Showing posts with label information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label information. Show all posts

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Article Summary for Lecture # 10 - Northedge


and beyond:
information retrieval on the World Wide Web
Northedge defines a web directory as “a human compiled list of links to web pages, typically organized into a hierarchical structure of subject categories.” Back in 1994, a mere 3 years after Berners-Lee created the “Web”; there were less than 10,000 websites. This number inflated to almost 3.5 million in 1998, and in 2006, it was estimated to be at over 100 million. Imagine if those websites were books. Without anyone to organize and sort through all of them, it would take forever for us users to retrieve any kind of information, let alone navigate the sea of changes that authors and creators make on a daily basis to their sites. If a librarian is involved, the user can submit their queries to the librarian.
                In the case of the internet, search engines are the librarians. Several criteria measure the quality of the search engine, such as:
  • The size of the corpus – the more books the librarian can search, the better.
  • The speed of the answer – if we do not get our information quickly, we will find another search engine.
  • The availability of service – if it is not available when it is needed, the users are going to find another search engine.

·         The accuracy of results – if the information the user gets back is not what they are looking for, and then they will find another search engine that will return related results. However, if the three preceding criteria are not met, accurate data is not going to be important. (See this post).
Search engines require their users to submit their searches through a search box, which allows the user to choose whatever terms they like – unlike web directories, which constrain users to search using vocabulary chosen by the indexer. Since it might take a while for a search engine to sift through over 100 million constantly changing websites, it only makes sense to implement an indexing program (called a spider or robot). This program accesses web pages, analyses their contents and records the results in a database (referred to as an “index”), which enables fast access to sought information and bridges the gap between the search engine and the requested content.

                Today, one of the most used search engine is Google. Google’s software agent (indexer), called “Googlebot” continually locates billions of web pages, analyses the content, and save the result in the Google index. The algorithms it uses are a company secret, as they are what sets Google apart from its competitors (Bing, Yahoo, etc.). Googlebot breaks down webpages into words and examines their context within the page (position – is it in a header, sub header, body text, etc.) and sources are returned to user, based on the algorithms weighted scale, in order of assumed most relevant to least.

                In addition, while Google’s search box may seem to ask “What subject do you want information on?” in reality, it is asking “What word or combination of words will be most likely to appear on web pages that address the subject I am interested in, an least likely to appear on pages that are irrelevant to me?”. This may trip up users who are unfamiliar with how search engines work, and this may be the one negative Northedge presents about search engines – there is no one-to-one correspondence between words and meanings, and a single word may have multiple meanings (search for Java – the country – and only results about the computer programming language are returned). He also offers information on alternatives to search engines, which include META tags (the assignment of subject keywords by the web content creators), and folksonomies/tagging (creation of a taxonomy by the collective actions of users on the Web – see del.icio.us and flickr). These alternatives are somewhat controversial, because users and/or creators can deliberately assign misleading or inaccurate keywords to the content for financial gain or malicious reasons.

                Ultimately, Northedge offers insight into the possible future of web searches, computer-generated indexes, but the data contained in those indexes may be driven by data sets produced by human indexing techniques and human linguistic research. I agree with this assertation, because it seems as more technologies are developed and released, the search process becomes more streamlined and tailored to what the user REALLY wants from their search. This article is very informative, and if you want to know more about the inner-workings of search engines, this is a fascinating read. I definitely came away knowing more about what happens once I search for "cat videos" on Google. 
______________________________________
To read the whole article, see the citation below:

Northedge, R. (2007, April). Google and beyond: Information retrieval on the World Wide Web. The Indexer, 25(3), 192-195.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Encoding Standards and the Presentation of Information

The Automation Period in Libraries

By the mid 1960s computers were being used for the production of machine readable catalog records, and by 1985 the NYPL had begun providing access to its catalog through public access computer terminals. Today, since all of our tasks today revolve around computers, we need to understand the general strengths and weaknesses of computers, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of online catalogs and other computerized collections of surrogate records.

Marking Up

In print there are formatting conventions. The printer applies the appropriate format when needed:

  • Italics
  • Bold
  • Underline
For computers, however, there are encoding standards. The computer must be told when to "turn on" and "turn off" the textual mark:
  • WordPerfect "reveal codes" option
  • Various other "mark up" languages
    • SGML: "Standard Generalized Markup" Language
    • HTML: "HyperText Markup" Language
In both print and online, marked up (or "tagged" text provides for the unique styling (i.e. design) of resources, the ability for authors to structure resources , the ability for authors to emphasize points, and cues and clues to what a document might be about. 


Encoding Standards - HTML

Purpose: For the computer-to-computer transfer of information
Example: How your computer displays a web page (HTML compliant browser interacting with file hosted on server miles, and miles away)
Problem: Computers are dumb, therefore everything must be explicitly described.
WWW Solution: HTML is an encoding standard that is employed nearly universally by web page realtors  so that their content can be displayed by HTML-compliant computers.

Header () - where metadata is stored (not readable to human viewers BUT is readable by computers) a form of surrogate record.

OPAC records are encoded in HTML, so the design and display of each record can facilitate efficient perusing by end-users. However, HTML doesn't have a set of tags rich enough for the mark up of library surrogate records (e.g. there is no "author" tag in HTML).

Encoding Standards - MaRC

Purpose: For the computer-to-computer transfer of information
Example: How you library catalog knows what to do with the cataloging data it receives from a bibliographic entry. 
Problem: Computers are dumb, therefore everything must be explicitly described.
Solution: MaRC is an encoding standard that is employed nearly universally by librarians so that their surrogate (i.e. bibliographic) records can be shared by catalogs world wide

Basics of MaRC Encoding



MaRC tags encode the left side elements ("signposts") of cataloging records:

  • "100=" Main entry, personal name with a single surname
  • "245=" Title and Statement of responsibility area, pick up tile for a title added entry, file under "Ra..."
Additional Structureal elements of MaRC:
  • Indicators
  • Subfield Codes
MaRC tags specify the meaning of the data in its context:
  • "260 00 |a New York" indicates NY as a place of publication
  • "245 00 |a New York" indicates NY as a title
245 14 |a The American Foreign Legion:
  • 4 = 4 non filing characters T (1) h(2) e(3) [space](4)
MaRC Mnemonics

Tags divide by 100s:
  • 0XX       Control Information, numbers, codes (local)
  • 1XX       Main Entry
  • 2XX       Titles, edition, imprint (in general, the title, statement of responsibility, edition, and
                   publication information)
  • 3XX       Physical description, etc.
  • 4XX       Series statements (as shown in the book)
  • 5XX       Notes
  • 6XX       Subject added entries
  • 7XX       Added Entries other than subject or series
  • 8XX       Series added entries (other authoritative forms)
Parallel content:
  • X00       Personal Names
  • X10       Corporate Names
  • X11       Meeting Names
  • X30       Uniform titles
  • X40       Bibliographic titles
  • X50       Topical terms
  • X51       Geographic names
Parallel content examples:
  • 600 indicates that the subject (6XX) is a person (X00)
  • 610 indicates that the subject (6XX) is a corporation (X10)
  • 650 indicates that the subject (6XX) is a topic (X50)
  • 100 indicates that the author (1XX) is a person (X00)
  • 110 indicates that the author (1XX) is a corporation (X10)
The Missing "9s"
  • Used by vendors or individual libraries to exchange additional data.
  • Can appear in any position within the tag
    • 9XX
    • X9X
    • XX9
      • EXAMPLE:
        • 269 = locally added publication data
        • 590 = locally added contents note
A good key can be found via the Library of Congress.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Organization of Information Jargon


Bibliographic data - at least 3 different definitions based on context:

  • The content of professionally managed library surrogate record collections (e.g. library catalogs)
  • The content of professionally managed bibliographic products (e.g. periodical databases)
  • The content of professionally managed archival surrogate record collections (e.g. archival finding aids.)
Metadata - "Data about data" at least 2 different definitions based on context
  • Specific definition: Non-cataloging bibliographic data
  • General definition: All instances in which data represents other data including cataloging, indexing, search engines, etc.
Collocation - the bringing together/retrieval  of surrogate records according to a criterion. (e.g. pre-filed card catalog drawers: author, title, subject.

[Bibliographic] control - the systematic representation of resources in surrogate form for purposes of their effective and efficient retrieval.

Bibliothecal Organizing - term for the physical layout ("shelf arrangement") of a set of actual resources rather than their surrogates. The actual physical resources, such as books, are themselves collocated according to a criterion.

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) - conceptual model that specifies entities and their replationships that exist in the bibliographic universe.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

What is a library?

Is a library simply a building filled with books?

No, there is an innate difference between a library and just a room full of books. You yourself could have a room full of books - I know I do - but that doesn't make that room a library. So, what does constitute a library? Organization.

How are libraries organized in a way that people can find the content that they need and/or want?

  • Technique 1: Use of known call numbers. Many people understand that books are stored in libraries using call numbers.
  • Technique 2: Trusting in "serendipitous" discovery. Many people understand that books are stored in libraries in a way that groups books together by subject allowing for discover of previously unknown titles.
  • Technique 3: Use of catalog. Many people understand that a catalog is available for the search of a library's collection.
If you recall an experience when you walked into a library and found the exact paragraphs you needed for research, this designed environment helped you along the way. Likely, you:
  • Found front door
  • Located catalog and determined call numbers
  • Followed signage to stacks
  • Located books in stacks
  • Used table of contents and/or book index to locate needed paragraphs in each book
This ability to walk into any professionally-managed library and locate/relocate specific information within a book collection can be referred to as the "Great Reduction Phenomenon." Such a complex activity as outlined above is reduced to a monotonous, run-of-the-mill event that once we know how to do it, and if it is implemented correctly with signage, stacks, indexes, and tables of contents, we don't think about the process.

Thanks to the networked profession of librarianship, there is a national network of librarians that share their work, and help standardize practices so we usually don't have to think about this process when going to a library for research or leisure. And for that, we thank you.
 

Friday, May 22, 2015

Knowledge Management

What is knowledge and how is it different than information?

Knowledge is...

  • a human act
  • the residue of thinking
  • created in the present moment
  • belongs to communities
  • circulated through communities in many ways
  • created at the boundaries of old information
In order to develop a knowledge sharing environment within a special library, it is important to:

  • Identify the needs of the organization
  • Identify how people are currently sharing information
  • Select tools to support sharing
  • Model information sharing

Information Tools and Next Generation Catalogs

The most widely-known information tool within the library is the library catalog. Traditional catalogs include books, CDs, DVDs, newspapers, magazines, microfilms, musical scores, etc. Next generation catalogs offer a social aspect within these catalogs. Patrons can tag, rate, and review materials, and is a wonderful attempt at merging older information tools with new information tools.

                   

Nowadays, if people have questions, they simply "Google" it. How can catalogs compete with the instant nature of Google? If someone has a question, Google can offer many resources within seconds, and traditional catalogs have tended to take time and expertise to use. However, with recent developments to catalogs mentioned above, usability is increasing, and libraries are creating search tools that mimic everyday tools used (tagging, bookmarking, reviewing, quick searches, etc.) It only makes sense for libraries to evolve and include these types of developments, as this is the future of information retrieval and dissemination.

Relevant readings:
  • Emanuel, Jenny. “Next Generation Catalogs: What Do They Do and Why Should We Care?”  Reference & User Services Quarterly 49.2 (2009): 117-120.
  • Yang, Sharon Q. and Kurt Wagner. “Evaluating and Comparing Discovery Tools: How Close Are We Towards Next Generation Catalog?”  Library Hi Tech 28.4 (2010): 690-709.