Reading Response # 6: It's Not Free and It's Not Fair

This week’s two assigned articles were an interesting combination. Jeff Tyson’s piece outlines the history and physical infrastructure of the Internet while Andrew Pace’s “Dismantling Integrated Library Systems” chronicles libraries’ struggles with adopting and paying for ILS. Despite the loss of physical paraphernalia and brick and mortar institutions, there is nothing lightweight and accessible about the price of information.

Tyson states that because of its design as interconnected networks within networks, the Internet isn’t owned; it’s a shared information resource. This creates a contradictory dynamic because it costs money to access it, whether through individual ISPs or companies and libraries paying flat fees to provide free access to their users.

I understand that I focus a great deal on the economics of technology but that is only because when heralding the benefits of the digital age, democratic and open source are ubiquitous descriptions. Whatever the original motivation behind its creation, the Internet is only as democratic as the society it functions in. For example, more prohibitive societies monitor websites, censor public information, and restrict access. We have a more democratic approach to the exchange of information but because we are a capitalist democracy, our Internet functions like one. It’s a shared network but privately owned companies make a profit from it by reformatting it into a paid service. It’s not as if there is a free point of access and ISPs are faster, more dynamic alternatives; they are the only alternatives. The same holds true with effective access to the glut of available information. Libraries access to networked information is only as good as the ILS they are able to afford. Not only does this widen the "digital divide" but quality become a privilege available only to those with enough money to buy it.

I’d really like to learn the economic history of the Internet, to understand how shared resources become a utility cost. I think learning about the dynamics of this transformation is important because the Internet, while no longer in its nascent stages, is still open to paradigm changes and could still become a democratic resource. Otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves if we believe that true democracy is a hand out waiting to be paid.

Assignment #3: Zotero/CiteULike

http://www.citeulike.org/user/rag55

The resources found through citeulike have the tag "from-citeulike"
The imported resources found through Zotero/Google Scholar have the tag "from-zotero"

Week 5 Comments

Comment #1:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5586031599791302355&postID=8265205753100140876

Comment#2:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1129785935180596689&postID=7650461811986294684

Reading Response #5: 1984 or 2008?

Though the three assigned articles address disparate types of technology, they all raise concerns about the economics and functionality of these technologies in modern libraries.

Local Area Networks, or LANs, connect a small geographic area and have a higher rate of transfer but Campus Area Networks (CANs), Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs) and Wide Area Networks (WANs) are able to link together a larger physical radius, albeit at a slower transfer rate. Currently, libraries provide digital access to the Internet and proprietary online catalogues and databases. If the future of information in the digital age is networked information structures -- not just information accessible via the Internet -- how are they to be physically networked? Another concern is that although these reference resources are for public benefit, a significant portion of these documents originate in academic, collegiate, research and public institutions. Who would shoulder the brunt of financial responsibility and safety? If it is these underfunded institutions, that cost would add to the already sizeable tab that includes hardware, software, data migration, storage and digitization.

A viable option could be governmental or privately owned or underwritten organizations with a public interest but that still raises issues of the safety of transferred information, property rights management, and minority control over a service for the public majority.

Karen Coyle’s article “Management of RFID in Libraries” also addresses concerns of finance and security with technology. In the context of libraries, RFID products are capable of monitoring the location and status of an item. While the technology would improve patron satisfaction and reduce the amount of time spent tracking materials, the sheer number of tags necessary for even a small-sized library is substantial. Then there is the topic of privacy. RFID tags were originally designed for retail where items are purchased and are removed from inventory permanently. Libraries, on the other hand, would have a revolving clientele and inventory which means that there would be an extensive and permanent record of a patron’s account. Currently, barcode technology allows an item to be checked out but when it is returned, it is usually deleted from a patron’s account. Because RFID software originated in the retail industry, it would need to be adapted to a library but considering that it is still undergoing transformations and doesn’t offer a stable platform, libraries should be cautious. In fact, in regards to all technology, libraries must put patrons above the desire to keep up with the digital age.

Muddiest Point #5

I've done a little reading on vector vs. raster digital images and I'm a little confused about which is the superior format. Does it depend on what you are using the image for? When does a vector image have an advantage over a raster image and vice versa? I am also wondering how easy it is to transfer between the two formats.

Week 4 Comments

Comment #1:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=954478916342085840&postID=8456835715519701143

Comment #2:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1491308052360981630&postID=8211463560023690152

Reading Response #4: All Together Now!

An effective networked information infrastructure must not only be technologically advanced, but also socially functional and readily accessible. Libraries have the added obligation, as public institutions, of trying to create a dynamic and open system in the most economic way possible where information, not data, is the primary currency.

As the article “Data Compression Basics” indicates, compression allows large amounts of information to be stored in smaller spaces. This is especially important for libraries because data storage is an important component of digital libraries and can help lower the budget costs for libraries. More importantly, it enables libraries to showcase information and become actively involved in a networked information service.

The articles “Imaging Pittsburgh” and “YouTube and Libraries” demonstrate that data compression allows for interactive media and exhibits that assist people not only with the functions of the library but provides access to educational and historical resources, normally limited by their analog format, and provides interoperability between different institutions. In this way, the multimedia fulfills the technical, social and access requirements of a functional network information infrastructure. Cooperation between academic and social libraries also helps create universal metadata definitions which is important to maintain a universal bibliography.

IMLS grants that finance pilot projects like the University of Pittsburgh’s Digital Research Library are crucial because they not only provide the budget for requisite technological advances that libraries couldn’t normally afford, but they also allow libraries to demonstrate their compatibility with modern digital infrastructures.

Muddiest Point #4

I am a little confused about the difference between database software and database management systems, if there is a difference at all. For example, would Excel be considered database software, a database management system, or neither?

Assignment #2: Flickr/Digitization

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30501339@N05/sets/72157607297496345/

Week 3 Comments

Comment #1:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7533952523781723717&postID=8784500798835554061

Comment #2:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=954478916342085840&postID=8926795329366757846

Reading Response #3: Who’s Going to Clean Up This Mess?

A well-known quote, attributed to A.J. Vendeland, states that, “Using the Internet today is like trying to use a library where all the books have been dumped on the floor and the lights turned out." Since the advent of the web and the new social dynamic of information exchange, many people are ready to categorize libraries and librarians as obsolete. What these same people fail to realize is that regardless of the significance, validity, or source, new information is flooding the Internet at an exponential rate. This confused proliferation of information is exacerbated by the fact that digital information is not limited to a physical location and a restrictive selection process. This ever-growing pool of digital resource is being tirelessly contributed to on a global scale.

As I understand it from the three assigned articles, the information retrieval system of databases is using a metadata format to create a resource directory application for the Internet. Anne Gilliland’s “An Introduction to Meta Data: Pathways to Digital Information” is excellent in that it clearly outlines the three components of metadata (content, context, and structure.). However, her categorizations of different metadata types and functions seem to mimic the current tasks and functions inherent in traditional librarianship. Gilliland even admits that, “Cultural heritage and information professionals have been creating metadata for as long as they have been managing collections. Increasingly, such metadata are being incorporated into digital information systems.” And while she contends that “museum, archives and library professionals may be most familiar with the term in association with description or cataloging,” she overlooks that the fact that separate from metadata, librarians have been contextualizing, processing, and preserving a myriad of resources in a wide range of formats.

Often, librarianship is characterized as the struggling recipient of the technological conditions of information sciences but I think that it’s time for the potential contribution of librarians to the new digital dynamic to be recognized. In fact, aren’t most of these digital platforms trying to replicate what librarians do already? I wonder how many librarians, not information scientists but actual librarians, are involved in the development of these pilot projects and if they aren’t…they should be. Conversely, I am beginning to think that a higher level of technological training should be mandatory in library education as the convergence of the two fields seems inevitable.

Muddiest Point #3

I looked at Evergreen's website to learn more about OSS but I am a little confused. In class, Dr. He mentioned the criteria of OSS: 1) free distribution; 2) source code available and accessible; 3) people are allowed to modify the code. The FAQ page on Evergreen's site states that the software is OSS but any end-user changes aren't added to the core code and that only specified users are allowed to change the core code. Is this still considered Open Source if there are conditional requirements about when code is adopted into the core or is this "core code" condition the same for all OSS platforms?

Week 2 Comments

Comment #1
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7533952523781723717&postID=7521044379786850542&page=1

Comment #2
http://monicalovelis2600discussion.blogspot.com/2008/09/week-3-readings.html

Muddiest Point #2

I am still a little confused about binary representation. I understand that 0s and 1s are used to represent physical data but why only 0s and 1s and not other numbers? And how does a computer interpret binary digits? I guess I am looking for a more physical alphabet that I can understand.

Reading Response #2: Is Free Better?

Like most consumers, I'm not so much concerned with how it works as how much it costs. The readings did help me understand how different software programs function, building on kernels to provide access for different operating systems, but to my untrained eye there wasn't a discernable difference between Linux, Microsoft, and Mac OS. What did stir my interest was the concept of Open Source software. Not only is it free but people are able to adapt the code?! What confuses me is that such a democratic software resource hasn't created more of a revolution for the mainstream consumer (like myself). Software programs such as Napster and Limewire have dramatically and permanently affected the way music is distributed and marketed. Why hasn't Linux created a similar dynamic? Is the very democratic nature of the Open Source medium (constant changes and updates) precluding mainstream distribution (as embedded software on PCs and laptops) or is it because there isn't a strong correlation between Linux' software programming and hardware development? For example, Apple manufactures popular hardware and peripheries (like the ubiquitous iPods and iPhones) that run on its proprietary operating system as Microsoft does PCs. Either way, I am definitely going to learn more about Linux' operating system because I am all for technology that not only attempts to close the "digital divide" but also provides users with an opportunity to actively participate in the development and adaptation of software directly for end users.

Week 1 Comments

Comment #1 (posted on 8/28/08)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7533952523781723717&postID=8990876746965593687

Comment #2 (posted on 8/28/08)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7821109072135779287&postID=4962163656489671707