Muddiest Point for 11/29
When talking about Library 2.0, Dr. He discussed using a wiki or blog as a library home page as a means to create a more user-centric experience. What are the risks in opening access to your users, and how do you encourage them to participate without losing what I would see as a necessary amount of control over the content to make sure no one posts something completely offensive or inappropriate?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Reading Notes 9
Reading Notes for 11/29
Weblogs
I don't often give it much consideration because I'm used to it being there, but the automatic archiving of blogs and the way they allow you to have your own personal archive is pretty great. In terms of blogging software, I was really pleased at the beginning of the semester with how easy it was to use Blogger, and I'm sure those tools make blogging a more mainstream enterprise. The practical applications of blogs can extend beyond the social information sphere I'm used to utilizing them in into the professional arena as a means of communication between co-workers. Being familiar with different blogging software and available to provide assistance seems like a good way for today's librarians to increase their relevance to patrons.
Using a Wiki
We currently use a system-wide wiki for co-worker communications at my job at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, so I'm familiar with their organizational benefits. Our wiki isn't much to look at, but it's usually really easy to find the specific information you need, and it's handy when you're working in a system with 19 different locations, which obviously eliminates the option of relying on face-to-face interactions. I wonder ow using a blog for the same function would compare.
Folksonomy
That first paragraph describes my life. I have so many things in my "Favorites" list that it's practically un-usable. I need to get on del.icio.us. Including tagging under the auspices of library services as described sounds like a fantastic idea, and offers a way to continue participating in our old gatekeeping role in the new digital era. The development of an agreed-upon ontology, while outside the normal folksonomy definition, would probably be an asset for institutional use.
Wikipedia
Unrelated to Wikipedia, I wish Jimmy Wales would stand still. It's amazing that Wikipedia's content is volunteer-created, but even crazier that the administrative and behind-the-scenes workings are all done one a volunteer basis as well (except for their single employee). I think as a resource Wikipedia is becoming increasingly reliable, and a large part of that is based in their commitment to neutrality, neutrality, neutrality.
Weblogs
I don't often give it much consideration because I'm used to it being there, but the automatic archiving of blogs and the way they allow you to have your own personal archive is pretty great. In terms of blogging software, I was really pleased at the beginning of the semester with how easy it was to use Blogger, and I'm sure those tools make blogging a more mainstream enterprise. The practical applications of blogs can extend beyond the social information sphere I'm used to utilizing them in into the professional arena as a means of communication between co-workers. Being familiar with different blogging software and available to provide assistance seems like a good way for today's librarians to increase their relevance to patrons.
Using a Wiki
We currently use a system-wide wiki for co-worker communications at my job at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, so I'm familiar with their organizational benefits. Our wiki isn't much to look at, but it's usually really easy to find the specific information you need, and it's handy when you're working in a system with 19 different locations, which obviously eliminates the option of relying on face-to-face interactions. I wonder ow using a blog for the same function would compare.
Folksonomy
That first paragraph describes my life. I have so many things in my "Favorites" list that it's practically un-usable. I need to get on del.icio.us. Including tagging under the auspices of library services as described sounds like a fantastic idea, and offers a way to continue participating in our old gatekeeping role in the new digital era. The development of an agreed-upon ontology, while outside the normal folksonomy definition, would probably be an asset for institutional use.
Wikipedia
Unrelated to Wikipedia, I wish Jimmy Wales would stand still. It's amazing that Wikipedia's content is volunteer-created, but even crazier that the administrative and behind-the-scenes workings are all done one a volunteer basis as well (except for their single employee). I think as a resource Wikipedia is becoming increasingly reliable, and a large part of that is based in their commitment to neutrality, neutrality, neutrality.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Reading Notes 8
Reading Notes for 11/15
Digital Libraries
The number and variety of entities with administration over some portion of the scholarly information landscape immediately illustrates why navigation of this landscape is so complicated. I cringe to imagine the ad hoc standards some of those groups have come up with in a pinch. Aggregate, collocate, and federate. I didn't even know what collocate meant (: to set or arrange in a place or position; especially : to set side by side). It's interesting that while the Internet is a completely global infrastructure now, so much of it's innovations still come from the US.
Dewey meets Turing
"[Information] technologies were indeed important to ensure libraries' continued impact on scholarly work." That's an understatement. Again we have the publishers cast as villains inhibiting distributed innovations. We poor librarians have such difficulty letting go of our commitment to well-ordered and defined collections, which it seems the rest of the world (computer scientists included) doesn't really give a crap about as long as they can find whatever they individually need.
Institutional Repositories
The Pitt IR (d-scholarship.pitt.edu) is a DSpace IR, right? As the proportion of scholarship that exists in a born-digital format increases, it seems almost irresponsible for a university to not have an IR. More evidence of how faculty is outpacing institutions at embracing the opportunities technological innovation provides for the construction and dissemination of their scholarship. Build IRs and change your promotion and tenure processes already, will ya?
Digital Libraries
The number and variety of entities with administration over some portion of the scholarly information landscape immediately illustrates why navigation of this landscape is so complicated. I cringe to imagine the ad hoc standards some of those groups have come up with in a pinch. Aggregate, collocate, and federate. I didn't even know what collocate meant (: to set or arrange in a place or position; especially : to set side by side). It's interesting that while the Internet is a completely global infrastructure now, so much of it's innovations still come from the US.
Dewey meets Turing
"[Information] technologies were indeed important to ensure libraries' continued impact on scholarly work." That's an understatement. Again we have the publishers cast as villains inhibiting distributed innovations. We poor librarians have such difficulty letting go of our commitment to well-ordered and defined collections, which it seems the rest of the world (computer scientists included) doesn't really give a crap about as long as they can find whatever they individually need.
Institutional Repositories
The Pitt IR (d-scholarship.pitt.edu) is a DSpace IR, right? As the proportion of scholarship that exists in a born-digital format increases, it seems almost irresponsible for a university to not have an IR. More evidence of how faculty is outpacing institutions at embracing the opportunities technological innovation provides for the construction and dissemination of their scholarship. Build IRs and change your promotion and tenure processes already, will ya?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Muddiest Point 9
Muddiest Point for 11/09
I don't have a muddiest point regarding the lecture this week, but I did wonder when we could expect grades for Assignments #3 and 4?
I don't have a muddiest point regarding the lecture this week, but I did wonder when we could expect grades for Assignments #3 and 4?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Assignment 5
My Koha Shelf
My Koha virtual bookshelf is entitled "The Art of Knitting" and was produced under the username AMP162.
http://upitt01-staff.kwc.kohalibrary.com/cgi-bin/koha/virtualshelves/shelves.pl?viewshelf=126
My Koha virtual bookshelf is entitled "The Art of Knitting" and was produced under the username AMP162.
http://upitt01-staff.kwc.kohalibrary.com/cgi-bin/koha/virtualshelves/shelves.pl?viewshelf=126
Friday, November 5, 2010
Muddiest Point 8
Muddiest Point for 11/01
Jiepu recommended we use tags like paragraph rather than break line because of a greater semantic accuracy, and in the readings on XML it seems that semantic accuracy is something developers strive for when refining markup language systems. However, I noticed that in many examples comparing XML to HTML, that accuracy came with a much greater level of complication. How do the benefits of semantic accuracy outweigh the increases in complexity, and at what point would a higher level of simplicity rather than semantics be preferred?
Jiepu recommended we use tags like paragraph rather than break line because of a greater semantic accuracy, and in the readings on XML it seems that semantic accuracy is something developers strive for when refining markup language systems. However, I noticed that in many examples comparing XML to HTML, that accuracy came with a much greater level of complication. How do the benefits of semantic accuracy outweigh the increases in complexity, and at what point would a higher level of simplicity rather than semantics be preferred?
Reading Notes 7
Reading Notes for 11/08
Intoducing the Extensible Markup Language
It seems that the benefit of XML versus HTML is that it builds a more defined structure within documents to ensure that they're always processed and displayed as intended. It's interesting how everything is built around entities and attributes, much like a database, which is also used to provide information with a specific, human-readable structure. I guess the system is partly designed to make XML tagged info documents easily sorted by a given database without eliminating the ability to view it in its original structure.
A Survey of XML Standards
By adding XML Namespaces with vocabulary markers it seems the language makes it possible for you to embed segments in other markup languages within an XML document. Does this increase the flexibility of the types of documents XML could be applied to? Still not sure that I understand the difference between URIs and URLs or what a parsed or unparsed character is. I also didn't know XML can make it possible to build links with multiple destination points, or two-way hypertext links, but that would be a very desirable utility.
Extending Your Markup
The interoperability between Document Type Definitions and XML Namespaces seems like it would make the use of Namespaces a lot more complicated. This is what they're trying to alleviate with a standard XML Schema, but with all that is being accomplished with further refinement of the XML language, it seems like getting everyone to agree on and adopt the same standards is an issue that is hindering the language from reaching its full potential.
XML Schema Tutorial
The adoption of a specific XML Schema over the use of DTDs will enhance the utility of XML, but will it make XML more adaptable to new technology and document-type developments? It seems that like markup languages before it, it operates on a fairly stringent set of definition limitations, and if it isn't more adaptable then gradually everyone will move on again to the whatever is more currently suited to their needs. What happens when content is created that is outside of the definition of allowable document content?
Intoducing the Extensible Markup Language
It seems that the benefit of XML versus HTML is that it builds a more defined structure within documents to ensure that they're always processed and displayed as intended. It's interesting how everything is built around entities and attributes, much like a database, which is also used to provide information with a specific, human-readable structure. I guess the system is partly designed to make XML tagged info documents easily sorted by a given database without eliminating the ability to view it in its original structure.
A Survey of XML Standards
By adding XML Namespaces with vocabulary markers it seems the language makes it possible for you to embed segments in other markup languages within an XML document. Does this increase the flexibility of the types of documents XML could be applied to? Still not sure that I understand the difference between URIs and URLs or what a parsed or unparsed character is. I also didn't know XML can make it possible to build links with multiple destination points, or two-way hypertext links, but that would be a very desirable utility.
Extending Your Markup
The interoperability between Document Type Definitions and XML Namespaces seems like it would make the use of Namespaces a lot more complicated. This is what they're trying to alleviate with a standard XML Schema, but with all that is being accomplished with further refinement of the XML language, it seems like getting everyone to agree on and adopt the same standards is an issue that is hindering the language from reaching its full potential.
XML Schema Tutorial
The adoption of a specific XML Schema over the use of DTDs will enhance the utility of XML, but will it make XML more adaptable to new technology and document-type developments? It seems that like markup languages before it, it operates on a fairly stringent set of definition limitations, and if it isn't more adaptable then gradually everyone will move on again to the whatever is more currently suited to their needs. What happens when content is created that is outside of the definition of allowable document content?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)