December 2's Muddiest Point

In terms of the structure of the web search engines, what are "crawlers"? Are they a program or components in software? How do they interact and contribute to the search engine overall?

Week 14 Readings

Articles

Knorr, E., and G. Gruman. (n.d.). “What cloud computing really means.” InfoWorld. http://www.infoworld.com/d/cloud-computing/what-cloud-computing-really-means-031.

           The different types of computing possible in cloud computing mentioned in the article are interesting. Supposedly SaaS (software as a service) offers a single application through the browser, requiring no upfront investment from customers and few costs for the provider to maintain (Knorr and Gruman, n.d., p. 1). However, why just one application? I can think of a number of reasons for this. Most probably, it could be because of costs – the creator may have just decided to offer one application entirely rather than add more. There could also be a storage problem; the browser might not be able to handle more than one application at a time. Another – web service providers – provide APIs that allow developers to exploit functionality over the Internet instead of offering “full-blown” applications. They encompass a wide range of services; Knorr and Gruman (n.d.) explicitly list “offering discrete business services” and credit card processing (p. 2). As such, the services sound like they focus on services for the exchange of money or some sort of numerical computing. This would explain the “discrete” nature of a couple of the services; there is an aura of secretiveness about the services described, and the exchange of numbers and money usually involves private information so users would seek web service providers which could ensure their privacy.

 

Barnatt, C. (2008, May 10). “Explaining Cloud Computing.” YouTube video, 00:05:52. Accessed December 5, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hplXnFUlPmg&NR=1.

The section on “Hardware as a Service” was enlightening. In particular, I thought it was interesting learning about the main two rivals in selling/offering HaaS. C. Barnatt (2008) introduces both as Amazon EC2 and Google App Engine, providing screen shots of each – mainly listings ordered according to price and capabilities for Amazon and the overall formatting of Google (Barnatt, 2008, 00:01:43-00:03:03). Such an approach benefits viewers since it acts as a preview of the sites, giving viewers a way to recognize the sites in their later searches. I wonder, though, if there are other HaaS providers available besides Amazon and Google. The two have name recognition, so they would be considered the top players in providing such services. However, they can’t be the only ones.

The benefits mentioned appears incomplete. Barnatt only lists the benefits of Amazon EC2, which includes the products being elastic, flexible, inexpensive, and reliable (Barnatt, 2008, 00:01:43-00:03:03). Does Google App Engine offer the same benefits? Or any other attributes, such as speed or time warranty? If they are the same, then how has it been able to compete with Amazon without offering something new or different? What about the disadvantages of HaaS, whether overall or the products offered by Amazon and Google?

 

Frey, T. (2006, Nov. 2). “The Future of Libraries: Future scenario, historical perspective, technology trends.” FuturistSpeaker.com. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2006/11/the-future-of-libraries/.

            Some of the trends T. Frey (2006) asserts will influence future incarnations of the library sounds a little ridiculous. For example, one trend suggested states that “Search Technology will become increasingly more complicated.” Frey starts his description by assuming that currently search technology is relatively simple (Frey, 2006, under “Trend #4,” para. 1). However, this is inaccurate; while it seems easy, since you just have to type in a search term, ease depends on what a user is searching for. He will find an object more easily if it was popular and/or specific than something relatively unknown or shares a name with other objects.

            Next, Frey predicts that the next stage in search technology will include queries on “taste, smell, texture, reflectivity, opacity, mass, density, tone, speed, and volume” (Frey, 2006, under “Trend #4,” para. 2). At this point I am skeptical. Such searches seem unnecessary and extravagant, especially since some of the terms are subjective or sound impossible to measure correctly. He may be right and it will happen, but if it does, it will probably be a passing interest or only favored by those rich enough to afford such technology.
            The last paragraph, though, sounds more arguable. Frey ends the section by stating that as search becomes more complicated and people have less time and skills to keep updated on the newest innovations, the librarian will increasingly step in as a guide in finding information (Frey, 2006, under “Trend #4,” para. 3). I agree that potentially search will become more complicated, since developments of technology will lead to newer and greater uses of it to find more information. Librarians would be present a possible “expert” on the matter, since they would have experience organizing, finding, and explaining information for patrons. They would have to act quickly, though, to establish this role with the populace; they may give this role to other information professionals otherwise.

November 25's Muddiest Point

In terms of networks – or social networks – I’m still a little unsure about the terminology. I understand that “edges” connect “nodes” but what exactly are “edges” and “nodes”? How do “edges” connect “nodes”? What do such linking represent?

Week 13 Readings

Articles

Hamer, J. (2008, Sept. 24). “My Turn: Protecting privacy rights in libraries.” Library News.
http://greatlibrarynews.blogspot.com/2008/09/myturn-protecting-privacy-rights-in.html.

             Much of what J. Hamer (2008) covers involves crucial issues in privacy and security of library records. I agree with Hamer’s position on the matter overall. While clearing up and adding the librarian perspective on a Vermont law intending to protect the privacy of library records, Hamer states that the Vermont Library Association personally advocated for privacy protection for all patrons of all ages, concerned with how comfortable a child should be if they wish to research sensitive issues (Hamer, 2008, para. 3). Such a concern is logical; a child needs guidance, but information should not be limited to them based on what a parents considers “suitable” since such a stance remains subjective. Additionally, in the case of the Brooke Bennett investigation and “impeding” the search by requiring a court order to investigate information on the public computers (Hamer, 2008, para. 4), I agree that a court order should have been presented rather than have the police assume they can take whatever information they want. However, I wonder if there could be a substitute for the court order that could be used in an emergency – depending on the community, the case, and the court, there may be corruption or delays in gaining a court order that should have been acquired right away. Otherwise, though, the policy is in place to protect individuals’ safety and privacy. Most of the information acquired from the library would most likely be check-out histories, addresses, and phone numbers – the former not security-related, the latter two possibly a cause of alarm if a person has not recorded such information publicly already, but overall such information should be protected since a person’s privacy is integral and a matter of trust. If no one can live their lives without someone – whether from the government or not – acting like a “big brother” and investigating their records, no matter how useless the information is, then that person can’t live freely as an individual.

 

Shrivastava, M. (2013, July 8). “MIT’s ‘Immersion’ Project Reveals The Importance of Metadata.” Techchronic.http://techchronic.blogspot.in/2013/07/have-gmail-account-see-what-nsa-knows.html.

             I don’t know how melodramatic M. Shrivastava (2013) is in his article. He states that some officials and ministers defended the internet surveillance by NSA by claiming that “they are only collecting metadata related to your mails, messages and interactions from phone and internet companies” (Shrivastava, 2013, para. 1). It is alarming that they can access such information. Looking at the image of a social network provided (Shrivastava, 2013), one can easily see a whole communication tree. Not only can an individual see the communication lines between one person and a few others, but how it relates to a whole “community” of people, even ones who are connected to one person in the main “tree.” That is powerful; in the wrong hands, a person could be charged easily just for communicating – or communicating with someone who interacted with – a suspect or a person under investigation. The NSA does not access the content itself (Shrivastava, 2013, para. 1), so that does make a difference. It is not like they know exactly what you say, so a person has some protection. But even with the lack of information, a lot could be presumed or conjectured about a person’s interactions. Additionally, this is based on whether Shrivastava could be considered a reliable source – on the internet, anyone can lie about their identity or where they got their information.

 

“The Privacy Show.” (n.d.). On The Media. http://www.onthemedia.org/story/258658-the-privacy-show/.

            It is interesting the variety of concerns expressed over privacy issues online during the “Privacy Show” (n.d.) – mainly that it was akin to wearing an ankle bracelet tracking a person’s every “movement,” that there has not been an increase in security alongside the decrease in privacy, and that bias towards a person’s race/gender/sexuality/etc – or, in the case of one man, concerns that there may be homophobic engineers in Google who would discriminate against him – could affect an employee’s willingness to help someone online (00:00-01:16). Their range of reasons is enlightening; some people are worried that they have become “prisoners” to the system or that they lose out on giving up their privacy without any benefit taking its place or that even basic information about their identity could harm them. Overall, there is a sense that each user has lost control over their identity and abilities online, no longer “free” in the World Wide Web.

            The three factors mentioned concerning government and company “prying” into personal information online is interesting as well. Primarily these factors are the fear of terrorism, profit motives, and users’ desire for fun and convenience online (“Privacy Show,” n.d., 01:17-01:55). So it sounds like the government and companies pry because they are reacting – or want to take advantage – of the concerns of the populace. All of these factors derive from user wishes – whether for security against terrorism, especially in the wake of 9/11, or for better service.

November 18's Muddiest Point

What is the DSpace Digital Library System? What makes it different from other DL?

Week 12 Readings

Articles

Blossom, J. (2011). “What makes social media tick: seven secrets of social media.” In Content Nationl Surviving and Thriving as Social Media Changes Our Work, Out Lives, and Our Future. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons.

             Blossom specifically defines social media as “any highly scalable and accessible communications technology or technique that enables any individual to influence groups of individuals easily” (Blossom, 2011, p. 1). His logic sounds reasonable. He elucidates how although the scale and access differs between technologies and audiences involved, there is a constant need for social media to be scalable and easy to access (Blossom, 2011, p. 2-3). He additionally explains that social media remains a peer-to-peer medium, users relating to each other as peers and basing their authority on whether they share information considered authoritative by each other, and that its influence is unpredictable on the masses due to its scalability, information meant for a limited audience sometimes reaching greater influences in the wider world (Blossom, 2011, p. 3). I agree with the first part of his definition; social media is social in that many users can use and access technologies that allow them to communicate to a wide group of people. However, I disagree with the rest of his definition. While a user may engage in social media to influence others, that is just one reason. Numerous other causes can motivate a user to utilize social media, such as seeking information – thus being influenced themselves – or just communicating with others that they cannot talk or write to normally (whether due to the busyness of their own lives or geographical distances). As for his elucidation on “peer-to-peer,” I think that depends on the social media and individuals involved. Some hierarchy remains; mods and admins of discussion sites, for example, can delete posts made by regular users, undermining their wish to influence others.

 

Allan, C. (2007, April). “Using a wiki to manage a library instruction program: Sharing knowledge to better serve patrons.” C&RL News 68(4): 242-244.

             As I was reading the article, I kept on being distracted by the presentation of the content itself. While it was largely readable, the article divided into clear categories, the scan kept skipping on individual letters. For example, the sentence “The wiki, which is accessible by invited users at speci c URL, somewhat visually resembles a word processing program” (Allan, 2007, p. 242) has lost letters (“fi”) in the word “specific” while the sentence “The   rst use of the wiki deals with sharing information and new experiences….” (Allan, 2007, p. 243) loses the first two letters of the second word “rst” – based on latter paragraphs, probably was meant to be “first.” Such a problem does not lie with the writer, but with the digital format. It was published in an academic journal, so such glaring misspellings would have been fixed, and copying and pasting the sentences in a separate document retrieves the letters. This reminds me of our OCR task in the first assignment – not all of the information we were required to OCR had legible results – and my own troubles with making quotation marks and hyphens uploaded onto my website in assignment 5 (which, at this time, are still unsuccessful). Ultimately, this is a good lesson in itself when working with digital tools – become familiar with digitization and be prepared for some information not automatically translating well into new formats.

            The article itself was enlightening on the topic of wikis. Having heard about Wikipedia, I originally thought it was the only one of its kind – quite a naïve belief, considering that its format and type suggests development from a root model. So the idea that I could create my own wiki was interesting and could be beneficial for me in my future career. Whether I could fully use them as C. Allan (2007) suggests for libraries, such as managing public services information, collaborating on and monitoring reference questions, and evaluating databases (p. 242-243) or find my own uses, I don’t know – I’ll have to test them out myself to see. Curious about the “best known sites” Allan notes – seedwiki, pbwiki, jotspot, twiki.org, and phpwiki – (Allan, 2007, p. 242) I decided to look them up online and understand better how you would go about creating one. However, there have been many changes since 2007. twiki.org, pbwiki (relaunched as pbworks), jotspot (bought by Google and renamed Google Sites – http://www.crunchbase.com/company/jotspot), and phpwiki (changing its web address from phpwiki.org to http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/) remain wiki providers. seedwiki has been turned off (see http://seedwiki.com/ for its creator’s last words). Comparing the past to the present was interesting – most of them have persisted in providing wiki tools, but have developed as well, either changing its structure or management.

 

Arch, X. (2007, February). “Creating the academic library folksonomy: Put social tagging to work at your institution.” C&RL News 68 (2): 80-81.

             I found the risks, which X. Arch (2007) notes in his article, to be quite interesting. Specifically, Arch asserts that one issue in including social tagging is that spagging may occur, during which “users with bad intentions” tag irrelevant or inappropriate sites so as to make a profit or create chaos (Arch, 2007, p. 81). I agree that these are two main reasons for a user to tag unsuitable sites – it is part of human nature to seek ways to profit themselves in any way, whether by acquiring monetary sources or causing trouble for others. I think, however, that such a view assumes that everyone can rightly judge the nature of a site. Some may have tagged sites that they thought was helpful and relevant to the tagging or they may have misread the tags available. Thus, I would add that users with well-intentioned purposed but lead by ill judgment could be a cause for concern as well. Another issue was that, without a proper standard taught or enforced, users would have little knowledge in creating tags following a shared terminology nor would they know what keywords to choose (Arch, 2007, p. 81). I think this is a viable problem that should be solved. In such a case, a standard should be used. Although this may go against the idea of a folksonomy, such a taxonomy cannot be helpful if no one understands how to use it. It doesn’t have to be something strict and official, just a loose basis that could be a model for future additions to the tags. In such a case, you could mix both standards and local jargon – use standards for ideas that have few words to represent them and to act as a template for how to form keywords, use users’ inflections in what type of words are more common among the majority.

 

Wales, J. (2006, August). “Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia.” TED Talks video, 20:05. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_on_the_birth_of_wikipedia.html.

            J. Wales’s (2006) stances on neutrality seem to conflict somewhat with his analysis of the structure of those who run/edit/manage Wikipedia itself. He asserts that Wikipedia follows a neutrality policy that is nonnegotiable, wherein users must merely report information and any controversies without bias for any side (Wales, 2006, 0:07:45-0:09:02). I think that this is a good standard to follow overall; Wikipedia is a global phenomenon, so there are more differences in personal opinions, political and economic beliefs, philosophies, religions, and societal factors to take into consideration than in one country alone. Such a stance not only allows the users to work with each other without contentions as Wales promotes (Wales, 2006, 0:09:03-0:010:00) but it also means that information about individual points will not be limited by one point-of-view but encompass more facets – not every detail, since neutrality does imply a side that considers the main opinionated, upfront viewpoints involved, but at least a varied mix of points from every side rather than one viewpoint.

            When compared to the structure of Wikipedia’s “staff,” though, the neutrality policy appears a little off. Wales explains that the management of the site derives principles from a wide variety of political philosophies, including the democratic nuances of voting for the erasure or inclusion of pages, the aristocratic assumption that certain figures who have worked closely with the set-up and management of Wikipedia for a certain length of time exert greater influence in the framework, and monarchic principles – not “benevolent dictator,” which Wales refuses to acknowledge – that Wales, the founder, makes the final decisions over everything (Wales, 2006, 0:14:08-0:17:50). Such a mishmash of political standards does not imply an anti-political or a flexible management standpoint alone, but a different form of management style. It is democracy tempered, a social construct that – while having relative equality amongst its management – still assumes clear leadership whose opinions do matter. If the “aristocratic” members and the “Queen” deemed it, they could alter the neutrality principle itself, declaring an opinion to be “neutral” when it is not while other members will have to yield to such a decision.

November 11's Muddiest Point

I'm still a little confused on the relationships between the different types of languages available (SGML, XML, HTML, XHTML, etc.). How does SGML simplify XML? Does XML define XHTML like SGML defines HTML, or does XML do something different entirely?