10 Comments


  1. That’s what I said too, at first. Then I read the whole thing again, and again. And my conclusion, even though I still think this is a big step forward, is that it is not by far open source related.

    The name OpenTranslators does give you that idea, but it is not open as in free. It is a service, which you can subscribe to, if you got the money for it.

    Still a good development though, as a WebFeat customer I know how good it is to have access to all those translators.


  2. That’s what I said too, at first. Then I read the whole thing again, and again. And my conclusion, even though I still think this is a big step forward, is that it is not by far open source related.

    The name OpenTranslators does give you that idea, but it is not open as in free. It is a service, which you can subscribe to, if you got the money for it.

    Still a good development though, as a WebFeat customer I know how good it is to have access to all those translators.


  3. I think I was thinking more along the lines of being good for open source products – not open source in and of itself. By making the connectors open it makes it easier to build into open source apps – but I too will re-read and make sure I understood correctly.


  4. I think I was thinking more along the lines of being good for open source products – not open source in and of itself. By making the connectors open it makes it easier to build into open source apps – but I too will re-read and make sure I understood correctly.


  5. CARE’s definition of open is more along the lines of what Nicole is saying. We felt by adding an open standards layer (from Index Data) on top of the proprietary translators (from WebFeat), we would give libraries more open choices in the metasearch tools they used. They could select from any open source tool, or even a proprietary tool, if they wanted, but the choice would be open to them. We’re trying to open up the technology wherever possible, whenever possible and certainly we use open standards and we try to use open source software where it exists or makes business sense. But it isn’t always possible, for instance translators are a machine and people intensive task — nothing yet exists or has been produced that would do the equivalent task in the OSS environment. So, sometimes you have to marry things (Open Standards, OSS and proprietary) in order to produce a working solution for the end users and libraries. That’s what we did. Is it open? Clearly, we thought so, but I guess it depends on how strict your definition is. Ours is defined by what we perceive to be customer needs.


  6. CARE’s definition of open is more along the lines of what Nicole is saying. We felt by adding an open standards layer (from Index Data) on top of the proprietary translators (from WebFeat), we would give libraries more open choices in the metasearch tools they used. They could select from any open source tool, or even a proprietary tool, if they wanted, but the choice would be open to them. We’re trying to open up the technology wherever possible, whenever possible and certainly we use open standards and we try to use open source software where it exists or makes business sense. But it isn’t always possible, for instance translators are a machine and people intensive task — nothing yet exists or has been produced that would do the equivalent task in the OSS environment. So, sometimes you have to marry things (Open Standards, OSS and proprietary) in order to produce a working solution for the end users and libraries. That’s what we did. Is it open? Clearly, we thought so, but I guess it depends on how strict your definition is. Ours is defined by what we perceive to be customer needs.


  7. Carl your definition of open isn’t open at all. It a standard layer yes, but in no way open. By your definition of open anyone offering a web service layer based on SOAP or REST would qualify as an open service. Furthermore CARE is being careless with terms hoping to confuse the market about what open is. Your service is in NO way open at all. BTW there are gobs of tools for building translators in the open source world – In fact the open source software development process is very “people intensive.” Making the connector open under the Free Software Foundation definition is open.


  8. Carl your definition of open isn’t open at all. It a standard layer yes, but in no way open. By your definition of open anyone offering a web service layer based on SOAP or REST would qualify as an open service. Furthermore CARE is being careless with terms hoping to confuse the market about what open is. Your service is in NO way open at all. BTW there are gobs of tools for building translators in the open source world – In fact the open source software development process is very “people intensive.” Making the connector open under the Free Software Foundation definition is open.


  9. Actually, this isn’t Carl’s definition of ‘open’. Open Standards and Open Systems predate the Open Source Software ‘movement’, and these interpretations have coexisted peacefully for years! I don’t see a conflict at all, and I don’t believe that Carl has ever suggested that the OpenTranslators were themselves open source — although the tools upon which the service is built are indeed OSS — you can download them from my website. :-) OpenTranslators earns the right to the ‘open’ nomer because it supports not just any old SOAP/REST protocol but a range of application-level protocols maintained or supported by NISO and ISO, and widely implemented in the library community.

    Carl and I have both characterized the service as a powerful enabler for OSS projects. Just consider LibraryFind (http://libraryfind.org/), or any of our own OSS tools and gadgets, which can be used in conjunction with OpenTranslators to access a significantly larger set of resources. Today, only a very small number of content providers support standards-based interfaces. Would Open Source translators be better if we had them? Sure, but not nearly as good as Open Standards interfaces to all of the resources we’d like to search! We actively promote and support both, but in the meantime, this product allows us all to access resources that would otherwise have been unreachable without considerable effort.

    PS: For a definition of Open Standards, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard . If you search in the text, you will find several references to Open Source Software and the synergetic relationship between the two (I swear I didn’t edit the WikiPedia article to support my argument!! :-)


  10. Actually, this isn’t Carl’s definition of ‘open’. Open Standards and Open Systems predate the Open Source Software ‘movement’, and these interpretations have coexisted peacefully for years! I don’t see a conflict at all, and I don’t believe that Carl has ever suggested that the OpenTranslators were themselves open source — although the tools upon which the service is built are indeed OSS — you can download them from my website. :-) OpenTranslators earns the right to the ‘open’ nomer because it supports not just any old SOAP/REST protocol but a range of application-level protocols maintained or supported by NISO and ISO, and widely implemented in the library community.

    Carl and I have both characterized the service as a powerful enabler for OSS projects. Just consider LibraryFind (http://libraryfind.org/), or any of our own OSS tools and gadgets, which can be used in conjunction with OpenTranslators to access a significantly larger set of resources. Today, only a very small number of content providers support standards-based interfaces. Would Open Source translators be better if we had them? Sure, but not nearly as good as Open Standards interfaces to all of the resources we’d like to search! We actively promote and support both, but in the meantime, this product allows us all to access resources that would otherwise have been unreachable without considerable effort.

    PS: For a definition of Open Standards, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard . If you search in the text, you will find several references to Open Source Software and the synergetic relationship between the two (I swear I didn’t edit the WikiPedia article to support my argument!! :-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>