user where s/he is, if that user is searching out niche content. As an article on ReadWriteWeb suggested, the real enhancement to Google?s offering of personal results lies in the fact that users can turn it on and off, depending upon the particular need (see: [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/they_did_it_google_personalizes_search_it_is_not_e.php] http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/they_did_it_google_personalizes_search_it_is_not_e.php). That is the real value, if only because some tasks of information seeking are more casual than others. Using a more industry-specific query such as ?patron driven acquisition ILL? gave me a set of 50 very specific personal results via Google, but nothing of which I?d not been aware. Clicking over to the more general results revealed far more useful (and unfamiliar) sources outside of my networks. The enhancements introduced by Google are primarily useful for rapid scanning purposes. If anything, the value of those personal results arises from revelations about one?s social network and where it may fail, rather than from any ?Eureka? moment of new content discovery. At the risk of sounding complacent, within this context, the traditional content provider wins. But before you become complacent, take a look at Mendeley or some of the other emerging forms of social networks and discovery and take heed. We still have work to do! 2012 NFAIS Supporters Access Innovations, Inc. Accessible Archives, Inc. American Psychological Association/PsycINFO CAS CrossRef Data Conversion Laboratory, Inc. Defense Technical Information Center EBSCO Publishing Getty Research Institute The H. W. Wilson Foundation Information Today, Inc. IFIS OCLC Philosopher?s Information Center ProQuest RSI Content Solutions, Inc. Silverchair Information Systems TEMIS, Inc. Thomson Reuters IP & Science Thomson Reuters IP Solutions Unlimited Priorities LLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Fri Apr 6 08:43:46 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, Pinterest and Figshare Message-ID: <1333716226.105627159@webmail.nfais.org> NFAIS Enotes, February 2012 Written and compiled by Jill O?Neill Learning to Share: Images and Data Pinterest ([http://www.pinterest.com/] http://www.pinterest.com) has attracted a huge amount of interest during the first quarter of 2012. The fact that there would be eleven million unique monthly users, each spending slightly in excess of an hour and a half on the site each month, created avid interest throughout many social media circles (see: [http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/pinterest-monthly-uniques/] http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/pinterest-monthly-uniques/). The visual content curation platform is, in the words of founder Ben Silbermann, intended to help users ?plan and discover things.? The site is highly visual in nature (and thus appealing to retailers) and is useful in those instances where pictures may be a more efficient means of communicating an ideal or soliciting input from others. Visit the first page of the site and you will see photos of clothing, home interiors, gourmet cuisine and much more identified by a predominantly female user base as being of value or interest, whether due to a detail, color, or shape. The social network is a designer?s inspiration and a retailer?s paradise. There is the broadest classification scheme in place. Thirty-two very general categories cover just about every possible use of images, graphics and design --architecture, art, print & posters, photography, science & nature, fitness, etc. But these categories are entirely loose. Click on fitness and you are as likely to find a photo of a flower girl?s dress as a chart offering up a plyometric pyramid workout. Serendipitous discovery is at the core of Pinterest but, as might be expected of any bulletin board, it can quickly become a mess. From an interface and navigational approach, the site appears to have mimicked Facebook most closely. The user has a limited number of ways to respond to any single post (re-pin, like or comment). Re-pinning is a euphemism for a single user?s bookmarking of a favorite image for later review. If you want a larger view of the image, a click increases the size and the number of activity options. You can share on Twitter or Facebook. You can embed an image elsewhere (but only the image without any associated original text). To see how this looks, click through [http://basilisk-stare.blogspot.com/2012/03/source-mountainmamacooks.html] http://basilisk-stare.blogspot.com/2012/03/source-mountainmamacooks.html. More conventionally, you can email the same pin to a friend or as a worst-case scenario, report an offensive or infringing item. Scroll further down and you?re shown the screen name of the original pinner, and a source page on Pinterest ? an aggregation of items associated with a particular resource site. You?ll also be shown how the image got onto Pinterest (whether via bookmarklet or upload) and statistics for who re-pinned the item or who merely evidenced a liking. Navigation can initially be confusing. Clicking on a link that appears to be the source of an image you find interesting may be a mistake. That link at the top of the image directs you to the original web source. That link, at the bottom of the image? That one directs you to the source?s page on Pinterest. Pinterest, like so many organizations seeking to take advantage of social data, allows the user to connect with friends from two other prominent networks ?Facebook and Gmail -- but that number is sure to expand. One chooses to follow a person or just one of that person?s ?boards.? Following everyone and everything is sure to overwhelm, but again serendipitous discovery of creative material is the whole point behind Pinterest. Searching the site is sadly a problem. It is not possible to refine searches or specify a particular facet for the search and consequently one is apt to be inundated with results. The engine is only searching text captions rather than the names of boards assigned by users. There is only one instance where one can restrict by dollar figure and that?s under the category of Gifts. Otherwise, a single search query of a generic term (salsa) brings up recipes, yarn and bicycles, all of which have captions containing the word ?salsa.? Searching for various brand names (Pepsi, Elsevier, Amazon) brings up only slightly more specific results. It is clear that the Pinterest engineers are depending upon actual images to drive interest and attention, and spammers have caught onto this as a way to enhance their own visibility. One sample item pointed to a DIY video and read ?Concrete counter tutorial (and book recommendation at the end). Might have to get it on Amazon? then there was an ellipses with an irrelevant clause immediately after ?I saw this product on TV and have already lost 24 pounds!? It was then followed by the name of the weight loss company. Examples of particular works or styles may be found if the search query includes proper names (Mies van der Rohe or Jacques Louis David) or more specific phrases such as broderie anglaise. However, duplicative hits are a problem and frequently, the wisdom of the crowds is less than authoritative. Try as I might, I don?t see much evidence on Pinterest that it might be any kind of a useful tool for scholars and researchers in the visual arts. Images in scientific publishing ? scientific illustration ? are in need of improvement for many reasons. A recent article in Scientific American, ?Pixels or Perish? by Brian Hayes, is a worthwhile read for the light it sheds on new forms of quantitative graphics, beyond pie charts and graphs (see: [http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.14718,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx] http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.14718,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx). A post-doc in the college of optical sciences at the University of Arizona backs up Hayes? view (see: [http://schamberlain.github.com/2012/02/science-publications-need-interactive-graphics/] http://schamberlain.github.com/2012/02/science-publications-need-interactive-graphics/) when he noted that ?while Science and Nature --just to name two prominent examples of scientific journals--make available HTML versions of their articles, it seems like most of the interactivity is limited to looking at larger versions of figures in the articles.? To be fair, he notes that this may well be as much the fault of authors for not submitting visual forms of interactive content as the fault of major STM publishers. Curiously, I have attracted only one follower over on Pinterest and that is a gentleman by the name of Mark Hahnel, an emerging player in the convergence of social networking and scientific images. He found me on Pinterest, because he is trying to increase the visibility of his own branded site, FigShare, a specialized site for sharing of images that was referenced by a speaker during the NFAIS Annual Conference. Figshare ([http://www.figshare.com/] www.figshare.com), a cloud-based storage site intended to enhance the discovery and visibility of visual research materials including video, data sets and photographic images, was initially launched in 2011 as a proof-of-concept site, but had been re-launched in January 2012 via funding from Digital Science, a digital division of Macmillan. Figshare also encourages users to upload dissertations, applications for funding, conference posters and more to the site to enhance its value. (see: [http://figshare.com/blog/The%20unlimited%20scholarly%20publication/19] http://figshare.com/blog/The%20unlimited%20scholarly%20publication/19). The site has gotten some attention for its efforts, such as this general write-up on the BMJ blog, [http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj-journals-development-blog/2012/02/17/figshare-striving-for-greater-efficiency-in-scientific-research/] http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj-journals-development-blog/2012/02/17/figshare-striving-for-greater-efficiency-in-scientific-research/. In addition, citations to data housed on Figshare are popping up in articles, such as this one at [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030908] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030908 ? (note specifically citations numbers 10 and 11). Glance at the home page of Figshare and there are obvious social network parallels to Pinterest. The marketing copy points out that materials contained here are discoverable, shareable and citable. A note in the fine print explains that the materials are covered through a Creative Commons license. There is a grid display of the various media available to browse as well as the usage data regarding views and sharing of particular items. The categorization on Figshare is confined to only 13 disciplinary groups, slightly more than a third of the number on Pinterest. There are links to researcher profiles. It?s even possible to slice and dice the content while browsing the site. View the most popular uploads according to the specific type of file format (figures, media, data sets, and file sets). Figshare functionality is fairly basic, but it appears to be a viable environment for housing various supplemental materials useful to others. The actual upload of materials to the site is as elementary as the drag-and-drop process of adding an attachment to Gmail. Search is text-based, depending upon the title information and additional context provided. Tagging is possible. The system allows for exportation of a citation to Reference Manager, Endnote and Mendeley. The material uploaded for public use on Figshare is crawled by search engines, thus making it ripe for serendipitous discovery. There is the additional plus for researchers that Figshare offers both private as well as public storage for data and other content formats and Figshare itself promises that the platform will soon become a collaborative platform space for research as well ([http://figshare.com/features] http://figshare.com/features). Figshare is unlikely to build the same kind of excitement in social media circles as Pinterest has done. For one thing, the icon on Figshare used to denote the availability of a dataset is a grey grid-like icon that has little to attract the eye. The thumbnail images are smaller than those found on Pinshare. Still, research scientists seeking out data sets don?t use the same criteria as interior designers use in their investigations. Access to data is expected to only grow in importance as a mechanism for uncovering new truths and understanding in science. It?s not unreasonable for Digital Science, as a subsidiary of Macmillan, to expect that community will grow on a platform where that data is housed and made discoverable. Macmillan as parent company will naturally want to foster the growth of that community and other providers will watch to see how successfully they manage that growth. I will say that as far as I could tell in my rummaging about, such a community has not yet coalesced. What Figshare and Pinterest have in common, besides both being publicly accessible Web-based services are three fairly common sense principles: Neither tried to reinvent the social network in terms of basic platform architecture or user interface, in the way that something like Google+ tried to. Both recognized and tried to adapt to users? existing need for sharing Both were responsive when issues arose with their initial approach. When Pinterest was called on copyright concerns by a lawyer-photographer-user ([http://www.businessinsider.com/pinterest-copyright-issues-lawyer-2012-2] http://www.businessinsider.com/pinterest-copyright-issues-lawyer-2012-2), the CEO reached out to keep her engaged with the site and reassessed the problematic terms of service currently in place on the site. Although initially launched in 2011, Figshare gathered feedback from users and re-launched with a dramatically redesigned platform in January of 2012. It would appear then that we?re in a period where technologies are being adapted to specific use cases. It is less about what is the next big thing and more about recombining and tweaking to better satisfy the needs of a community. It?s not as exciting perhaps as the early days of the Web in the ?90?s, but it may be just as disruptive should nimble young start-ups reach the finish line of user adoption before the more established platform providers. What?s key to recall (as so many speakers did during the NFAIS Annual Conference) is that NFAIS members do not need to come up with new technologies. The requisite technologies are already available to us. What users are hoping for is that we will innovatively combine those technologies to create the best advanced information services we can in service of their needs. 2012 NFAIS Supporters Access Innovations, Inc. Accessible Archives, Inc. American Psychological Association/PsycINFO CAS CrossRef Data Conversion Laboratory, Inc. Defense Technical Information Center EBSCO Publishing Getty Research Institute The H. W. Wilson Foundation Information Today, Inc. IFIS OCLC Philosopher?s Information Center ProQuest Really Strategies, Inc. Silverchair Information Systems TEMIS, Inc. Thomson Reuters IP & Science Thomson Reuters IP Solutions Unlimited Priorities LLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Wed Apr 11 11:03:17 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] Wolfram Alpha and Shakespeare Message-ID: <1334156597.588726618@webmail.nfais.org> Those attending the NFAIS Annual Conference this year heard from Tali Beynon of Wolfram Alpha about some of the work being done there. This morning, we learn that the search tool has added the full text of Shakespeare's plays to their content so that it is possible to view some interesting data about the Bard's corpus. Click through here ([http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=A+Midsummer+Night] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=A+Midsummer+Night's+Dream) to view a sample analysis of Midsummer Night's Dream. Wolfram Alpha's blog has additional details on this: [http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2012/04/10/to-compute-or-not-to-compute-wolframalpha-analyzes-shakespeares-plays/] http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2012/04/10/to-compute-or-not-to-compute-wolframalpha-analyzes-shakespeares-plays/ Jill O'Neill Director, Planning & Communication NFAIS Email: jilloneill at nfais.org Voice: 215/893-1561 Web: [http://www.nfais.org] http://www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Wed Apr 25 14:21:07 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] IBM Acquires Vivisimo Message-ID: <1335378067.24399755@webmail.nfais.org> From TechCrunch: Big Blue says the combination of IBM?s big data analytics capabilities with Vivisimo software will help ?further IBM?s efforts to automate the flow of data into business analytics applications, helping clients better understand consumer behavior, manage customer churn and network performance, detect fraud in real-time, and perform data-intensive marketing campaigns.? IBM says it will incorporate Vivisimo?s technology into its big data platform.?The winners in the era of big data will be those who unlock their information assets to drive innovation, make real-time decisions, and gain actionable insights to be more competitive,? explains Arvind Krishna, general manager, Information Management, IBM Software Group. [http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/25/ibm-acquires-enterprise-search-software-company-vivisimo-to-boost-big-data-analytics/] http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/25/ibm-acquires-enterprise-search-software-company-vivisimo-to-boost-big-data-analytics/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: