Transcript: Passing the torch: A conversation about standards
Go back to the main session page.
Tim Middleton: Hello, everybody. And welcome to this year’s Tech Forum presentation. It’s on standards, but we’re doing things a little differently this year. We’re just having a conversation. Before we get started, I’d like to make the land acknowledgement.
BookNet Canada acknowledges that its operations are remote and our colleagues contribute their work from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabe, 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, the Métis, as well as the unceded and ancestral territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, or Tsleil-Waututh peoples, the original nations and peoples of the lands we now call Beeton, Guelph, Halifax, Thunder Bay, Toronto, Vancouver, Vaughan, and Windsor. We endorse the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and support an ongoing shift from gatekeeping to space-making in the book industry.
Hello, everyone. And welcome. I’m Tim Middleton. And I’m honoured to be stepping into the role of bibliographic manager. It’s a big step for me, a small step for BookNet, but a big step for me. And today, I have the privilege of sitting down with Tom Richardson. As many of you know, he’s been the bibliographic manager for the past 15 years and is moving on to new adventures.
Tom, thank you so much for taking the time to do this with me today and helping me to navigate this change. We’ve decided that we will break this down. Tom’s going to do most of the talking. We’re going to drill into Tom’s experience, his past years as a bibliographic manager, things that he has to teach me, things to give me a heads up about, and questions of that nature.
Tom Richardson: Thank you. I’m going to do nothing but say things I’ve said before.
Tim: Well, okay. Let’s start with the big picture first, Tom. You’ve been doing this for 17 plus years, even longer if we consider your time at Firefly, which is, I think, where you developed your love for bibliographic…
Tom: You’re forgetting about University of Toronto Press, actually.
Tim: I am. Thank you for reminding me. So, you’ve seen a lot of change. We can admit that. I’ve seen a lot of change. Both you and I, we have gray hair or no hair or we are…I’ve been in the industry.
Tom: Speak for yourself.
Tim: Yes. So, I guess my first question, Tom…and this segment, we’re calling Big Lessons Learned. So, what are some of the biggest lessons you’ve learned over your time? And, you know, I know you can be generous. So, be generous.
Tom: I don’t know how to better express it. But a lot of this job is just working against the non-virtuous feedback loops that exist. I mean, that’s a retailer that wants their metadata to not match EDItEUR specifications or a major client who kind of inexplicably refuses to support block 6’s marketing territory. We have zero, zero control of what companies do, especially retailers who, to their credit, have to accept a lot of data that isn’t done well and make do with it. But the retailer’s fault might be said to be not paying enough attention to the standards. And that’s kind of a generalization that isn’t very fair to a lot of retailers. But maybe it makes more sense if you just think of it as the greater the volume of sales, then there’s a tendency to not rely on standards. And that applies to any business. I’m not going to name the publisher I’m thinking of when I say that, but maybe more strongly it’s seen in the retailers because they concentrate so much more.
And just to be fair to our trading partners, I’d include BiblioShare’s processing decision to not create improved metadata in our records as a similar problem. I mean, that would be where we don’t correct the incoming ONIX based on what we had to assume in order to load and process it. Our logic is that companies should pay for that kind of improvement, but we’re just serving data to clients who have to process the same incomplete or incoherent data that we’ve gotten. And I think it’d be a better practice if we made the assumptions we have to follow explicit by inserting them into the data.
The big picture, though, here is that there isn’t a right or wrong. And it’s not about whose fault in any way. Standards are a tool that everyone applies within the limits of, well, a whole lot of things that may include what may be a crotchety refuse to improve. It’s a choice, again, to focus on us rather than call out others. BookNet has reasons outside of what’s a best practice to make its decisions on. And we have to give the same benefit of fudge to everyone else. That makes standards work and end the series of nudges with a focus on trying to get retailers to commit to something because the only goal that we actually have is to be able to say to data centres that it matters to their major trading partners.
But the best tool, the best tool we have are best practice documentation, which are of necessity and maybe by definition have to focus on the proper use of well-defined standards that have been agreed to by a marketer that’s called a supply chain. I hope we’ll get to talk about the upcoming release of the North American update in a little bit.
But I think there is… The other big lesson is how lucky and exceptional it is for book publishing to have EDItEUR organising a book metadata for us, as well as subject standards. No shade to BISAC, but its design to not need documentation works fairly well for it. But EDItEUR’s documentation is very clear, organised, and carries a comprehensive authority that you seldom find. More importantly, it keeps getting better with more access points at the regular editions of new application notes that support the existing best practices and their regular additions to that best practice documentation.
But going back to the first lesson, a lot of companies leave the metadata implementation to their IT department rather than in the hands of a project manager mandated to communicate the company’s business needs. And an IT department may have implemented the earlier version of ONIX without appreciating the new data structures that make the new version work, or that might be a better explanation than blaming it on crotchety refusal to change. But here, the lesson I’m trying to highlight is most of the nudges that I’m suggesting are just taking verbatim from EDItEUR and often consist of just reading the notes called from a code list.
Tim: That’s very insightful. And I can only endorse that recommendation as well to spend time with the EDItEUR documentation. You know, some jargon came up in there that you and I are very familiar with. Certainly, BiblioShare. So, as you were talking, and I was sort of shaking my head, yes, yes, we do not necessarily always abide by the best practices ourselves in some of our practices at BookNet. And, you know, in my role that I am transitioning out of, I was in that place of you refer to retailers in particularly just having to get the data that they need and not caring about the standards. So, I think I’ve been in that situation many times at BookNet, where we’re just trying to get the data over to some other client. And we do it as best we can. And sometimes we go outside of some of the best practice documentations.
So, I do find that a really interesting distinction between what I used to do and what I’m starting to do now, where I have to pay more attention to, for instance, the EDItEUR documentation, the code list, and really familiarising myself. I give you total props for all these years. Tom and I used to sit beside one another back when we had an office. And I leaned on Tom quite a bit for insight into some of the more standard ways of approaching the standards. So, thanks for bringing up that sort of difficult area, Tom. And, I mean, we certainly have a lot of sympathy for the retailers or the big publishers out there who want to do things a little differently or have to do things a little differently, but we continue to try to abide by the best practices.
Tom: Well, I wanted to blame BiblioShare in part because it was a project we shared. But I mean, it’s probably worth just mentioning that our colleagues at CataList are religiously trying to actually implement their cataloging project using only the best ONIX practices.
Tim: I agree. I think that’s the beauty of BookNet in a way is that we do have this sort of built-in experience of ingesting the data, having to get the data, and then also making that data visible in products that we’ve built, and platforms. And then, so, that’s a sort of virtuous cycle where we can improve the data. Even though, to your point, we ingest whatever we can ingest, but where we’ve found, I think you and I have found the improvement can come a lot more when you make…you put people’s data in front of them and you say, oh, this is what it looks like on the internet. So, are you happy with that?
Tom: I’m all for it, like CataList only getting to have what the people send. I’m just saying that we probably should. I mean, it would have been…it would be a better choice if we provided the clients we had the data that implemented ONIX as it should be, not how they sent it, how we got it.
Tim: And things are shifting at BookNet as well. With our approach in that way, it is a long and arduous path. But we’re on it. I think we should cut over to part two, or advice from the incoming manager. So, this is Tom giving me advice. So, we’re going to build on some of those lessons. But then what specific advice do you have for me as I’m stepping into this role? What should I expect? I have expectations, but I’m not sure they’re realistic, or if they’re even in line with the standards world. But I’m curious to hear what you think I should expect, Tom.
Tom: I don’t think it’s anything that you haven’t already dealt with. But I mean, you should expect to work with nice people who show a lot of courtesy, but don’t have a lot of time to devote to metadata. I mean, the truth is that it’s like…it’s never the first task on anybody’s list. And it’s much more likely that these…a high percentage of the people are the seventh in a five-year line of junior employees, including interns who have literally had ONIX dumped on them without any instruction or documentation, and at best are sifting through recipe cards trying to figure out how to put out a book record. You know, they don’t necessarily even know the specification or documentation exists. Anyway, you get to work with a lot of bright sparks who are seeking truth amongst the industry’s contradicting needs without the time or possibility of handling whatever truth is, I guess.
But in a lot of ways, I think the more important side of it is the committee work that you get to participate in, because that’s really where you find out what people need to know. And you sort of then become the conduit. We’re bizarrely lucky to be working beside the United States. And it feels odd to say that. But I mean, it is true that BISG, though, is a remarkably well-organised group of book publishing people. And its committees are really kind of a massively important resource that we get to have and then communicate to the Canadian industry about. So, what committees are you in?
Tim: That’s true. I have picked up a lot of meetings, having to attend committees, and I totally agree with you. First of all, I…you know, a couple of things. I’ll just go back to what you said about the companies who have junior people working on their ONIX data when it should be somebody in a more senior position who has much broader experience and is connected to all the pieces in the supply chain, like understands how they all connect through the metadata.
I didn’t always have that perspective. And I will say, that sitting on these committees, I am being exposed to people like that, those more senior people who have made a career of trying to understand the standards, trying to understand metadata, trying to promote best practices and get them adopted. So, yeah. Those committees I’m on currently, workflow committees, metadata committees, accessibility committee. There’s also in the UK, I’ve found, of course, with EDItEUR, with ONIX and Thema, and their committees are also very, very good for connecting me to what is really relevant, what is really going on in standards. And, you know, these are people that are connected to all kinds of different standards. So, yeah, I’ve signed up for a lot of committees.
Tom: I mean, the big one for us, I guess, is the metadata committee, because that’s the one that EDItEUR, you know, Graham or Chris, pretty much are always there for. So, you actually hear… I mean, ONIX becomes very easy to follow because of the metadata committee. I mean, basically, Graham talks about it once a month to you about what they’re doing, what changes they’re implementing and why they’re changing it. So, you’re always kept up to date. And in terms of that, then it’s just a matter of trying to remember some of it. Although the documentation actually records all this stuff anyway. So, you don’t necessarily have to remember directly. But anyway, that’s neat. But where was I going with this?
Tim: Let me just…I’ll just interject and then maybe your thought will come back. You mentioned memory. And, yes, I sit on those committees. A lot of information is going past. I’m trying to take as many notes as I can. I’m also trying to figure out, oh, how…what’s important to the Canadian supply chain, because that’s where we sit.
Tom: In some ways, it’s not a bad thing to take refuge in that and realise that in terms of commenting to U.S.-based committees that…I mean, you’re there to speak for the Canadian industries, one way it happens. That said, you’re right that there are a lot of dedicated people, actually very senior people, but they tend to have a very focused viewpoint. And, really, it’s just…the people who represent the standards in general tend to come from BISG staff, and there are two, I guess three now, but I mean functionally two, and Brian’s leaving. And that’s a real loss, Brian moving on from BISG. I’m sure the next person that they’re going to have will be equally good, but I’m just saying that there’s going to be a loss there.
But, you know, there’s a very limited number of BISG employees. It’s a very lean organization in comparison to BookNet. But you get to have a broader perspective than most of the people you’re talking to, or you can over time develop a broader perspective. And it’s worth trying to cultivate your interest. It doesn’t have to be ONIX. I mean, maybe you just love Thema. I mean, no harm in spending more of your time on Thema than something else. But taking on a broader perspective is something that you can also bring to these committees, as well as a strictly Canadian one. Because you’re representing the standards to Canada anyway. So, you’re going to need to have a broad experience, a broad perspective for that. So, trying to take it on when you’re talking to the U.S. committees isn’t a bad thing.
And other BookNet staff are attending on these things and often can be relied on to be doing this. I mean, I think Stephanie’s still on the metadata committee, and she’s proven to be really excellent in terms of the best practice documentation and things. So, you’re lucky to have her.
Tim: I’m glad you brought that up because I did want to mention and talk about the staff at BookNet. We have a number of people who are nerdy and interested in standards. And even beyond interest, they are questioning and providing insight into better ways maybe of communicating those standards. So, I totally feel I have my…like BookNet has my back in this role. I, at times, really have a sense that I have no clue what I’m doing here.
Tom: Well, I always liked the workflow committee. And I never contributed to it because, basically, it’s a digitally oriented committee. I mean, I know a bit about ebooks. I mean, I know actually quite a lot about ebooks, but not in any functional way, like they…not at the level that they do or that does. But the workflow committee was always the most interesting one to me because workflow is central to everything in a kind of curious way. And digital is what’s…everything’s digital now. So, it’s not…it doesn’t affect everything.
But all I’m saying is that I really enjoyed that committee in part because I had felt I had nothing to contribute to it, and could just relax and enjoy it. And that’s not a bad way to look at the things. I mean, try to find what you can take from it. And you don’t necessarily have to feel…frankly, there’s not a Canadian perspective on digital work. And we were lucky until recently that…such a horrible memory for names. But Monique from BookNet is one of the people that we lost who contributed, but also there was a Canadian from Kobo, who has been a stalwart to the industry who… It’s embarrassing. I can’t remember her name. It’ll come to me in two minutes or whatever. There are Canadians outside of BookNet who are contributing to these committees. It’s not like the Canadian perspective is…relies on us.
Tim: What is your view on how approachable these international groups are for Canadian perspectives? Do they tend to listen?
Tom: Well, Brian, in terms of…and traditionally, BISG has been very supportive of wanting to include a Canadian perspective. And that’s why one of the reasons why Brian leaving BISG would be seen as a loss to us because he’s…the leadership could affect that sort of thing. And there’s no reason to think that BISG will shift that perspective in any way. But Brian’s been exceptionally easy to work with and exceptionally receptive to us. He basically worked more closely with Lauren than he does with us. But when you need something from Brian, you can basically rely on being able to get an answer from him, which is great. And meaning you can always rely on getting an answer from EDItEUR, which is also fabulous. But, you know, EDItEUR will answer anyone’s question, really.
Tim: I think Brian is about the third director of BISG since my time with BookNet. Michael Healy before him, Len, and then Brian. But before that, Brian did work closely with some associations in Canada, doing a lot of research. My first time meeting Brian was just shortly after I started at BookNet. And we commissioned a study for print on demand to show the value, the opportunities of shifting to print on demand. And that just seems like so long ago now. So, I totally sympathise with Brian for needing his retirement time.
Tom: Well, one of the first instructions that Noah provided me way back in the day — speaking of memories — was Canadian metadata needs to be compatible with U.S. needs. I mean, our businesses needed that to ensure access to that market. And books are, or should be, immune from the whatever…whatever you want to call it. The thing that…the problems that currently exist that shall not be named, that’s maybe the best way to think of it. And I guess, probably Noah would say now if he was available to us, that we need to be more compatible with international needs and maybe more relying on EDItEUR than the U.S. industry.
But it’s also true, though, to say, in our experience, that the U.S. is also showing more willingness to internationalise, and that that’s to our goods. So, I think that the need to internationalise metadata is basically within everybody’s scope now, including the U.S., who has always been…well, traditionally has been reluctant to do so. And certainly, Brian brought that to BISG, just to circle back into what he did.
Tim: Yeah. I certainly miss Noah and his insight into the needs of the supply chain. But that’s a really good point. And, yeah, it does support my experience as well from the sidelines of…even the shift, or not a shift, but a focus on Thema versus BISAC. That a huge, huge international play. So, our traditional reliance on BISAC in North America. So, yeah. That’s really cool to see, I will say, especially — I don’t want to say — at this very fraught time in our relationships with foreign powers. But it’s nice to…
Tom: I think the book industry is the least… I don’t think the U.S. industry is…participates much within that problem, and basically still sees… Books need the compatibility. Books need international. Makes no sense at all to publish a book in a separate company if you can sell the book that you’re using from your… Why spend the extra money? Why make the extra costs?
Tim: Would you say that is why some of the things that are being introduced into ONIX seem to be focused on market, territory, things of that nature? Is there more focus on that now because of the U.S. willingness also to look at international participation?
Tom: I can only hope. The biggest frustration that I had — and I pass it to you so you can be frustrated — was the indomitable refusal by the U.S. industry to see the…to even simply recognise that they are a market and need to specify themselves within the metadata standard as being a market, instead of basically just wanting to own the record.
It’s a normal event within the Canadian industry’s relationship with the U.S. to be told by some U.S. supplier, say, of the…a competitor to CataList that the proper place to put the U.S. publication date is the global publication date, because that’s the only publication date they’ll accept. It makes no sense if you’re selling a Canadian book into the U.S. market and releasing the book after the Canadian publication date to use the global publication date, because the global publication date is the Canadian publication date. That’s what it’s there for. But the U.S. industry has never been willing to accept anything other than owning the record.
I don’t know. I would only say that I’ve seen vestiges of a beginning of a willingness to admit that maybe block 6, the modular inclusion that could be simply moved from market to market to market, and allowed to be owned by a market. And by the way, you can run a block 6 from a freaking spreadsheet if you wanted to, and that’s what everybody really wants to do, is run their metadata from a spreadsheet.
Tim: Yeah.
Tom: I don’t know. You could get me going for 20 minutes on this. So, I’m just shutting up now.
Tim: Yeah, because we should probably keep moving. And you did make a nice segue into this third part here which we want to talk about the vital issues facing the Canadian supply chain. So, let’s talk about the current landscape. We’ve sort of been talking around it, a little bit of history. But from your perspective, always from your perspective, what are the vital issues facing bibliographic standards in the Canadian book supply chain right now?
Tom: Yeah. It doesn’t really change. It’s always all about the implementation of ONIX 3, and the Thema subject standard should be a focus. But I think that really means full implementation, where there are retailers and third parties wanting to get more information from book metadata. And maybe that’s partly AI-driven. And as much as I hate AI, and being at a part of my career where I can just say that as a thing. But at least AI can make use of better book metadata, and it can make use of subtle metadata.
Anyway, AI seems to be a gold mine, a place where properly implemented with authority and published metadata should be a source for the AI that we seemingly want to begin to use. And that seems to me to be what…something that’s missing. Publishing has to be seen as something more than just a correlation of the parts…as the various parts of everything everywhere. Publishing something has to be seen as a unit. And metadata, its description, also has to be seen as a descriptive unit carrying usable meaning.
I think that somewhat made sense. Anyway, a book should be published as it’s a meaningful whole. Its description should be treated as the same. But that’s part of the bigger issue of where once metadata should be tracked, and its purposes are just expanding. We’re getting past thinking that focusing on keywords is what’s going to drive sales. There’s a need to support more complexity in business metadata. That might be considered something like more regional coding because regional coding does actually sell books, or it may be communicating business needs outside of just describing the book as a product. Okay.
The European forest industry is just another example where complex metadata as part of a solution was driving…being driven by some sort of perceived business need. And we seem to have dodged that bullet, just like we did FSC a decade or 15 years ago. Or maybe it’s just postponed. Nobody should think it’s going away. Nobody shouldn’t be thinking about it like it’s being a need in future.
But there are increasing number of things where tracking business complexity needs support. Sustainability and the work by our sister group, the Green Book Alliance and the things that it is doing will need metadata support if you’re going to avoid the appearance of greenwashing. Trading information about your business practices is needed. Participating in the broader supply chain needs data that supports complexity, which means going past just niche marketing geared to finding interest groups, but embracing big data sets and international sales.
And that just needs complex supports because international groups are just different markets, and maybe you wanna use a modular… Wait a minute. I’m just going back to my rant. I’m gonna stop here.
Tim: Oh, we’re gonna miss it.
Tom: Complex support needs modular support. Who knew that? Anyway, I think a lot of good book marketing remain finding niche audiences because of a lot of book service niches. Even if audience are convinced everyone cares, but we also need to support everything. And everything is complicated. And it’s possible to do if… ONIX supports it and Thema supports it. BISAC doesn’t support it as well. That’s just a fact. I think it’s an intrinsic fact to me. And it’s not a complaint about BISAC, but it’s based on specific market. I don’t see another way to interpret BISAC than that.
Anyway, that growing need for complexity is why I think it’s a great time for me to end a career because I can’t deal with it anymore. So, good luck to you. Thanks for taking on the fish.
Tim: Maybe. Well, I will say, it is complex. It’s definitely taking me a bit of time to wrap my head around it. Thankfully, I’m not as adverse to the help of AI as you are. In fact, I have probably leaned on AI in the way that I used to lean on you to ask certain questions. I do find that, of course, you need to know the stuff already, but AI can help you think differently about the problem that you’re approaching.
Tom: Actually, I’ve been using AI more that way myself. And something that we find often you, you can find eight problems because when the AI answer includes a mistake, it’s really hard. You can see why it’s propagating amongst your constituents.
Tim: That’s right. Yeah. Yeah. But I thank you for sharing your views on that and the complexity of it. I’m glad I’m not just an idiot and that I’m finding it difficult.
Tom: You need to be completely prepared to tell something and then for you to realise a year later that you’re just wrong. That will happen to you, and it… Just don’t be embarrassed by it. Just start giving the proper advice and pretend that the standards changed or just hope that they don’t notice.
Tim: Good advice. Thank you. Okay. So, we’re coming up to the end of this. We have one area to cover, Tom. Thank you so much for this time. So, we’re going to focus a bit on the highlights from the past year, if you remember anything. I know, at our age, we start to forget things.
Tom: Short term is really going fast.
Tim: Short term is going fast. So, let’s talk about the past year before we forget it. Specifically, what were the big highlights regarding standards for book data? What should I know about what’s happened recently? It’s sort of similar, I guess, but it’s more immediate. What has just happened?
Tom: Well, it’s easy to answer. There is only one really meaningful recent thing. The about-to-be-released best practices for North American metadata, which at its core is a market-specific argument to support metadata that can be traded and meaningfully interpreted. And given ONIX is our agreed-to standard for metadata, that means ONIX, as it’s written, is the core of it. But as a best practice document, this one, like its 2015 predecessor, is written to support the metadata concepts and reference the corresponding ONIX and other non-text marketing needs like covers and so on as sort of not its focus.
Anyway, this is something you only see once a decade, more and more actually. And we owe a gigantic thanks to the U.S. book publishing industry and BISG for not letting this one slip, and especially to Pat Payton at Clarivate [inaudible 00:39:48] but Clarivate for doggedly devoting more time than any employed human ever should have. But BookNet staff and the Canadian publishers have made substantial contributions to this document.
And one of the frustrating things about best practices are other practices aren’t necessarily wrong. But if you want change to be made to the broader supply chain, that it supports complexity, then the basics really need to match best practices so that you can deal with the complexity. So, this document is trying to give you that as a reference and understanding that a best practice document works at two levels.
First, it’s a challenge to big players for something they can meet and match. And that’s where these things shine. But they also help small and medium-sized players — when you talk about in comparison to U.S., that’s pretty much our industry — by giving them something to access as an instruction set for what to support that should work most of the time. So, yeah. You just really want to promote that when it comes, which I believe should be by June.
Tim: Yeah. I believe that is the date. I sort of came into the end of that process. Stephanie, as you know, is really good, Stephanie Small at BookNet. Great editorial. I am very, very helpful. And, yeah, I was seeing the comments. So, I was seeing a bit from the Canadian side of things, and then listening to those conversations in those committees where they were bringing it to market. And I was just really impressed.
And to your point about Pat, and a lot of the people who work on the committees for BISG, like their volunteers, they are not being paid necessarily for that amount of work that they’re putting in. But it must mean, to me…my takeaway from this, and probably the biggest takeaway for anybody who cares about this, is discoverability, making money. That’s why everybody cares so much about the metadata and is starting to care more as they start to realise, oh, they do go hand in hand. You know, metadata lends itself to discoverability. Well, you need to know how to do that metadata. It’s great. It’s great. [crosstalk 00:42:50] best practice.
Tom: I think you’ve got the nub, and I can leave the bibliographic management position in your hands, knowing that at least the nub is getting rubbed.
Tim: Thank you. Yes, I will keep doing that, even though it sounds wrong. Okay. Well, I think that’s all the time we have, Tom. I really do appreciate it. If you have any final words, I just want to, again… You talk about… Last year, in my BiblioShare presentation, I did allude to the big gap that I’m seeing at BookNet with your retirement, just in the amount of effort and work that you have put into this over the years.
Tom: And I would like to counter that by saying that I have every confidence that my absence already is…which is already quite large, is seamlessly absorbed, and nobody really notices, nobody cares. And I really, really appreciate that. Thank you.
Tim: And on that note, thank you. And thank you all. Thank you for joining us for this year’s standards conversation. I’m sure we’ll have Tom back again.