• Print

APIs, New "Transactions" and the Google Book Search Registry

At PersonaNonData, Michael Cairns discusses the Google Book Search registry, and muses whether it might support certain types of transactions through an API:

How the registry may be formed is anyone’s guess, but for sake of argument I envision a pyramidal structure. The identifier segment forms the pointy top layer, bibliographic data the second layer, content the third and the ‘transaction gateway’ the bottom tier. Then again maybe it’s a cube and I should be adding subjects, a retail/library segmentation, and transactional details like rights information. Regardless, it seems to me combining each of these segments into a registry might engender significant opportunities to improve the publishing supply chain. But more than that, the combination I suggest works better for the on-line world than the off which is the failing of the current crop of ISBN databases (including Amazon.com) …

… The most obvious application enabled via the ‘transaction gateway’ would be purchase but a ‘transaction’ can be many things: views, queries, checkin-out, use rights, syndication and may more. An open service architecture would enable development of third party API’s that could result in all
kinds of new applications but existing ones would also benefit as well. Worldcat and Copyright Clearinghouse applications are good examples where users could find the physical content in a
library or attain usage rights from CCC.

tags: , , , , , ,

Comment: APIs, New "Transactions" and the Google Book Search Registry

  1. surely one thing that will go through the heads
    of the people who will run this “registry” will be
    “how can we make it as expensive as possible?”

    that’s so the “registry” can burn through as much
    money as possible, so there is very little left over
    when it comes to handing money over to charity
    or — heaven forbid — lowering product cost,
    in the very same way that the movie companies
    use “creative accounting” so their films _never_
    turn profitable and have to pay “monkey points”.

    so i’m sure they’ll look closely at this bad idea!