Tag--You're It!

WOW! What can I say? I've learned tag, tag, and tag in these articles. It was excited to learn about tag and tag. Well, all tagging aside, the two articles for this week’s readings were quite interesting and addressed some semantic web and social tagging information.

Ying Ding, wrote A Review of Ontologies with the Semantic Web in View. This article basically covered definitions of ontology, kinds of ontology, ontology tools, ontology language and some important ontology projects. According to Ding, “Ontology is a term used to denote the shared understanding of some domains of interest, often conceived as a set of classes (concepts), relations, functions, axioms and instances.”

Knowing this basic statement helps translate a higher learning for social bookmarking and social interests. Using ontologies on the web can help breed a better understanding for social issues that are digitalized and help develop a common language for those users of the digitalized media.

Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems by Scott A. Golder and Bernardo A. Huberman is takes a closer look at collaborative tagging on del.icio.us. Golder and Huberman completed a study on user activity, tag frequencies, tags used, and bursts of popularity in social bookmarking on del.icio.us and found regularities in those items and how users used the site.

Both of these articles got me to think about the social implications of using social bookmarking and ontologies. No longer does a librarian or a cataloger need to tag or code items. Using common terms by people (like us); we are better able to use and identify with the resource because it is in our own language. Natural language.

In my opinion, knowing that others out there will be using and searching for my tags only fuels my desire to tag more items so the person who enjoys the same things I do, can finally be able to without a long search string or multiple clicks. It’s a great thing that social bookmarking is making an insurgence. Not only because people are finding what they are looking for, but they are able to connect on a subliminal way that can only bring our digital society closer.

Meta-whata?

Metadata = data about data.

It seems that everyone is jumping on the metadata bandwagon. Libraries, individuals, publishers, and others are using metadata as a source of publicity. By using current and industry-driven metadata libraries are able to propel their collection into the arms of anyone with an Internet connection because they have the right metadata.

In two articles over metadata the importance of metadata still stands and through the advancement of schema and searchability, more items can now be accessible.

The first article Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes by Jane Greenberg analyzed current schemas with the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domain, and Architectural Layout) framework. MODAL helps relay the value of schema framework.

This article concluded defining specifically a metadata scheme can prove to be a greater challenge and the MODAL framework is the best way to study the complexity of metadata scheme. The MODAL framework is also a useful aid in metadata scheme design because it focuses on the features that are specific to metadata.

Through further study it would prove that the best way to handle such a complex topic is through frameworks such as the MODAL framework and divide, categorize, and analyze the topics pertinence.

Alan Dawson and Val Hamilton wrote Optimising Metadata to Make High-Value Content More Accessible to Google Users. This article was very interesting in the respect that libraries are now more than every willing to step out on the limb to make their content and collection known. Dawson and Hamilton concluded that now publishers are indexing their content to help meet the standards for users of the search engine Google. By changing their procedures to increase access to their content is evidence of the “On Demand” society.

Dawson and Hamilton also concluded that libraries and other institutions can follow those steps to help with accessibility. By adding additional tags or changing the metadata schema millions of users could have access to the particular institution’s information without ever visiting their website and have Google.com as the middle man.

Both of the articles still bring up the constant worry of lack of standardization amongst libraries and other institutions. Different schemes are created and others are thrown to the curb without really any hope for a common scheme. This is difficult to ensure usability and accessibility. Having a limited knowledge on several schemes is not as powerful as having extensive knowledge on one schemes. I understand the need for various schemes but not understand why there is not a common ground for schemes when it comes to searchability on the Internet. I now guess that with Google.com having their say on the type of scheme they prefer, more and more institutions will be using one standard form.

Gettin’ Digital with It!

In my generation, it has seemed that computers have always been a constant state of curiosity and information. Going digital with various aspects of our lives has allowed us to ask, “What will they think of next?” Digital libraries are no exception. It would only be fitting to have a “digital library” on the Internet and have access to records and documents from miles, states, or countries away.

According to the Digital Library Federation,

Digital libraries are organizations that provide the resources, including the specialized staff, to select, structure, offer intellectual access to, interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence over time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and economically available for use by a defined community or set of communities.

It is hard to imagine that they were able to categorize and synthesize this information into one sentence. Two articles were on the list of recommended readings for this week and they deal first hand with the usability of digital libraries they are: Usability of digital libraries: A study based on the areas of information science and human-computer-interaction by Sueli Mara Ferreira and Denise Nunes Pithan and What Is Usability in the Context of the Digital Library and How Can It Be Measured? by Judy Jeng.

In Ferreira and Pithan’s article they list five key components for a successful digital library and they gauge user information on the following to help judge which components have meet or are below standards for an effective digital library. They are:

1. Learnability
2. Efficiency
3. Memoriablity
4. Errors
5. Satisfaction

The results of their student concluded that there is a basic synergy between the Human-Computer-Interaction (HCI) and Information Sciences (IS). The study also concluded that it is possible to observe users’ actions, feelings, and thoughts in relation to their usability. These experiences help disclose significant cognitive information that can help contribute to the design of digital libraries.

This study can help facilitate the design a better used digital library. Understanding search patterns associated with actions, feelings, and thoughts is only one more way to connect the human and bridge stronger synergy between applications and individuals.

Jeng’s article also focused on a study of usability in digital libraries. This study examines how learnablitity interacts with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to devise an evaluation model/method for digital libraries, but it also addressed usability issues. The study also concluded that there is a relationship between effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction.

I know that understanding this principle is a key concept for having an effective evaluation method for digital libraries. Knowing the interrelation between key concepts can help elevate concerns that are associated with evaluation methods.

Both articles have conceived that it possible to evaluate the usability of digital libraries. However, I believe more evaluation can be concluded on this subject. Shifts in search patterns by users can help build lasting knowledge. And it is essential for individuals to understand the purpose of digital libraries and who the users are.

Your truth or mine?

I have always heard, there are three sides to every story: your’s, mine, and the truth. With information becoming more and more readily available on the Internet and websites such as Wikipedia blossoming, there is truly no way to grasp how much is dependent on this information and Wikipedia.

I will admit, when I am pressed for time and need a quick answer to a question that is posed, I will consult Wikipedia. With responses to nearly every topic under the sun and reverted topics, it is one of the most up-to-date information items you can find!

The two articles I consulted this week were: Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise? by Stacy Schiff and Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism by Jaron Lanier.

Schiff’s article took a closer look at Wikipedia and its history. This article also included information on the need to record information in a “pedia” format. This article was a written in a positive light for Wikipedia and announced that because it is able to be updated and is so current, there are relatively few mistakes. Knowing this really helps me because I do use Wikipedia as an everyday resource. I, however, do not use it for scholarly purposes or for academic purposes.

Lanier’s article on the other hand, approached Wikipedia as a dangerous asset to our society. Lanier is determined that Wikipedia has left to much control to the people. In his opinion information should be free and not controlled.

These two opposing views have left one thought to ponder, what purpose is that of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia to replace all conventional resources and knowledge? Or is it a supplemental resource that can help expound more knowledge? I think it is important to communicate the value of Wikipedia and realize it is a resource, not the “all-knowing” resource but a reliable resource that can provide accurate information. The choice we face is, how do we know if this information is accurate and reliable and how far do we go about trusting it?