Friday, November 28, 2008
Muddiest Point 12
If a digital library has its security compromised, and data is stolen that is under copyright protection, can the library/organization that maintains the digital collection be legally liable?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Muddiest Point
I don't know if this counts as a muddiest point, but it's a thought. If a digital library is created in the interest of a specific population that is likely to be able to access the material in terms of how computer literate they are, ought we be concerned about making sure computer illiterate people can access it? Digital libraries are created with the grand intention of democratizing the materials, but in practice, we have to place serious limitations on who can access them anyways to abide by copyright laws. So, I feel like worrying about 'disenfranchising' the user group who are unable to use computers or the Internet is less of a problem than it is made out to be, and is rapidly becoming even less.
Week 12
Implementing Policies for Access Management
Just like regular libraries need access policies for users, so do digital libraries. They are constrained by copyright laws, and other requirements. This model is a dynamic model, allowing policies to change for users as required. The policy information is stored as metadata and is not implemented until the user attempts to access it, and the user must be authenticated. Different types of users (faculty, student) will have different policies, and the material in the library will have different policies (general, reserve, reference) depending on the role of the user. The operation for each type of material for each type of user will change. You can then create a policy table from these things.
Having a good user interface is vital to allowing these policies to be maintained without irritating the user. The user should not be bombarded with many requests for authentication, passwords, and other nonsense. It should appear as seamless as possible.
This article was a good set of guidelines for having good access management. It is important to balance the need to uphold copyright laws and the need to provide a good experience to the user. This seems to find that balance.
Lesk Ch 9
This chapter was informative and interesting on a number of levels. First of all, it presents this economic issues that digital libraries are facing in a very clear, straightforward way. It does this while also addressing the economic issues facing all libraries in the modern world: increasing cost of journal subscriptions, whether or not to only offer digital subscriptions, and the constant need to prove one's worth to the umbrella organization, despite the fact that the library brings in very little money. It discusses these things simply with plenty of explanation and examples. It is a good chapter for understanding library economics.
Arms Ch. 6
This chapter discussed many of the same things that Lesk did, dealing with the economic framework of a digital library. The interesting part of this ocmpared to Lesk was the discussion of the legal issues related to digital libraries, particularly in terms of copyright. We have had copyright laws for a long time, but they've come into a new light since the advent of the digital age. Libraries and publishers are still trying to work out what is a good way to charge for these things, and how to appease everyone.
Personally, I like the idea of paying for it using advertisement. As browsers and languages have become more advanced, it is possible to have less obtrusive advertising. Plenty of bloggers support themselves by including advertising, and it is becoming less stigmatized to do so. I see nothing wrong with a free institution support its product with advertising, as long as it is appropriate and not annoying.
Arms Ch 7
This chapter discussed many of the same topics that the first article did: access management. However, Arms went into greater detail about the protocol for access management, as well as delving into the world of digital library security and encryption. If you are going to try to restrict access to the materials in a digital library, you need to make sure that it is difficult for some one to illegally access them without authorization. Understanding encryption is necessary.
In closing, here is an insanely happy puppy frolicking through the field.
Just like regular libraries need access policies for users, so do digital libraries. They are constrained by copyright laws, and other requirements. This model is a dynamic model, allowing policies to change for users as required. The policy information is stored as metadata and is not implemented until the user attempts to access it, and the user must be authenticated. Different types of users (faculty, student) will have different policies, and the material in the library will have different policies (general, reserve, reference) depending on the role of the user. The operation for each type of material for each type of user will change. You can then create a policy table from these things.
Having a good user interface is vital to allowing these policies to be maintained without irritating the user. The user should not be bombarded with many requests for authentication, passwords, and other nonsense. It should appear as seamless as possible.
This article was a good set of guidelines for having good access management. It is important to balance the need to uphold copyright laws and the need to provide a good experience to the user. This seems to find that balance.
Lesk Ch 9
This chapter was informative and interesting on a number of levels. First of all, it presents this economic issues that digital libraries are facing in a very clear, straightforward way. It does this while also addressing the economic issues facing all libraries in the modern world: increasing cost of journal subscriptions, whether or not to only offer digital subscriptions, and the constant need to prove one's worth to the umbrella organization, despite the fact that the library brings in very little money. It discusses these things simply with plenty of explanation and examples. It is a good chapter for understanding library economics.
Arms Ch. 6
This chapter discussed many of the same things that Lesk did, dealing with the economic framework of a digital library. The interesting part of this ocmpared to Lesk was the discussion of the legal issues related to digital libraries, particularly in terms of copyright. We have had copyright laws for a long time, but they've come into a new light since the advent of the digital age. Libraries and publishers are still trying to work out what is a good way to charge for these things, and how to appease everyone.
Personally, I like the idea of paying for it using advertisement. As browsers and languages have become more advanced, it is possible to have less obtrusive advertising. Plenty of bloggers support themselves by including advertising, and it is becoming less stigmatized to do so. I see nothing wrong with a free institution support its product with advertising, as long as it is appropriate and not annoying.
Arms Ch 7
This chapter discussed many of the same topics that the first article did: access management. However, Arms went into greater detail about the protocol for access management, as well as delving into the world of digital library security and encryption. If you are going to try to restrict access to the materials in a digital library, you need to make sure that it is difficult for some one to illegally access them without authorization. Understanding encryption is necessary.
In closing, here is an insanely happy puppy frolicking through the field.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Weekly Response 10
Arms Ch. 8: Usability and interface design
Aspects of usability: interface design, functional design, data and metadata, computer systems and networks. These are built on the conceptual model.
Interface design: appearance on the screen and manipulation by the user
Functional design: functions available to the user
Data and metadata: provided by the library
Computer systems and networks: necessary to make everything work.
Desktop metaphor: pioneered by the amazing Apple, it is most common now: a graphical interface that mimics the idea of an actual desk with folders, files and documents on it.
Browser function: retrieve a file from a web server and render it on the computer.
Digital libraries must accept that browsers are how users access the DL.
Digital Library Design for Usability
Interface Usability: Learnability, efficiency, memorability, and errors.
Organizational Usability: accessibility, compatibility, integratibility into work places, and social-organizational expertise.
Take home message: Know your community. Make the DL software to serve them.
Evaluation of Digital Libraries
Digital library designers and digital library users are at war!
Evaluation of digital libraries is not widespread because they are very complex, it is too early in their development to evaluate them, nobody cares, there isn't enough money, and evaluation is not part of the culture. Hence, it is difficult for DL designers to realize that the users are angry. This is unfortunate, because libraries of any sort are supposed to cater to patrons. Without happy patrons, the DL will not be used. If it is not used, then funding will dry up. Make your users/patrons happy!
Designing User Interfaces
Usability goals:
1. Appropriate to user needs.
2. Must be reliable in function.
3. Must be standardized to ease learning.
4. Must complete projects on time and within budget.
Thoughts: This article lays out many of the ideas mentioned before, but in a more generalized sense. One of the ideas they talk about is standardization and compatibility. The more standardized a program is, and the more compatible it is between other programs and versions, the more successful it will be. Think Microsoft, Windows and the Office suite. It's success was a function of the compatibility and standardization of all of those things. What surprises me so much about Vista and the new Office 2007 suite is how much they abandoned that premise. Office is barely compatible with its previous versions, and they completely revamped everything so it is new and not standardized. No wonder no one likes it! Perhaps Windows should learn from its own lessons.
Aspects of usability: interface design, functional design, data and metadata, computer systems and networks. These are built on the conceptual model.
Interface design: appearance on the screen and manipulation by the user
Functional design: functions available to the user
Data and metadata: provided by the library
Computer systems and networks: necessary to make everything work.
Desktop metaphor: pioneered by the amazing Apple, it is most common now: a graphical interface that mimics the idea of an actual desk with folders, files and documents on it.
Browser function: retrieve a file from a web server and render it on the computer.
Digital libraries must accept that browsers are how users access the DL.
Digital Library Design for Usability
Interface Usability: Learnability, efficiency, memorability, and errors.
Organizational Usability: accessibility, compatibility, integratibility into work places, and social-organizational expertise.
Take home message: Know your community. Make the DL software to serve them.
Evaluation of Digital Libraries
Digital library designers and digital library users are at war!
Evaluation of digital libraries is not widespread because they are very complex, it is too early in their development to evaluate them, nobody cares, there isn't enough money, and evaluation is not part of the culture. Hence, it is difficult for DL designers to realize that the users are angry. This is unfortunate, because libraries of any sort are supposed to cater to patrons. Without happy patrons, the DL will not be used. If it is not used, then funding will dry up. Make your users/patrons happy!
Designing User Interfaces
Usability goals:
1. Appropriate to user needs.
2. Must be reliable in function.
3. Must be standardized to ease learning.
4. Must complete projects on time and within budget.
Thoughts: This article lays out many of the ideas mentioned before, but in a more generalized sense. One of the ideas they talk about is standardization and compatibility. The more standardized a program is, and the more compatible it is between other programs and versions, the more successful it will be. Think Microsoft, Windows and the Office suite. It's success was a function of the compatibility and standardization of all of those things. What surprises me so much about Vista and the new Office 2007 suite is how much they abandoned that premise. Office is barely compatible with its previous versions, and they completely revamped everything so it is new and not standardized. No wonder no one likes it! Perhaps Windows should learn from its own lessons.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Muddiest Point
I'm not sure I understand the Deep Web. Does that mean that it hasn't been indexed by a web crawler? How can a given website owner know if his site is in the deep or visible web?
Weekly Response 8
Chapter 1. Definition and Origins of OAI-PMH
Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH): greater interoperability between digital libraries and more efficient dissemination of information. Gee, that sounds like the general goal of all libraries. One thing I'm learning in this class is that while digital libraries are very different than traditional libraries in terms of structure and management, they have the same goals. Get information to the people! Preserve it for future people!
Scope: Metadata, using XML. It is moving into working with other classes of metadata and full content. The metadata is specifically for document-like-objects, in digital form. Often digital libraries are not just books and papers, but digital images, digital objects, and other things that require metadata.
Purpose: define a standard way to move metadata information from point A to point B in the world wide web; to facilitate sharing and aggregation of metadata.
They accomplish this by dividing the universe into OAI data providers (have the content and/or metadata) and OAI service providers (harvest info from data providers and make it available). This follows the client/server model. Data providers are the servers, service providers are the clients. This model allows one-stop shopping.
What it is not: an open access system, an archival standard, Dublin Core, or a realtime/dynamic search service.
Federated Searching: Put it in its place
Users want a search box! Give simple and easy access to information in one place, just like Google does. Whether or not the answer is the best one or from the best source is a moot point. Therefore, make federated searching mimic Google: one stop shopping that spits out an answer.
The Truth about Federated Searching
1. Does not search everything, ever! You will still have to consult other sources.
2. You will still get duplicates. To truly avoid duplication, it would take too long to download.
3. Relevancy is not perfect because it is only looking at the citation.
4. Federated searching out to be used as a service, not purchased as software. Updates happen to often to make it feasible.
5. The federated search engine does not search your catalog better than you can, it only searches it as well as your own search engine can.
The Z39.50 Information Retrieval Standard
Z39.50 is a standard allowing patrons to search other libraries' catalogs using their native library's interface. A client machine searches the server for data and it is retrieved using the client machine.
The server has all the catalog information and it retrieves the appropriate information and returns it to the user machine. Each set of database records has a set of access points for the collection.
Search Engine Technology and Digital Libraries
Since libraries are academic institutions with minimal universal searching capacity, and places like Google are universal search engines with minimal (although still a lot!) academic focus, the best of both worlds would be to marry the two entities: the academic internet! Google does have GoogleScholar now, although I am uncertain if it existed in June 2004, when this article was written. My understanding is that GoogleScholar works by bringing up papers and publications known to be 'academic' in nature that fulfill the search request. If you are searching from an academic IP address (like Pitt!) it will sort things so that emphasis is given to information available through the databases that that IP address subscribes to. So, if you search GoogleScholar from a Pitt computer, you are likely to retrieve fulltext items that you could have found through a database available at Pitt, but with the comfort of the Google interface.
This article appears to be focusing on academic libraries indexing the academic internet and making it available. Essentially, they would be putting the "LIBRARIAN APPROVED!" stamp on it. This helps the uninitiated user discern what would be an appropriate and trust-worthy source, vs. an inappropriate and untrustworthy source.
Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH): greater interoperability between digital libraries and more efficient dissemination of information. Gee, that sounds like the general goal of all libraries. One thing I'm learning in this class is that while digital libraries are very different than traditional libraries in terms of structure and management, they have the same goals. Get information to the people! Preserve it for future people!
Scope: Metadata, using XML. It is moving into working with other classes of metadata and full content. The metadata is specifically for document-like-objects, in digital form. Often digital libraries are not just books and papers, but digital images, digital objects, and other things that require metadata.
Purpose: define a standard way to move metadata information from point A to point B in the world wide web; to facilitate sharing and aggregation of metadata.
They accomplish this by dividing the universe into OAI data providers (have the content and/or metadata) and OAI service providers (harvest info from data providers and make it available). This follows the client/server model. Data providers are the servers, service providers are the clients. This model allows one-stop shopping.
What it is not: an open access system, an archival standard, Dublin Core, or a realtime/dynamic search service.
Federated Searching: Put it in its place
Users want a search box! Give simple and easy access to information in one place, just like Google does. Whether or not the answer is the best one or from the best source is a moot point. Therefore, make federated searching mimic Google: one stop shopping that spits out an answer.
The Truth about Federated Searching
1. Does not search everything, ever! You will still have to consult other sources.
2. You will still get duplicates. To truly avoid duplication, it would take too long to download.
3. Relevancy is not perfect because it is only looking at the citation.
4. Federated searching out to be used as a service, not purchased as software. Updates happen to often to make it feasible.
5. The federated search engine does not search your catalog better than you can, it only searches it as well as your own search engine can.
The Z39.50 Information Retrieval Standard
Z39.50 is a standard allowing patrons to search other libraries' catalogs using their native library's interface. A client machine searches the server for data and it is retrieved using the client machine.
The server has all the catalog information and it retrieves the appropriate information and returns it to the user machine. Each set of database records has a set of access points for the collection.
Search Engine Technology and Digital Libraries
Since libraries are academic institutions with minimal universal searching capacity, and places like Google are universal search engines with minimal (although still a lot!) academic focus, the best of both worlds would be to marry the two entities: the academic internet! Google does have GoogleScholar now, although I am uncertain if it existed in June 2004, when this article was written. My understanding is that GoogleScholar works by bringing up papers and publications known to be 'academic' in nature that fulfill the search request. If you are searching from an academic IP address (like Pitt!) it will sort things so that emphasis is given to information available through the databases that that IP address subscribes to. So, if you search GoogleScholar from a Pitt computer, you are likely to retrieve fulltext items that you could have found through a database available at Pitt, but with the comfort of the Google interface.
This article appears to be focusing on academic libraries indexing the academic internet and making it available. Essentially, they would be putting the "LIBRARIAN APPROVED!" stamp on it. This helps the uninitiated user discern what would be an appropriate and trust-worthy source, vs. an inappropriate and untrustworthy source.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Muddiest Point
This is not about the lecture, but I do need clarification on the final project, so here's the place.
I know we are supposed to have variation among the 3 digital collections. Could we do 2 collections of digital photographs of objects that are unrelated to each other and then a 3rd collection of scanned material? Would that be varied enough?
I know we are supposed to have variation among the 3 digital collections. Could we do 2 collections of digital photographs of objects that are unrelated to each other and then a 3rd collection of scanned material? Would that be varied enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)