http://lostscribe459.blogspot.com/2010/11/week-11-reading-notes.html?showComment=1290116901895#c7215778184269620794
http://bds46.blogspot.com/2010/11/reading-notes-week-11-reposted.html?showComment=1290117056891#c2169880429915727658
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Readings
I had a bit of trouble finding the first reading of the week. I'm not sure why the link provided said Pitt didn't have full text access. Perhaps I'll report that to someone in the collections department....
Anyway, much like other readings we've done this semester, the Web Search Engine reading really shed light on how search engines actually work. We've all been talking about what is wrong with library searching, and how Google is able to do such a good job with searching and providing relevant results, but until this reading, we really haven't covered why Google is able to do such a good job, and fully realize the amount of work that goes into indexing websites. I can't say that I fully understand all that goes into making a search engine work, but this two part article made me realize that it really is a complex system.
The second article Current developments and future trends for the OAI protocol for metadata harvesting, went back to the earlier themes of the class: how the library can work together with computer scientists to create a better way of searching and indexing. The OAI community is trying to make things easier, but because of the way metadata works, is running into troubles. One of the biggest troubles is, again, the difficulty in creating a standard vocabulary for inputting that metadata. Another problem that they are facing is that the task is just too big for one group, a relatively scattered group at that. It seems like they want to be an almost "informal" group, but in doing so, they are really crushing their chance to even begin to make a dent in the problems they face.
The first thing I thought of while reading “The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value," was the idea that the more a journal article is cited, the more reputable it becomes. This article is almost saying the opposite, if I'm understanding it correctly. (I know they are talking about websites, rather than scholarly articles, but bear with my metaphor.) Web crawlers such as Google, find websites to index based on how many times that site is linked with another site. So, the more a site is linked and clicked on, the more likely it will get indexed by a search engine, and the higher it will be on a result list. The article seems to be saying that it is sometimes the more important sites that get skipped, and un-indexed. That is an interesting thought. It makes you think, that perhaps Google is doing more harm to the internet than good.
Anyway, much like other readings we've done this semester, the Web Search Engine reading really shed light on how search engines actually work. We've all been talking about what is wrong with library searching, and how Google is able to do such a good job with searching and providing relevant results, but until this reading, we really haven't covered why Google is able to do such a good job, and fully realize the amount of work that goes into indexing websites. I can't say that I fully understand all that goes into making a search engine work, but this two part article made me realize that it really is a complex system.
The second article Current developments and future trends for the OAI protocol for metadata harvesting, went back to the earlier themes of the class: how the library can work together with computer scientists to create a better way of searching and indexing. The OAI community is trying to make things easier, but because of the way metadata works, is running into troubles. One of the biggest troubles is, again, the difficulty in creating a standard vocabulary for inputting that metadata. Another problem that they are facing is that the task is just too big for one group, a relatively scattered group at that. It seems like they want to be an almost "informal" group, but in doing so, they are really crushing their chance to even begin to make a dent in the problems they face.
The first thing I thought of while reading “The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value," was the idea that the more a journal article is cited, the more reputable it becomes. This article is almost saying the opposite, if I'm understanding it correctly. (I know they are talking about websites, rather than scholarly articles, but bear with my metaphor.) Web crawlers such as Google, find websites to index based on how many times that site is linked with another site. So, the more a site is linked and clicked on, the more likely it will get indexed by a search engine, and the higher it will be on a result list. The article seems to be saying that it is sometimes the more important sites that get skipped, and un-indexed. That is an interesting thought. It makes you think, that perhaps Google is doing more harm to the internet than good.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Muddiest point
As I said in an earlier post, I was worried about XML. I actually think the lectures and reading really helped to alleviate that fear! No muddy point after all!
Comments
http://marclis2600.blogspot.com/2010/11/readings_10.html?showComment=1289768668550#c6478091807552569764
http://lostscribe459.blogspot.com/2010/11/week-10-reading-assignments.html?showComment=1289768907783#c4451493092676032128
http://lostscribe459.blogspot.com/2010/11/week-10-reading-assignments.html?showComment=1289768907783#c4451493092676032128
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Readings
This week's readings were interesting, because they went against some of the stereotypical thoughts about librarians. They showed that librarians acknowledge the need for change, and that they were and are willing to adapt to the new online informational world.
The first two articles describe how librarians came to understand the future of online information. These were two really great articles about the history of libraries moving into the digital age. I had no idea that there was a great national push by librarians and computer scientists alike to move information into digital formats. I always assumed, that like many of the ideas and reforms that libraries come up with, they were just following the trends of the times, and working hard to keep up. The second article, "Dewey Meets Turing: Librarians, Computer Scientists, and the Digital Libraries Initiative" did have a really great quote though, about the conflicting nature of computer science people and librarians:
Some librarians had expected DLI money to flow into collection building. Instead, they perceive, computer
scientists have hijacked the money and created an environment whose connection to librarianship is unclear. Some felt that their fast moving computing enthusiast partners too thoughtlessly dismissed important functions, like collection development, as quaint.
The impatient among computer scientists in turn could not understand why librarians are so annoyingly deliberate about metadata, spending years arguing about structures that the computer scientists felt would be replaceable by just another clever search algorithm improvement. Most of all, some computer scientists couldn't understand why librarians couldn't be, well, normal computer scientists.
This quote shows why much work is still needed to be done before libraries and technology can truly live together peacefully. Librarians want money for collection development, computer scientists want librarians to understand the importance of digital collections.
The third article was promising in the sense that it was written for the Association of Research Libraries, and acknowledged the need for digitized information. The author stresses the need for both librarian and computer scientist input into library resources. The author also mentions that Universities as a whole must support these kinds of programs, otherwise they will be a waste of time, money, and information.
The first two articles describe how librarians came to understand the future of online information. These were two really great articles about the history of libraries moving into the digital age. I had no idea that there was a great national push by librarians and computer scientists alike to move information into digital formats. I always assumed, that like many of the ideas and reforms that libraries come up with, they were just following the trends of the times, and working hard to keep up. The second article, "Dewey Meets Turing: Librarians, Computer Scientists, and the Digital Libraries Initiative" did have a really great quote though, about the conflicting nature of computer science people and librarians:
Some librarians had expected DLI money to flow into collection building. Instead, they perceive, computer
scientists have hijacked the money and created an environment whose connection to librarianship is unclear. Some felt that their fast moving computing enthusiast partners too thoughtlessly dismissed important functions, like collection development, as quaint.
The impatient among computer scientists in turn could not understand why librarians are so annoyingly deliberate about metadata, spending years arguing about structures that the computer scientists felt would be replaceable by just another clever search algorithm improvement. Most of all, some computer scientists couldn't understand why librarians couldn't be, well, normal computer scientists.
This quote shows why much work is still needed to be done before libraries and technology can truly live together peacefully. Librarians want money for collection development, computer scientists want librarians to understand the importance of digital collections.
The third article was promising in the sense that it was written for the Association of Research Libraries, and acknowledged the need for digitized information. The author stresses the need for both librarian and computer scientist input into library resources. The author also mentions that Universities as a whole must support these kinds of programs, otherwise they will be a waste of time, money, and information.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Koha Assignment
My BookShelf
http://upitt01-staff.kwc.kohalibrary.com/cgi-bin/koha/virtualshelves/shelves.pl?viewshelf=99
Username: MARCROSS
List Name: Star Wars
http://upitt01-staff.kwc.kohalibrary.com/cgi-bin/koha/virtualshelves/shelves.pl?viewshelf=99
Username: MARCROSS
List Name: Star Wars
Readings
This will be another quick post, not because of the ease of understanding, but the opposite. For some reason, I can't seem to grasp what makes XML so great, and more importantly, easy. The articles mention that XML was created to make things easier, but I just don't see it. The third reading for this week, "Extending your Markup: a XML tutorial by Andre Bergholz" tried its best to explain XML, and it was probably the best written article I've read about XML, but it still seems like it adds steps to your work, rather than streamlining it. And, just as last weeks reading, the W3School's website was very informative, except this time I didn't really come away with more understanding.
I have a feeling that I'll have to watch next weeks lecture a few times to really get the hang of things....
I have a feeling that I'll have to watch next weeks lecture a few times to really get the hang of things....
Muddiest points
No muddy points this week. Will probably change next week with our discussion on XML. Not looking forward to that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)