Showing posts with label LIS 2600 Week 11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LIS 2600 Week 11. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Muddiest Point
I believe the article by Sarah L. Shreeves, Thomas G. Habing, Kat Hagedorn, and Jeffrey A. Young, titled “Current developments and future trends for the OAI protocol for metadata harvesting. Library Trends,” was probably the weakest piece of material for the week. I am not saying it was uninformative or incomprehensible in any sort of way. Indeed, I was able to figure out the core elements of the article and how it was related to the other two articles. Then again, I did study the subject before, so that could explain why I was able to catch on. The reason why I believe this article in particular seemed like the weakest is because when I compare it to the others, I notice that they included visuals as a means to depict how the devices they are describing tend to function. The article we were given about Metadata does not provide such aids, which leaves the readers to use a little more effort to figure out how it works. Putting those factors into consideration, it would only seem fair that an article on this topic should follow the example of the other two by utilizing visuals of its own to better explain how it works.
Z39.50 at Zoom@ Pitt and OAI-PMH at NSDL
I am able to confirm noticing the quirks that “Z39.50 at Zoom@ Pitt” and “OAI-PMH at NSDL” are capable of demonstrating. For the case of the former, I think the reason why some of the databases tend to function more slowly than the others is probably because of the amount of content that is being handled. As a database needs to manage more content, it obviously has to take more time to maneuver through the increasing collection. If the load was any lighter, the database would not experience as much of this problem. And for the case of the latter, because the organization was created via a government agency, the space and proficiency it is able to afford is practically unlimited, or at least compared to what the other can achieve. However, this is not to suggest that it would be without fault. It is likely that the website could be using more than enough resources than what is potentially needed. As a result of those circumstances, so many options would end up being created for the users, only to end up narrowing down on the same sets of documents that are actually available in the website over and over again. On the other hand, these observations are all based on my own personal assumptions.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Week 11: Web Search and OAI Protocol
Because people have the means to create their own websites, just about anyone can publish their material over the Internet. As more people are obtaining the ability to do so, sources of information can easily get lost in the shuffle. That is why there are search engines to help establish order. The device utilizes an algorithm that calculates how often a website is associated with key words, which is based upon the amount of visitors it receives. As a result, the most popular websites in every category end up reaching at the top of the list when the search begins. However, just because a website happens to be more popular, it does not necessarily mean the content would be accurate. This was when Metadata had been introduced, so that the websites can be harvested in a more meticulous manner; thus concentrating more on the quality of the content, rather than the quantity of the visitors. However, the approach is bound to be met with disagreement, or even hostility, on account that it could encourage some form of elitism. Technically speaking, Metadata is capable of providing for a select few the power to determine which websites should be rendered as superior to others, while the opinions of many are being ignored. With or without the Metadata, the search results being presented ultimately scratches the surface at most. This is why there was a need for another technology that looks much deeper within the content of the website, providing greater accuracy and efficiency from the search results. The use of the Deep Web achieves this goal through a compromise of the core attributes between the popular approach of the former and the selective approach of the latter.
Regardless as to what technology will become available, what will frequently become the case is that a minority ends up overpowering the majority. The only significant difference is whether the shared opinion of a populace or an agreed-upon decision by the elite becomes the determining factor. Whichever might prevail gets to choose their minority that is to overshadow the majority. There are always possibilities that tensions could arise between the two sides, but not all the time. Sometimes the popular choice and the right choice can in fact be one and the same, and it is instances of these mutual agreements and understandings that Michael K. Bergman’s proposition attempts to exploit. Even if only the most genuine of all websites manage to successfully become the minority, the situation becomes increasingly difficult for the majority. Although there is the relief of knowing that websites providing nothing but junk are more likely to be thrown deeper into the depths, websites of better quality are still going to potentially be ignored. A website can provide information just as professionally as any scholarly source could, but there is still no guarantee if it will achieve higher recognition. One factor that the latest innovation explained by Bergman would ignore, which might also apply to future successors, is human nature. So long as people want quick results and can get bored easily, whatever it is that any individual chooses to look into, chances are that the person will only glance at the top ten results at most and will only bother looking thoroughly through one of them (if at all). Unless a website has made an impact on the populace and the elite, it would be lucky to reach even the top twenty.
Regardless as to what technology will become available, what will frequently become the case is that a minority ends up overpowering the majority. The only significant difference is whether the shared opinion of a populace or an agreed-upon decision by the elite becomes the determining factor. Whichever might prevail gets to choose their minority that is to overshadow the majority. There are always possibilities that tensions could arise between the two sides, but not all the time. Sometimes the popular choice and the right choice can in fact be one and the same, and it is instances of these mutual agreements and understandings that Michael K. Bergman’s proposition attempts to exploit. Even if only the most genuine of all websites manage to successfully become the minority, the situation becomes increasingly difficult for the majority. Although there is the relief of knowing that websites providing nothing but junk are more likely to be thrown deeper into the depths, websites of better quality are still going to potentially be ignored. A website can provide information just as professionally as any scholarly source could, but there is still no guarantee if it will achieve higher recognition. One factor that the latest innovation explained by Bergman would ignore, which might also apply to future successors, is human nature. So long as people want quick results and can get bored easily, whatever it is that any individual chooses to look into, chances are that the person will only glance at the top ten results at most and will only bother looking thoroughly through one of them (if at all). Unless a website has made an impact on the populace and the elite, it would be lucky to reach even the top twenty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)