Week 11 Readings

Articles

Paepcke, A., H. Garcia-Molina, and R. Wesley. (2005, July/August). “Dewey Meets Turing: Librarians, Computer Scientists, and the Digital Libraries Initiative.” D-Lib Magazine 11: 7-8.

             A. Paepcke and his co-authors (2005), unusually, view the Web very negatively in the article. In terms of the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), they portray the Web as the disrupter of peace and alliance between computer scientists and librarians. It was the “somewhat undisciplined teenager,” a new son/daughter in terms that it has ruined their plans for their initiative by providing alternate sources of information (Paepcke, Garcia-Molina, and Wesley, 2005, under “The Cuckoo’s Egg Surprise,” para. 2). It challenged their assumptions about forming digital libraries and what was considered the primary source for finding and using materials. Yet Parpcke and his colleagues direct their analogy into an Oedipus/Elektra complex. The ‘teenager’ now has “sex appeal” for computer scientists; the Web offered a fertile area for machine learning, statistical, and experimental methods to become applicable to information search and organization, drawing in legions of researchers to participate (Paepcke, Garcia-Molina, and Wesley, 2005, under “The Cuckoo’s Egg Surprise,” para. 8). So it seduced computer scientists to the other side, leaving librarians off-balance in the Initiative. As such, it has become an adulterer, betraying the trust computer scientists and librarians had. Such language seems over-dramatic, though; the authors want to explain why digital libraries aren’t succeeding as they expected, so they found a scapegoat in the Web and made it the source of all of their troubles. I think a lot more factors are involved. Additionally, the Web is not the librarians’ enemy; it may cause hardships for the Initiative overall, but it has increasingly become a tool for librarians to use in linking, organizing, and creating information.

 

Lynch, C. A. (2003, February). “Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age.” ARL no. 226: 1-7.

             It is interesting that C.A. Lynch (2003) sets up the repository as a collaborative effort. He specifically states that a successful institutional repository portrays a collaboration between librarians, information technologists, archives and records managers, faculty, and university administrators and policymakers (Lynch, 2003, p. 2). This is interesting in that he takes a overarching viewpoint of the repository; rather than focusing on one identity or how one particular group of people creates or uses the institution, he suggests that it involves the work of many individuals. Thus the institutional repository does not appear to be so 2-dimensional, but more complex, requiring the actions of many people to work. This does fit its purpose to disseminate digital materials to its institution and related members – particularly the intellectual works of faculty and students (Lynch, 2003, p. 2) – in a sense implying that collaboration supplies benefits to a wider sample of people. I wonder, though, if institutional repositories should only distribute the works of faculty and students. Such a narrowing of focus may help the repository focus its aim to build up a collection and access to scholarship, but it also limits what counts as legitimate sources or information.

            Another interesting point is Lynch’s concerns over the use of repositories. The main troubles he foresees includes degenerating the repository into a tool for institutional control over intellectual work (Lynch, 2003, p. 4-5), adding additional “distracting and irrelevant policy baggage” to it (Lynch, 2003, p. 5), and – with increasing demand for institutional repositories – repositories may became hastily-made, hollow services (Lynch, 2003, p. 6). Thus he is concerned over the quality of institutional repositories; he associates a true repository as one little influenced by the politics of its institution [being almost ‘uncontaminated’ or pure, having its own agenda rather than fulfilling the agendas of its institution], yet requiring the full support and resources of its institution to be well-made and resourceful for its users. Can such conflicting worries coexist? Such a repository imagined by Lynch would need to be created by an institution which upholds values of open access to information and ideals on unrestrained/uncensored information. Reality, though, means that the repository in question has to submit to its institution to some degree if it is to receive funding or support in its own endeavors. As such, I don’t know how realistic Lynch’s concerns are or if they can be fixed according to his own values.

 

Hawking, D. (2006, June). “Web Search Engines: Part 1.” Computer: 86-88.
AND
Hawking, D. (2006, August). “Web Search Engines: Part 2.” Computer: 88-90.

             According to D. Hawking (2006), Web search engines require a lot of attention and work to operate. Physically, they can be sprawling. Each operates from numerous, geographically spread data centers and within each center are a variable number of servers to support services and specialized duties (Hawking, “Part 1,” 2006, p. 86). Thus search engines are not one entity, but a composition of entities; it needs different parts to ensure that it functions as it should. Its actions itself imply complexity as well. For example, search engines employ inverted files to identify indexing terms. Inverted files can only be created in two phases – first, scanning the text of each input document; second, sorting temporary files into term number order (Hawking, “Part 2,” 2006, p. 88). This requires a user to invest of lot of time and attention to create the files needed for the process. Taken altogether, this is a sobering thought; search engines have become such a common feature on the Web that to not see one would be a cause for outcry. It seems so easy to use – just enter a word or phrase, click, and you get your results – yet a lot of work goes into making sure it works.

 

Shreeves, S.L., T.G. Habing, K. Hagedorn, and J.A. Young. (2005). “Current Developments and Future Trends for the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting.” Library Trends 53, no. 4: 576-589.

             In this article, I found the development of OAI services quite interesting. Rather than remain a tool only in the e-print archives community, others – libraries, museums, archives, etc. – started using it for their own services, creating user group-specific service providers (Shreeves et al, 2005, p. 578). Thus others started seeing its usefulness – probably through observing how the e-print archives community used it and debated its pros/cons. Yet, other communities didn’t mimic the original users explicitly. Rather, they not only utilized the servers to help provide federated access to resources but also developed further standards, tools, and metadata schemas to contribute to the OAI protocol (Shreeves et al, 2005, p. 578). In this way, the OAI provides a good lesson in using technologies, especially those created for a specific purpose or group. If others purposes exist for a device, then a user should test it out. Other people can use the same tool for different purposes. Additionally, what it is now does not mean that it will maintain that structure in the future; users can add new standards or other accessories to the technology to better adapt it to their situation.