Home
Blog
Overview of all products
SalesData
LibraryData
CataList
Loan Stars
BiblioShare
Webform
EDI
Products for publishers
Products for retailers
Products for libraries
Information for authors
BNC Research
Canadian literary awards
SalesData & LibraryData Research Portal
Events
Tech Forum
Webinars & Training
Code of Conduct
Standards
EDI standards
Product identifiers
Classification schemes
ONIX standards
About
Contact us
Media
Bestseller lists
Newsletters
Podcast
Jobs
SalesData
LibraryData
CataList
BiblioShare
Webform
EDI

BookNet Canada

Home
Blog
Overview of all products
SalesData
LibraryData
CataList
Loan Stars
BiblioShare
Webform
EDI
Products for publishers
Products for retailers
Products for libraries
Information for authors
BNC Research
Canadian literary awards
SalesData & LibraryData Research Portal
Events
Tech Forum
Webinars & Training
Code of Conduct
Standards
EDI standards
Product identifiers
Classification schemes
ONIX standards
About
Contact us
Media
Bestseller lists
Newsletters
Podcast
Jobs
SalesData
LibraryData
CataList
BiblioShare
Webform
EDI
Tom Richardson
July 29, 2020
ONIX, Standards & Metadata

BNC Reblog: What is to be done? Rise of the living data and the reverse simulacra of ONIX

Tom Richardson
July 29, 2020
ONIX, Standards & Metadata

ICYMI: BookNet Canada has set a target deadline of August 28, 2020 for all Canadian data providers to be able to send a full ONIX 3.0 feed. To help the industry accomplish this goal and to support a well-rounded ONIX education, BookNet Canada is highlighting essential resources, hosting informal office hours, and publishing on the BNC blog. We’re posting new content and revisiting some essential posts from years past, including this gem, originally published to the BNC Blog in September 2018.


living+dead.gif

It's serious stuff, metadata and standards, so I can't help but invoke revolutionaries like Lenin and Nikolay Chernyshevsky and cultural icons like George A. Romero and Jean Baudrillard.

To define my terms, starting with "living data": As far as I know, there's a developed consensus that we need metadata that can change and adapt. Business needs change, therefore what's in the metadata, i.e., what describes your business, should change as well. If your business has defined a need to use a standard capable of change, then you've identified a need for "living data."

The reverse simulacra of ONIX is mostly a bad and pretentious pun but references ONIX versions 2.1 and 3.0, which share a likeness or a similarity. Simulacrum is a poor choice of term since neither ONIX version is an imitation of the other but I'm trying to highlight that 3.0 is a development from the concepts and implementation first done in 2.1. Normally, simulacra references degradation through imitation and the loss of clarity that results, but by adding "reverse" I want to convey that ONIX 3.0 is more focused, more capable — dare I say, more capable of describing what's real than its predecessor. So, mostly, it's a bad pun but it allows me an explanation that contains a truth. Some of my recent blog posts have tried to address that truth by looking at specific changes that are genuine improvements.

Tom Richardson, Bibliographic Manager at @BookNet_Canada explains why it's fundamental to to develop your business’s metadata on an ongoing basis.
CLICK TO TWEET

What is to be done, then?

Accept that your business needs change and that in order to adapt to those changes you will have an ongoing need to develop your business's metadata. 

Efficiency in metadata is best defined by following a standard. For senders that means knowing that the data expressed this way will have that result, which is efficient. For recipients it means using and displaying data in a predictable way when it arrives, following your expectations that are defined by the same standard.

For example:

  • Publishers (let's say they're all in the UK) who are using the book subtitle space for promotional copy are responding to the lack of promotional appeal of on-line display;
    and

  • Retailers who are seeing the discoverability of products ruined by indexing ludicrous terms from those subtitles;
    both have the same option:

  • Implement the Promotional Header provided by the ONIX standard to fulfill publishers' legitimate needs while protecting retailer indexing and processing needs. As an added bonus, not mucking around with a data field intended to match the actual book will make librarians a lot happier.

Both publishers and retailers would need to change their current practices. Both would need to live up to their theoretical desire for living data by implementing new practices. The point of my pretentious pun is to use icons and terms from political and cultural theory to emphasize that this is NOT A THEORETICAL POINT. Praxis your data practice is the answer.

How do we know what we should do? It's a big standard.

Use the standards community to implement change systematically. Both sides have to agree to talk. Both sides have to agree to change.

Neither can wait for the other to act. Both have a responsibility to act.

You have to demonstrate an ROI for metadata!

Define any ongoing business need that requires regular updating whose ROI can be defined in terms of a current publishing season or year. Please — add it to the comments. 

Accept that your business needs change and that in order to adapt to those changes you will have an ongoing need to develop your business's metadata.

Efficiency in metadata is best defined by following a standard. For senders that means knowing that the data expressed this way will have that result, which is efficient. For recipients it means using and displaying data in a predictable way when it arrives, following your expectations that are defined by the same standard.

It's not a single implementation; it's an ongoing need and one that blockchain will not help. Poorly implemented metadata securely distributed across multiple platforms will remain bad metadata. Same if the metadata is distributed in an app using JSON. Wait! You could exclude metadata that doesn't meet certain parameters so your app only distributes good metadata but there's another piece of the puzzle.

All metadata, virtually no matter how badly done, is better than no metadata if there are sales to be made. If a buyer has said they can make money and made a buy based on that money, then a retailer will do what it takes to sell the product.

And there squats a sad truth: There's no practical way to enforce good metadata as long as any metadata will be accepted.

But let's unpack that: Any metadata for a product that will sell will be accepted regardless of its quality but that doesn't describe most books.... Maybe the ROI of metadata can be defined for books that don't sell. Maybe there's an unacceptable level of metadata quality for generic and unknown products. 

I'm not denying that there are costs to producing good metadata but you invest in and derive a return from a product, not from its description. Processing efficiency — getting the right data in place for the least cost to maximize the opportunities for sales — is a more sensible way to analyze metadata than the ROI of... well what? 

We can't afford to change. Isn't there an alternative?

mild+shock.gif

Do you accept the need for living data or not? Okay, I can envision that the industry might develop standard interpretations. How might that work?   

Territory statements for sales rights and marketing areas are often poorly presented. It's important because retailers want to take in data from more than one market for a variety of reasons. They may be selling in more than one market, or want to develop the option to, or it may be a way to integrate more information into their records to enhance their ability to sell. Each scenario requires that they load data with an understanding of which market this data represents.

There are still distributors and data suppliers in North America and the UK who provide what I call "local" files. That's data supplied where who sent the data and to whom provides some of the definition of the market areas they serve. The information isn't embedded in the metadata. Any not-the-publisher company using publisher sales rights to represent their rights, or US companies supplying metadata to Canada that states the ISBN is offered for sale only in Canada (when the same ISBN is for sale in other markets) is producing a "local" file.

Data like that has to be interpreted properly — the sender expects the receiver to respect their intent but they're not supporting the receiver's need to integrate that data with other sources. Standard industry interpretations could provide a solution to that by agreeing to processing rules for incomplete files or typical poor practices. We enhance predictability of processing by agreeing on how we will process — i.e., what we will add — to poorly produced metadata. We, as an industry, make side deals. To solve problems where dates appear from other markets, we could propose that wherever publication-date is after on-sale-date that on-sale-date is the date to be understood as publication-date.

We do it already without talking about it. Sticking to Sales and Marketing rights data, I've noted an improvement over the past couple of years in that I see more complete rights statements. However, it's being done using country lists in every segment. For example, if you're selling the book in CA and US you list every other country in the world as "not for sale." Being a nerd, I've sampled these now and then and even at that cursory level of testing I've found out-of-date and redundant coding, missing countries, and contradictory entries. But the industry seems to have reached a consensus that we won't support the simplicity and readability offered in the standard for minimizing code list entries by referencing "WORLD." Instead we use statements only a computer can read — but apparently don't use computers to proof and update the results.

Does it matter? After all, most sales come from an incredibly small subset of countries. It does if we want retailers to interpret the data we provide. It does if you're a company who has identified higher growth coming from atypical foreign sales.

Decisions are being made — we just haven't decided to make them.

I think anyone who spends any amount of time thinking about how this might work will realize that the costs of implementing a well-documented, fully-thought-out standard are less than developing a series of protocols to enable current poor data practices to be sustained by standardizing interpretation of them. Do I need to point out that doing this would still force both sides, sender and receiver, to change their processing to accommodate the standardized interpretation of the practices they want to maintain?

I do think we should talk more about how we interpret data. And part of using the standard well is knowing that presentation X gets results Y. That's not something that happens in isolation. 

The missing link

Communication from end users back to data producers is the missing link. "Good" metadata can't exist in a vacuum — if no one tells a sender about a problem then they assume there is none. Nor should a retailer who displays or uses data poorly be removed from feedback. I don't have a solution — fully documenting problems that prevent a file from loading adds about twice the time it takes to fix and load the file. But feedback, in all directions, is an important part of the solution. Currently metadata is a single direction line and that needs to change. 

Imagine if your incoherent Sales Rights statement was returned by a retailer listing as "interpreted as providing us access to full world sales." And you responded with a correction or updated metadata that you knew would correct the issue. Would that help?

To stay up-to-date on all ONIX 3.0 transition news and information, subscribe to our weekly eNews or nab the RSS feed.

Subscribe

Don’t miss any new blog posts. Sign up for our weekly eNews to receive updates.

You can unsubscribe at any time. We respect your privacy.

Thank you!
Recent posts
Canadian book borrowers in 2024
Canadian book borrowers in 2024

Insights into the behaviour of Canadian book borrowers.

Read More →
Standards goals for 2025: A recap and a conversation about what may be next
Standards goals for 2025: A recap and a conversation about what may be next

Book supply chain standards are changing rapidly, let us help identify which recent updates are relevant to you.

Read More →
May 2025 Loan Stars Junior Canadian top picks
May 2025 Loan Stars Junior Canadian top picks

Find out what titles made it to the May 2025 Loan Stars Junior Canadian list.

Read More →
Canadian book buyers in 2024
Canadian book buyers in 2024

Insights into the behaviour of Canadian book buyers.

Read More →
Common metadata issues and how to fix them: Forgetting to include related products in your metadata
Common metadata issues and how to fix them: Forgetting to include related products in your metadata

Tips on including related products in your metadata.

Read More →
Podcast: Canadian bookmark project
Podcast: Canadian bookmark project

This month we’re talking with Chandler Jolliffe, owner of Cedar Canoe Books in Huntsville.

Read More →
 The Canadian Book Consumer Study 2024 is now available
The Canadian Book Consumer Study 2024 is now available

Get a free copy of the study in PDF or EPUB format today!

Read More →
Subject spotlight: Body, Mind & Spirit
Subject spotlight: Body, Mind & Spirit

Sales and library circulation data of Body, Mind & Spirit titles during the the first quarter of 2025.

Read More →
ONIX Codelist 69 released
ONIX Codelist 69 released

Insights into the latest updates and additions made to ONIX codelists.

Read More →
5 questions with Caitlin Press
5 questions with Caitlin Press

5 questions with Sarah Vasu from Caitlin Press.

Read More →
Using Thema to identify diverse content in product metadata: worked example #15
Using Thema to identify diverse content in product metadata: worked example #15

Featuring River in an Ocean: Essays on Translation edited by Nuzhat Abbas.

Read More →
Subject spotlight: LGBTQ+
Subject spotlight: LGBTQ+

Sales and library circulation data of LGBTQ+ titles during the fourth quarter of 2024.

Read More →

Tagged: onix 3.0

Newer PostICYMI: ONIX Best Practices from EDItEUR
Older PostPodcast: The whys and hows of audiobooks, a conversation with Deyan Audio
Blog RSS

The Canadian Book Market 2024 is the comprehensive guide to the Canadian market with in-depth category data.

Get your copy now

Listen to our latest podcast episode


  • Research & Analysis 446
  • Ebooks 304
  • Tech Forum 266
  • Conferences & Events 261
  • Standards & Metadata 227
  • Bookselling 218
  • Publishing 194
  • ONIX 177
  • Marketing 152
  • Podcasts 117
  • ebookcraft 112
  • BookNet News 99
  • Loan Stars 71
  • Libraries 66
  • BiblioShare 59
  • SalesData 51
  • 5 Questions With 48
  • CataList 42
  • Thema 42
  • Awards 30
  • Diversity & Inclusion 20
  • Publishing & COVID-19 18
  • Sustainability 10
  • LibraryData 9
  • EU Regulations 8
  • ISNI 4

 

 

BookNet Canada is a non-profit organization that develops technology, standards, and education to serve the Canadian book industry. Founded in 2002 to address systemic challenges in the industry, BookNet Canada supports publishing companies, booksellers, wholesalers, distributors, sales agents, industry associations, literary agents, media, and libraries across the country.

 

Privacy Policy | Accessibility Policy | About Us

BOOKNET CANADA

Contact us | (416) 362-5057 or toll free 1 (877) 770-5261

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund (CBF) for this project.

Back to Top

BookNet Canada acknowledges that its operations are remote and our colleagues contribute their work from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, the Anishnawbe, the Haudenosaunee, the Wyandot, the Mi’kmaq, the Ojibwa of Fort William First Nation, the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations (which includes the Ojibwa, the Odawa, and the Potawatomie), and the Métis, the original nations and peoples of the lands we now call Beeton, Brampton, Guelph, Halifax, Thunder Bay, Toronto, Vaughan, and Windsor. We endorse the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (PDF) and support an ongoing shift from gatekeeping to spacemaking in the book industry.