Comment #1: http://skdhuth.blogspot.com/2010/10/week-7-notes.html
Comment #2: http://jsslis2600.blogspot.com/2010/10/week-7-reading-notes.html
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Pitt's Virtual Reference
University of Pittsburgh provides virtual reference ask-a-librarian via http://www.library.pitt.edu/reference/. Please choose either the IM version or the email version of the service, and ask a reference question that you are interested to get an answer on.
Based on this experience and any previous experiences of face to face reference, think of the advantages or limitations of this virtual reference. I have created a discussion thread in the discussion board for any discussion about this.
I decided to contact the “Ask-a-Librarian” virtual reference system via e-mail, and this was the question I submitted:
“In regards to the "Instant Virtual Extranet," let me first say how much I appreciate your services, since it always helped me with my school work. However, I do have one concern: Has this library system or campus ever devised a solution for prolonging the connection time? Whenever I access an article through that service and take the time to read, I often find myself in a situation where I need to go through the whole connection process all over again each time I want to go on to the next article. I am not trying to hold anything against anyone. I just want to know if I simply have to deal with it. I am only asking out of curiosity's sake. I hope to hear from you soon.”
By the next day, this was the reply I was given in return:
“Hello Arek Toros Torosian
Thank you for writing to our Ask-a-Librarian service.
We appreciate your taking the time to send us your comments. I'll forward your email to our Web Services Librarian.
In the meantime, I'm wondering if you've considered downloading the articles to your desktop or to a flashdrive once you've located them. This would allow you to take your time in reading articles without worrying about the amount of time that you take. When you finish reading the articles, you could delete them.”
I need not to wait for the response from the Web Services Librarian to be able to explain the differences between this experience and face-to-face interaction. One major advantage an e-mail has over the more direct, one-on-one method in regards to approaching those who work in reference is that the patrons have the opportunities to carefully compose and double-check what they want to say before bringing it to the other person’s attention. For the case of the face-to-face approach, the patrons need to know how to express themselves clearly on the spot if they want the person at reference to understand and address their concerns. However, I am not trying to suggest that one method is superior to the other. One major advantage that face-to-face interaction has is that the patrons are in a situation where those working in reference are easily able to retrieve the sources to directly present the solutions to the concerns being brought up. For the case of the e-mail, there is always a possibility that the patrons cannot express themselves clear enough, which leaves those working in reference to respond with the wrong solutions (assuming they are able to provide anything in return). This in turn leaves the two individuals in a situation where they are exchanging messages back in fourth until they are able to finally narrow down on the main issue. In the end, whichever is more reliable for presenting concerns, whether by e-mail or one-on-one interaction, would have to depend on what method the individual feels more comfortable using (and to each one’s own).
Based on this experience and any previous experiences of face to face reference, think of the advantages or limitations of this virtual reference. I have created a discussion thread in the discussion board for any discussion about this.
I decided to contact the “Ask-a-Librarian” virtual reference system via e-mail, and this was the question I submitted:
“In regards to the "Instant Virtual Extranet," let me first say how much I appreciate your services, since it always helped me with my school work. However, I do have one concern: Has this library system or campus ever devised a solution for prolonging the connection time? Whenever I access an article through that service and take the time to read, I often find myself in a situation where I need to go through the whole connection process all over again each time I want to go on to the next article. I am not trying to hold anything against anyone. I just want to know if I simply have to deal with it. I am only asking out of curiosity's sake. I hope to hear from you soon.”
By the next day, this was the reply I was given in return:
“Hello Arek Toros Torosian
Thank you for writing to our Ask-a-Librarian service.
We appreciate your taking the time to send us your comments. I'll forward your email to our Web Services Librarian.
In the meantime, I'm wondering if you've considered downloading the articles to your desktop or to a flashdrive once you've located them. This would allow you to take your time in reading articles without worrying about the amount of time that you take. When you finish reading the articles, you could delete them.”
I need not to wait for the response from the Web Services Librarian to be able to explain the differences between this experience and face-to-face interaction. One major advantage an e-mail has over the more direct, one-on-one method in regards to approaching those who work in reference is that the patrons have the opportunities to carefully compose and double-check what they want to say before bringing it to the other person’s attention. For the case of the face-to-face approach, the patrons need to know how to express themselves clearly on the spot if they want the person at reference to understand and address their concerns. However, I am not trying to suggest that one method is superior to the other. One major advantage that face-to-face interaction has is that the patrons are in a situation where those working in reference are easily able to retrieve the sources to directly present the solutions to the concerns being brought up. For the case of the e-mail, there is always a possibility that the patrons cannot express themselves clear enough, which leaves those working in reference to respond with the wrong solutions (assuming they are able to provide anything in return). This in turn leaves the two individuals in a situation where they are exchanging messages back in fourth until they are able to finally narrow down on the main issue. In the end, whichever is more reliable for presenting concerns, whether by e-mail or one-on-one interaction, would have to depend on what method the individual feels more comfortable using (and to each one’s own).
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Week 7: Internet and WWW Technologies
One of the latest breakthroughs in technology that enabled us to live in the society we have today is our entry into cyberspace. However, the opening of the gateway by itself did not really create those wonders. In order to for that sort of space to be put into better use, connections needed to be established between separate locations. This goal could not be achieved without building an infrastructure that would allow more links to be assembled with each other, eventually leading to the invention of the International Network, or the Internet. Although there are more possibilities of connections being established, the linking by itself never simplifies the process of actually reaching towards those locations. When the staffs at the libraries were first introduced to the Internet, they knew that the system currently in use, the Integrated Library System (ILS), had to be fully replaced at some point. The incorporation of the Internet never made anyone’s job at the libraries any easier, mostly because the staff was too accustomed to the older model and the transition seemed like it was too much too soon. That is why there was interoperability to establish a compromise. As the staff was learning to utilize the newer models for conducting their work, the former continued to be implemented as a means to provide a sense of guidance. At this gradual pace, the staff members were learning to be more accepting of using the Internet, as they were also becoming less dependent on the ILS, with predictions it could finally be dismantled without any regard in the long-run. And yet if there was anything that had tremendously simplified the process of reaching the destinations or locating the sources we wish to seek, it was the introduction of the search engine, with Google proving itself as a prolific example. Whatever it is that people are looking for, they have a better chance of obtaining it just by typing in a few words. Because of how the algorithm was set up for the technology, the results being presented are based on how often most users tend to associate the websites with the key words. The most popular websites end up being rendered as the most relevant to the search, which in turn allows those results to be the first being recognized by the user. Although what Google had presented is not perfect, as long as it continues to give the people the kind of quick and genuine results they want (and updates the means to do so as well), there is a always a lesser and lesser likelihood anyone would ever turn away from such service.
Regardless as to what sort of breakthroughs modern-day technology is able to provide for mankind, one of the most noticeable flaws always prevailing in each reoccurring transition is that items continue to remain lost in the shuffle. In reference to “Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life” by Albert-László Barabási, the sources by Jeff Tyson, Andrew K. Pace, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page have demonstrated the evolution of the connection in their respective order. Everything begins with a vast empty space waiting to be filled. The prevalence of nodes fulfills that purpose, but then there is the issue of trying to establish order. The nodes straighten themselves by creating links with each other. A network is established, but the situation still seems like a mess, because there are links going all over the place. The issue regarding the links can be straightened out through the establishment of hubs. Once the hubs are established, more nodes are able to know right away where to establish their links. However, just because order has been established within the network, it does not necessarily mean the network has been perfected. The first nodes that make their way into the empty space have more opportunities to hone and refine themselves. By the time other nodes also make their way in, the older ones have already enhanced themselves enough to attract more attention. This in turn allows the older nodes to gather more nodes around, thus establishing more links with them and converting themselves into hubs. The nature of such a network seems rather unfair for the nodes that come in too early or too late. If they come in at the same time as some of the older ones and are unable to make the same kind of preparations when a new wave of nodes arrive, then chances are they will be overshadowed by the competitors and ignored by the followers they manage garner. When a new node comes in, there is a chance it will also be ignored. If it manages to achieve some recognition, it will immediately come under the wing of a well-recognized hub. The possibilities for any of the newcomers to become hubs themselves seem rather slim, so long as the old timers have the strongest foundations and are able to overpower the competitors with greater ease. The bottom line is so many nodes pretty much end up being lost in the shuffle, simply because they were never able to establish as many links so successfully. Without those connections, very few, if any, people will ever get an opportunity to witness their potential. Of course, that is under the assumption any of those nodes within the majority might even have any.
Regardless as to what sort of breakthroughs modern-day technology is able to provide for mankind, one of the most noticeable flaws always prevailing in each reoccurring transition is that items continue to remain lost in the shuffle. In reference to “Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life” by Albert-László Barabási, the sources by Jeff Tyson, Andrew K. Pace, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page have demonstrated the evolution of the connection in their respective order. Everything begins with a vast empty space waiting to be filled. The prevalence of nodes fulfills that purpose, but then there is the issue of trying to establish order. The nodes straighten themselves by creating links with each other. A network is established, but the situation still seems like a mess, because there are links going all over the place. The issue regarding the links can be straightened out through the establishment of hubs. Once the hubs are established, more nodes are able to know right away where to establish their links. However, just because order has been established within the network, it does not necessarily mean the network has been perfected. The first nodes that make their way into the empty space have more opportunities to hone and refine themselves. By the time other nodes also make their way in, the older ones have already enhanced themselves enough to attract more attention. This in turn allows the older nodes to gather more nodes around, thus establishing more links with them and converting themselves into hubs. The nature of such a network seems rather unfair for the nodes that come in too early or too late. If they come in at the same time as some of the older ones and are unable to make the same kind of preparations when a new wave of nodes arrive, then chances are they will be overshadowed by the competitors and ignored by the followers they manage garner. When a new node comes in, there is a chance it will also be ignored. If it manages to achieve some recognition, it will immediately come under the wing of a well-recognized hub. The possibilities for any of the newcomers to become hubs themselves seem rather slim, so long as the old timers have the strongest foundations and are able to overpower the competitors with greater ease. The bottom line is so many nodes pretty much end up being lost in the shuffle, simply because they were never able to establish as many links so successfully. Without those connections, very few, if any, people will ever get an opportunity to witness their potential. Of course, that is under the assumption any of those nodes within the majority might even have any.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Muddiest Point
I was feeling conflicted between the Wikipedia article on the “Computer Network” and the YouTube video on “Common Types of Computer Networks.” According to Frank J. Klein, the so-called “common types” happen to be the Personal Area Network (PAN), Local Area Network (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), Campus Area Network (CAN) and Metropolitan Area Network (MAN). When I look into the Wikipedia, I notice that the list of the different types of computer networks happen to be longer. Putting these circumstances into consideration, I do not know as to whether Klein may have forgotten a few other “common types” that the Wikipedia article took the time to mention or the article was trying to be as information as possible, while the video was simply telling to viewers what they needed to know for starters. For the sake of avoiding overanalyzing the situation with the “Computer Network” article on Wikipedia, I decided to use only the details that related to what Klein had been mentioning in the video. On the grounds that there was probably so much more information I potentially ended up ignoring, I might as well conclude that the “Computer Network” article was probably the least useful of all the readings; therefore the weakest piece of material.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Week 6: Computer Networks, Wireless Networks
Because the computer is capable of preserving digitally so much information, it would seem logical to develop a means to transfer the content from one source onto the next. Although the invention of the disk had managed to accomplish this task, human nature would once again become dissatisfied in the long run as usual. There was obviously a need to transfer information with much greater efficiency, i.e. simpler and quicker. With the introduction of the Internet, computers were able to create networks; thus establishing the means that would provide such a solution (for the time being, of course). A few types of commonly used computer networks to name are the Personal Area Network (PAN), Local Area Network (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), Campus Area Network (CAN; utilizing interconnecting LANs) and the Metropolitan Area Network (MAN; similar to the CAN, only the WAN is incorporated as well) among others. As networks had been developing and catering to more and more individuals, the results in their respective order were ranging for the amounts they serve, from a single person, to a group of people, and to an entire population. Because the library is a system that functions like any other organization, such as a business office, it would seem suitable and logical for a staff to attend their duties via a LAN, which is the sort of network designed for that sort of a setting. Since the library is often recognized as a powerhouse for sources of information, the utilization of such a network should enable for the system more efficient means to organize their materials. However, there will always be circumstances beyond the control of the networks. For example, the computer can always claim that a certain item is in their possession at a certain location, and yet it cannot be found within the system, or at least not in the particular area to which it was pointed earlier. This is why there is the option of incorporating the Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) into libraries. How the technology works is that the items are tagged with a computer chip and are retrieved with an antenna. Through the use of this innovation, books that end up lost in the shuffle or just about anywhere outside at random (perhaps misplaced by a patron or even stolen by a thief) now have a greater chance of being found by the library.
If I have not already done so more openly, I would like to make a reference to “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas L. Friedman. What I am to explain is based what I could recollect from my readings since my senior year as an undergrad. How the book got its title came from the author’s comparison between the increase of networking and the establishment of the playing field. In order for a field to be rendered as playable, the area needs to be flattened. Once it has been flattened, the field becomes an invitation for players and people who want to be involved in the game are always welcome to play. A network functions in a similar manner. Once it has been established, those who wish to be involved are always invited to do so. As more people wanted to get involved with the phenomenon, the network needed to expand so as to make sure they received their opportunities as well. The situation appeared as though the network was becoming one big game and the whole world just wanted to play. In order for people all over the earth to be able to play the game that has reached across the globe, the world needed to be “flattened.” Compared to the Wikipedia articles on the “Local Area Network” and “Computer Network,” and the Frank J. Klein video on “Common Types of Computer Networks,” what Friedman had presented does indeed seem like a promising future ahead of us. Putting the Karen Coyle article on “Management of RFID in Libraries” into consideration, Friedman is beginning to appear more naïve and delusional, since there is a potential dark side he may have overlooked. No one can ever deny what these networks are capable of accomplishing, but the possible dilemma that the RFID is capable of imposing could be a real turn off. Apart from the ethical issues, such as privacy, that the technology has been raising, financial matters also seem to be a concern. Whether or not Friedman’s dream of a “flat world” is possible, it is quite clear that such an achievement would take tremendous time, effort, and money. Even when other people are invited to and participating in the playing field, there is no guarantee that they will enjoy the game (or at least not on their terms); hence the expression: “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.”
If I have not already done so more openly, I would like to make a reference to “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas L. Friedman. What I am to explain is based what I could recollect from my readings since my senior year as an undergrad. How the book got its title came from the author’s comparison between the increase of networking and the establishment of the playing field. In order for a field to be rendered as playable, the area needs to be flattened. Once it has been flattened, the field becomes an invitation for players and people who want to be involved in the game are always welcome to play. A network functions in a similar manner. Once it has been established, those who wish to be involved are always invited to do so. As more people wanted to get involved with the phenomenon, the network needed to expand so as to make sure they received their opportunities as well. The situation appeared as though the network was becoming one big game and the whole world just wanted to play. In order for people all over the earth to be able to play the game that has reached across the globe, the world needed to be “flattened.” Compared to the Wikipedia articles on the “Local Area Network” and “Computer Network,” and the Frank J. Klein video on “Common Types of Computer Networks,” what Friedman had presented does indeed seem like a promising future ahead of us. Putting the Karen Coyle article on “Management of RFID in Libraries” into consideration, Friedman is beginning to appear more naïve and delusional, since there is a potential dark side he may have overlooked. No one can ever deny what these networks are capable of accomplishing, but the possible dilemma that the RFID is capable of imposing could be a real turn off. Apart from the ethical issues, such as privacy, that the technology has been raising, financial matters also seem to be a concern. Whether or not Friedman’s dream of a “flat world” is possible, it is quite clear that such an achievement would take tremendous time, effort, and money. Even when other people are invited to and participating in the playing field, there is no guarantee that they will enjoy the game (or at least not on their terms); hence the expression: “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)