The last blog of the semester is upon us. I can hardly believe it's over, it went by so quickly. This week's articles were about L2, or Library 2.0, and the "invisible web," the behind-the-scenes, non-indexed (and, therefore, unsearchable) web. Greg Notess discusses in his article, "The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More," the ambiguous and sometimes controversial concepts of 2.0 applications and their implications for the library of the future. The terms are ambiguous because there is still debate as to what, exactly, they mean. They're controversial because sometimes people don't particularly like the terms and argue that the definitions are too broad. Notess cautions, however, that before we completely dismiss Library 2.0, we should "visit some of the example sites, experiment with their capabilities, and imagine the possibilities for products and processes" (42). Some of the L2 concepts he discusses, such as instant messaging, RSS, wikis, social networking, and blogs, can already be seen to be effective tools in place in many libraries. As the Internet grows to be a more interactive tool, Library 2.0 will be, in my opinion, more and more appropriate and important in the future.
Yangbo Ru and Ellis Horowitz's article, "Indexing the invisible web: A survey," discusses the two sides of the web; the visible, searchable side that we see every day by entering terms into a search engine, and the hidden side, or the invisible web. The invisible web "refers to the vast collection of information that is accessible via the worldwide web, but is not indexed by conventional search engines" (249). This can include databases, audio and video clips, and intentionally excluded pages, such as pornography. Some search engines have applications in place that automatically index the invisible side of web sites. Some others are indexed by human beings, which, of course, means that the indexing is limited to the preference and experience of the indexer. Another factor of indexing web content is that there are many different interfaces, thus making it difficult to design a one-size-fits-all solution to accomodate all of the invisible content out there. The authors suggest "a technique that can more comprehensively index the data in an invisible web site...that will not get swamped by the size of the data" (262).
I guess I had never given much thought to the "invisible web" before. It seems like there is so much content out there already and, as Ru and Horowitz note, the hidden, unsearchable side of the web contains much more information than the Publicly Indexable Web (249). It seems like a monumental task but, as time goes on and the web evolves and gets even larger, such a task will mean more opportunity for information professionals. As I come to my last semester in graduate school, my thoughts turn to jobs, interviews, and resumes - scary stuff... Library 2.0 and the invisible web, though, respectively, controversial and unfathomable in terms of magnitude, give me hope for the future of librarianship and my role as an information professional.
Happy Holidays everyone! Here's a recipe
I'm going to try this Xmas. It's from our friends at Forward Foods and it looks delicious. Actually, I picked up some of the Smokey Blue cheese today and, well, just trust me - try it.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
Nov. 20: Nicholson, Rose
Scott Nicholson's article, "Digital Library Archaeology: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Library Use Through Artifact-Based Evaluation," compares the science of archaeology through the ages to bibliomining and other research into digital library use. Nicholson suggests that library science has not grown as much as the pure sciences because of a lack of hypothesis-based research and traditional scientific process. The author stresses looking at patterns of use but also maintaining user privacy in the process. He states that "the focus of the present work is to understand the interaction between a user and electronic resources through a digital library service" (500). The main point of the article, as I see it, is that there remains much research to be done and the archaeological method is quite applicable in the digital realm. I agree with Nicholson that user privacy is of utmost importance in user-centered research. User-centered research seems to be the current trend in library science. The benefit of being able to converse with the actual living users of a system, unlike trying to piece together information from artifacts left behind by earlier civilizations, gives library science an advantage that archaeology does not have. By using this information carefully, library science can gain a better understanding of digital library users and create a better system based on their behavior.
Daniel E. Rose's article, "Reconciling Information-Seeking Behavior with Search User Interfaces for the Web," discusses user search behavior in a variety of contexts. The author notes that today's information seekers use more simplified queries rather than the complex Boolean logic of former information retrieval systems. Today most of the more complicated search mechanisms "happen behind the scenes, while relevance ranking determines how results are presented to the user" (797). The contexts in which Rose looks at information-seeking behavior are the goal of the user, the cultural and situational context at the time of the search, and the repetitive nature of the search task (797). Rose identifies three types of information needs: 1) navigational - for example, finding a particular web site without prior knowledge of its URL; 2) informational - simply finding information related to search terms; and 3) transactional - finding a service, such as a database, that will allow the user to investigate her/his query further. Rose states that despite these different types of user searches, "nearly every Web search engine offers users the identical search experience" (798). Cultural and situational contexts, as well as the iterative nature of the search task, further complicate user-search engine interaction. Rose suggests that Web search interfaces should take these points into consideration and that these insights might change the face of the search engine as we know it today.
Daniel E. Rose's article, "Reconciling Information-Seeking Behavior with Search User Interfaces for the Web," discusses user search behavior in a variety of contexts. The author notes that today's information seekers use more simplified queries rather than the complex Boolean logic of former information retrieval systems. Today most of the more complicated search mechanisms "happen behind the scenes, while relevance ranking determines how results are presented to the user" (797). The contexts in which Rose looks at information-seeking behavior are the goal of the user, the cultural and situational context at the time of the search, and the repetitive nature of the search task (797). Rose identifies three types of information needs: 1) navigational - for example, finding a particular web site without prior knowledge of its URL; 2) informational - simply finding information related to search terms; and 3) transactional - finding a service, such as a database, that will allow the user to investigate her/his query further. Rose states that despite these different types of user searches, "nearly every Web search engine offers users the identical search experience" (798). Cultural and situational contexts, as well as the iterative nature of the search task, further complicate user-search engine interaction. Rose suggests that Web search interfaces should take these points into consideration and that these insights might change the face of the search engine as we know it today.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Nov. 13: Audunson, Liu
Ragnar Audunson's article, "The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places," discusses the role of the public library in today's multicultural world. Audunson compares modern multicultural society with "the so-called information or knowledge society" (429). He states at the beginning of the article that the two are 'seemingly unrelated' but that both have a great impact on public librarianship. I couldn't agree more, although I can easily see the correlation between the diversification of society with the information explosion we are now experiencing. It seems to me that it might be less isolating for ethnic and cultural minorities to move to a completely foreign society (the article mentions Lapps and Romany as examples), where they may not even speak the language. If information is more widely available, especially digitally, I would think this would help ease the transition into the adopted society much more so than before the advent of the Internet. Audunson traces the public library's roots from the Enlightenment to its modern role as the seat of community democracy, promoting cultural tolerance and community involvement. The public library, the author notes, should be a place "where people belonging to different cultural groups can meet and communicate" (433). He highlights this further by explaining how the wide availability of digital information can foster communication with greater numbers of people. Audunson calls the public library a "low-intensive arena" in which this communication can take place. These arenas make it possible for people from different cultural groups and with different values to come together and discuss social and political issues. He explains that "high-intensive arenas" (such as the workplace, church, families, etc.), although vital to an individual's sense of self, can "create social and cultural boundaries and demarcations" (437). The public library, therefore, must be upheld as a necessity by its community. It remains as the one societal institution where all forms of information and people from all walks of life are not only welcome but also encouraged.
Ziming Liu's article, "Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years," looks at how the explosion of digital information has caused the emergence of screen-based reading, as opposed to traditional hand-held print reading. One goal of Liu's study is to understand these changes in order to design better digital library resources. Some recent studies "argue that the arrival of digital media, together with the fragmentary nature of hypertext, is threatening sustained reading" (701). However, Liu's study contradicts this theory. Although the author doesn't deny the emergence of screen-based reading as a new reading behavior, his study finds that most readers still prefer the printed word to its digital counterpart for a variety of reasons. Annotating and highlighting is the main reason people prefer printed documents for in-depth reading. As Liu notes, anyone can use a pencil or highlighter on a piece of paper but annotating and highlighting electronic documents requires certain knowledge that not everyone has. Liu points out that screen-based reading has its advantages, such as browsing, scanning, and keyword spotting, but that paper will likely remain the preference in the future for in-depth reading.
Liu's article struck me as quite appropriate to my life. I think the availability of information in the electronic form is great but I, both as a student and as just a regular person, much prefer to hold what I'm reading in my hand. I sometimes even print out lengthier emails just so I don't have to stare at the computer screen too long. Also, a little secret about me: I hate ebooks. Well, hate is a strong word but I don't really like them much. If I was assigned a book to read and it was only available to me online, I would be very unhappy. I would probably go instead to the public library and get a physical copy of the book. I, like many working folks, spend way too much time every day with my eyes glued to a computer monitor (well, in my case, two computer monitors). It's nice to do some old-fashioned print-based reading every once in a while. I think Liu's study is interesting and it will be even more interesting to see how reading behavior evolves in the future.
Ziming Liu's article, "Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years," looks at how the explosion of digital information has caused the emergence of screen-based reading, as opposed to traditional hand-held print reading. One goal of Liu's study is to understand these changes in order to design better digital library resources. Some recent studies "argue that the arrival of digital media, together with the fragmentary nature of hypertext, is threatening sustained reading" (701). However, Liu's study contradicts this theory. Although the author doesn't deny the emergence of screen-based reading as a new reading behavior, his study finds that most readers still prefer the printed word to its digital counterpart for a variety of reasons. Annotating and highlighting is the main reason people prefer printed documents for in-depth reading. As Liu notes, anyone can use a pencil or highlighter on a piece of paper but annotating and highlighting electronic documents requires certain knowledge that not everyone has. Liu points out that screen-based reading has its advantages, such as browsing, scanning, and keyword spotting, but that paper will likely remain the preference in the future for in-depth reading.
Liu's article struck me as quite appropriate to my life. I think the availability of information in the electronic form is great but I, both as a student and as just a regular person, much prefer to hold what I'm reading in my hand. I sometimes even print out lengthier emails just so I don't have to stare at the computer screen too long. Also, a little secret about me: I hate ebooks. Well, hate is a strong word but I don't really like them much. If I was assigned a book to read and it was only available to me online, I would be very unhappy. I would probably go instead to the public library and get a physical copy of the book. I, like many working folks, spend way too much time every day with my eyes glued to a computer monitor (well, in my case, two computer monitors). It's nice to do some old-fashioned print-based reading every once in a while. I think Liu's study is interesting and it will be even more interesting to see how reading behavior evolves in the future.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Nov. 6: Shaker, Terdiman
Lee Shaker's article, "In Google we trust: Information integrity in the digital age," discusses the safety and reliability of Google and how the public's view of it is shaped partly by its financial success. Shaker takes a good look at Google through two years of New York Times news stories about the company. He finds that most (over half) of the stories within this two year period solely discussed Google's "corporate interests" (9). This, the author maintains, colors the public's view of Google and erroneously allows for its trust in Google to grow. Shaker discusses the framing of news stories and how, for example, using quotes from prominent business people (instead of getting unbiased views from many sides), who attest to Google's prosperity, further serve to exacerbate the growing problem of a false sense of trust based on nothing more than its fiscal profits. The author also considers Google's questionable privacy practices with regard to its users. He states that Google's "privacy policy makes it clear that it is a document to protect the company's interests first, to reassure users second, and protect users lastly" (5). Shaker wishes to stress that users of Google (as well as, I assume, other information providers) be somewhat wary and realize that media coverage of its financial success is not necessarily reason to believe that no information risks exist with using the product.
Daniel Terdiman's article, "Folksonomies Tap People Power," discusses the different tagging styles used in sites like del.icio.us and Flickr. The author explains that del.icio.us uses a broad folksonomy, meaning that many users tag the same item (in this case, a URL), while Flickr is a narrow folksonomy - small numbers of users tagging many different individual items (photographs). Terdiman notes that tag use is on the rise in blogs and other social sites and stresses that the more people that get involved, the greater the value tags will have.
I finally checked out del.icio.us after reading about it last week and it seems like a pretty useful tool for someone who a) either has a huge number of web sites s/he likes to keep track of, or b) likes to learn what other people consider valuable information about specific sites. To me, it's somewhat reminiscent of Wikipedia, where many people have the opportunity to create and edit information and, together, the information for the most parts remains reliable because it is under constant scrutiny. On the other hand, it doesn't look like users can edit others' tags so I would think that "bad" tags would eventually be phased out by "better" ones, if that makes sense.
Daniel Terdiman's article, "Folksonomies Tap People Power," discusses the different tagging styles used in sites like del.icio.us and Flickr. The author explains that del.icio.us uses a broad folksonomy, meaning that many users tag the same item (in this case, a URL), while Flickr is a narrow folksonomy - small numbers of users tagging many different individual items (photographs). Terdiman notes that tag use is on the rise in blogs and other social sites and stresses that the more people that get involved, the greater the value tags will have.
I finally checked out del.icio.us after reading about it last week and it seems like a pretty useful tool for someone who a) either has a huge number of web sites s/he likes to keep track of, or b) likes to learn what other people consider valuable information about specific sites. To me, it's somewhat reminiscent of Wikipedia, where many people have the opportunity to create and edit information and, together, the information for the most parts remains reliable because it is under constant scrutiny. On the other hand, it doesn't look like users can edit others' tags so I would think that "bad" tags would eventually be phased out by "better" ones, if that makes sense.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Wow, political activism still exists!!
Dear Norman Residents,
Have you noticed the Jim Lemons political signs around town? Well, I have and I've been making fun of his slogan for days now, which is "America, Families, Etc." Lame. WELL, turns out that it is a spoof! I LOVE IT!!! I've been thinking to myself, "OK, 'America, Families' is pretty damn vague but the 'Etc.' is the part that really gets me." 'Etc.' could mean practically ANYTHING - prostitution, drugs, gay marriage, take your pick! Anyway, this is DEL.ICIO.US. Here's the complete story.
Students spoof political process with fictitious candidate
By M. Scott Carter
THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)
NORMAN, Okla. — The Jim Lemons political campaign is pretty low key.
There’s no television.
There’s no radio.
No newspaper ads.
Public appearances are scarce.
Heck, if you attended Lemons’ last press conference, consider yourself among the chosen few. Finding the Lemons headquarters isn’t easy, either. Granted, there are yard signs and stickers scattered throughout Norman, but Lemons and his staff are very difficult to locate.
There is a campaign spokesman.
And yes, there’s also a Web site.
But a vote for Jim Lemons is, well, pretty much impossible.
Because Jim Lemons doesn’t exist.
At least not in the flesh.
The brainchild of Norman residents Tres Savage and Josh McBee, the Jim Lemons campaign is a statement; a protest, Savage says, “about the deplorable electoral process Oklahomans have gotten themselves into.”
And that protest has become a local legend.
With curious phone calls to The Transcript and questions from seasoned political obser-vers and other candidates, the Lemons campaign has grown far beyond a few yard signs and a Web site.
It has quickly become part of the local political landscape.
And that landscape, Savage says, needs to be shaken up.
As the editor of the University of Oklahoma’s student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily, Savage has covered his share of politicians; and it’s their behavior, along with the process of getting elected, which bothers him.
“This is personal,” Savage said.
“It has nothing to do with my job. It’s a protest about ugly political process and how people are being misled.” A former intern and Transcript reporter, Savage is no stranger to politics or protests.
And while some protesters choose to rally, march and sing or boycott whatever entity they disagree with, that’s not Savage’s or McBee’s style.
Both are journalists — college journalists.
And, unlike many players in the state political arena, they actually have something to say. But to be effective the pair knew their protest had to be unique; it had to have some panache, if you will. For them, their political statement had to be something the public would remember, and hopefully, take to heart.
And yeah, it also had to be fun.
“OK, the truth is Josh (McBee) and I were sitting around this summer when we came up with the idea. We were talking about politics when I realized how much I hated the process,” Savage admitted to The Transcript.
And thus, Jim Lemons—and his 2006 campaign—was born.
Labor was induced.
“Yes, we were induced by something,” Savage said. “But what, I don’t want to say.”
Taking advantage of the quickest way possible to get the message out — the Internet’s myspace Web site — the Lemons campaign took its first steps. Following the site’s launch, the first bright red yard sign was placed in Savage’s yard.
Touting Lemons’ name and the slogan, “Make lemonade 06” the sign caught the attention of locals and more signs — and supporters — followed.
And, before long, Savage had produced 500 yard signs — at a cost of almost $800 — urging voters to support the unseen candidate. “We looked at it like this: No matter who you’re gonna vote for you’re gonna get a lemon. So that became our slogan.”
And even though Lemons claimed no party affiliation, nor did he seek any particular office, his campaign continued to expand — due in part, Savage said, to the public’s frustration with mainstream candidates, political parties and the media. “Plus the fact there really isn’t anyone trying to do anything different.”
But to keep their momentum their candidate had to seem real.
Back to the Internet.
Complete with photographs and “news” stories, the Jim Lemons’ site includes some personal information, but little political insight:
• Lemons says he’s 51 years old.
• He says he’s married.
• He says he has grandchildren.
• He says he’s straight.
• He says he’s a Capricorn.
• He claims to be a resident of Norman.
• He also says he’s a Christian, a proud parent and a college grad.
• And his chief political rival is a man named David Dibble.
Lemons, according to his Internet site, has also been busy: The candidate has hosted at least one impromptu campaign rally and a fall press conference. In a September press release, Lemons even responds to questions about his campaign literature being found at the scene of several area drug busts.
“Because hundreds of supporters have been spreading my message and sticking my stickers all across Norman, it’s unavoidable that some of the thousands of marijuana users in this city might happen to venture past my campaign postings,” Lemons’ release said. “I think, if anything, that these so-called seedy sightings of my election paraphernalia only prove the strength of my campaign.”
In another posting, Lemons, like many local candidates, addresses his problems with yard signs being destroyed.
“There have been reports that Mr. Dibble and his associates have been involved in the disappearance of my signs,” the site says, “but I do understand that David is a documented kleptomaniac and has been seeking treatment at various facilities for multiple years. Thus, I do not want to turn his struggle with a crippling psychological syndrome into a campaign issue.”
The tongue-in-cheek volley comments on the recent spate of television stories covering controversies about thefts and defacing of candidates’ yard signs.
As Lemons’ stealth campaign continued, his strategy evolved and, consequently, a new theme was adopted. “I was working as an intern for the Oklahoma City Gazette and was covering the 5th Congressional District race, and I was amazed by the rhetoric — faith, family and all that stuff,” Savage said. “I wanted to take a shot at that.”
The result, Savage said, was a new campaign theme: “Jim Lemons — America, families, etc.”
“That pretty much summed up our feelings,” he said. “We’re trying to throw Oklahoma politics a curve ball. It needs a curve ball.”
So far, Savage and McBee have thrown strikes.
From the huge increase in requests for yard signs to the unscheduled campaign rally, Jim Lemons and his cadre of supporters are injecting a bit of fun and political theater into an otherwise drab campaign season filled with sleaze, mud-slinging and ever-increasing claims of negativity.
“It’s not just the politicians,” Savage said. “I’m also frustrated with the media; they are part of a politician’s plan to get elected. The politicians want to get publicity. They mostly court television, more than print, for sure, but the trick is to get attention. And yet, at the same time, no one in the media is holding any candidate’s feet to the fire.”
As an example, Savage cites the Senate District 16 race.
“None of the candidates separated themselves from one another,” he said. “There was hardly anything about how the candidates stood and what they believed in. Plus, early in the primary they were all heavy into yard signs. I was talking with Josh (McBee) about it and we agreed: If you were just going on yard signs early on, Ott would have been elected.”
That race, Savage said, and the fact that the state’s voter turnout has been incredibly low for the election cycle, gives Lemons’ campaign more standing.
“It’s something different,” Savage said. “It’s far from the norm. Lemons appeals to people who don’t tune into what’s going on right now between Thad and Wallace and Sparks and Davis. Lemons is for those people who are so disgusted they don’t care about the other.”
The campaign’s focus, Savage says, is on those who are frustrated.
“If only 30 percent of the registered voters in this state vote, then Jim Lemons is for the other 70 percent,” he said.
With just days left before the Nov. 7 election, Savage said the Lemons campaign isn’t worried. “We’re telling people to write Lemons’ name in,” Savage said. “Even if it does invalidate their ballot.”
“In Oklahoma, write-in candidates are not counted,” says Cleveland County election board secretary, Paula Roberts. “Our machines are not set up to read write-in candidate names. And writing in a name could invalidate the ballot.”
That fact doesn’t bother Savage, he says, because not allowing write-in candidates is wrong. “It’s ridiculous and it needs to be changed,” he said. “I know I will be writing Lemons’ name in and I highly encourage anyone who doesn’t know who they are voting for to write Lemons’ name in.”
People, he said, should not be discouraged from voting.
“That’s why we’ve put the date on our sign,” he said. “To let people know when they could vote.”
So what happens to Jim Lemons after the election?
“I think Jim will stick around,” Savage said. “I was thinking, ‘From now on anytime I want to be philanthropic to help further society, Jim Lemons will help me do it.’ Plus he may write the occasional opinion piece or letter to the editor.”
A fictional way to solve some very real problems, he says.
And Lemons today?
“Oh he’s everywhere,” Savage said. “That’s what the signs say.”
M. Scott Carter writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript.
Have you noticed the Jim Lemons political signs around town? Well, I have and I've been making fun of his slogan for days now, which is "America, Families, Etc." Lame. WELL, turns out that it is a spoof! I LOVE IT!!! I've been thinking to myself, "OK, 'America, Families' is pretty damn vague but the 'Etc.' is the part that really gets me." 'Etc.' could mean practically ANYTHING - prostitution, drugs, gay marriage, take your pick! Anyway, this is DEL.ICIO.US. Here's the complete story.
Students spoof political process with fictitious candidate
By M. Scott Carter
THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)
NORMAN, Okla. — The Jim Lemons political campaign is pretty low key.
There’s no television.
There’s no radio.
No newspaper ads.
Public appearances are scarce.
Heck, if you attended Lemons’ last press conference, consider yourself among the chosen few. Finding the Lemons headquarters isn’t easy, either. Granted, there are yard signs and stickers scattered throughout Norman, but Lemons and his staff are very difficult to locate.
There is a campaign spokesman.
And yes, there’s also a Web site.
But a vote for Jim Lemons is, well, pretty much impossible.
Because Jim Lemons doesn’t exist.
At least not in the flesh.
The brainchild of Norman residents Tres Savage and Josh McBee, the Jim Lemons campaign is a statement; a protest, Savage says, “about the deplorable electoral process Oklahomans have gotten themselves into.”
And that protest has become a local legend.
With curious phone calls to The Transcript and questions from seasoned political obser-vers and other candidates, the Lemons campaign has grown far beyond a few yard signs and a Web site.
It has quickly become part of the local political landscape.
And that landscape, Savage says, needs to be shaken up.
As the editor of the University of Oklahoma’s student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily, Savage has covered his share of politicians; and it’s their behavior, along with the process of getting elected, which bothers him.
“This is personal,” Savage said.
“It has nothing to do with my job. It’s a protest about ugly political process and how people are being misled.” A former intern and Transcript reporter, Savage is no stranger to politics or protests.
And while some protesters choose to rally, march and sing or boycott whatever entity they disagree with, that’s not Savage’s or McBee’s style.
Both are journalists — college journalists.
And, unlike many players in the state political arena, they actually have something to say. But to be effective the pair knew their protest had to be unique; it had to have some panache, if you will. For them, their political statement had to be something the public would remember, and hopefully, take to heart.
And yeah, it also had to be fun.
“OK, the truth is Josh (McBee) and I were sitting around this summer when we came up with the idea. We were talking about politics when I realized how much I hated the process,” Savage admitted to The Transcript.
And thus, Jim Lemons—and his 2006 campaign—was born.
Labor was induced.
“Yes, we were induced by something,” Savage said. “But what, I don’t want to say.”
Taking advantage of the quickest way possible to get the message out — the Internet’s myspace Web site — the Lemons campaign took its first steps. Following the site’s launch, the first bright red yard sign was placed in Savage’s yard.
Touting Lemons’ name and the slogan, “Make lemonade 06” the sign caught the attention of locals and more signs — and supporters — followed.
And, before long, Savage had produced 500 yard signs — at a cost of almost $800 — urging voters to support the unseen candidate. “We looked at it like this: No matter who you’re gonna vote for you’re gonna get a lemon. So that became our slogan.”
And even though Lemons claimed no party affiliation, nor did he seek any particular office, his campaign continued to expand — due in part, Savage said, to the public’s frustration with mainstream candidates, political parties and the media. “Plus the fact there really isn’t anyone trying to do anything different.”
But to keep their momentum their candidate had to seem real.
Back to the Internet.
Complete with photographs and “news” stories, the Jim Lemons’ site includes some personal information, but little political insight:
• Lemons says he’s 51 years old.
• He says he’s married.
• He says he has grandchildren.
• He says he’s straight.
• He says he’s a Capricorn.
• He claims to be a resident of Norman.
• He also says he’s a Christian, a proud parent and a college grad.
• And his chief political rival is a man named David Dibble.
Lemons, according to his Internet site, has also been busy: The candidate has hosted at least one impromptu campaign rally and a fall press conference. In a September press release, Lemons even responds to questions about his campaign literature being found at the scene of several area drug busts.
“Because hundreds of supporters have been spreading my message and sticking my stickers all across Norman, it’s unavoidable that some of the thousands of marijuana users in this city might happen to venture past my campaign postings,” Lemons’ release said. “I think, if anything, that these so-called seedy sightings of my election paraphernalia only prove the strength of my campaign.”
In another posting, Lemons, like many local candidates, addresses his problems with yard signs being destroyed.
“There have been reports that Mr. Dibble and his associates have been involved in the disappearance of my signs,” the site says, “but I do understand that David is a documented kleptomaniac and has been seeking treatment at various facilities for multiple years. Thus, I do not want to turn his struggle with a crippling psychological syndrome into a campaign issue.”
The tongue-in-cheek volley comments on the recent spate of television stories covering controversies about thefts and defacing of candidates’ yard signs.
As Lemons’ stealth campaign continued, his strategy evolved and, consequently, a new theme was adopted. “I was working as an intern for the Oklahoma City Gazette and was covering the 5th Congressional District race, and I was amazed by the rhetoric — faith, family and all that stuff,” Savage said. “I wanted to take a shot at that.”
The result, Savage said, was a new campaign theme: “Jim Lemons — America, families, etc.”
“That pretty much summed up our feelings,” he said. “We’re trying to throw Oklahoma politics a curve ball. It needs a curve ball.”
So far, Savage and McBee have thrown strikes.
From the huge increase in requests for yard signs to the unscheduled campaign rally, Jim Lemons and his cadre of supporters are injecting a bit of fun and political theater into an otherwise drab campaign season filled with sleaze, mud-slinging and ever-increasing claims of negativity.
“It’s not just the politicians,” Savage said. “I’m also frustrated with the media; they are part of a politician’s plan to get elected. The politicians want to get publicity. They mostly court television, more than print, for sure, but the trick is to get attention. And yet, at the same time, no one in the media is holding any candidate’s feet to the fire.”
As an example, Savage cites the Senate District 16 race.
“None of the candidates separated themselves from one another,” he said. “There was hardly anything about how the candidates stood and what they believed in. Plus, early in the primary they were all heavy into yard signs. I was talking with Josh (McBee) about it and we agreed: If you were just going on yard signs early on, Ott would have been elected.”
That race, Savage said, and the fact that the state’s voter turnout has been incredibly low for the election cycle, gives Lemons’ campaign more standing.
“It’s something different,” Savage said. “It’s far from the norm. Lemons appeals to people who don’t tune into what’s going on right now between Thad and Wallace and Sparks and Davis. Lemons is for those people who are so disgusted they don’t care about the other.”
The campaign’s focus, Savage says, is on those who are frustrated.
“If only 30 percent of the registered voters in this state vote, then Jim Lemons is for the other 70 percent,” he said.
With just days left before the Nov. 7 election, Savage said the Lemons campaign isn’t worried. “We’re telling people to write Lemons’ name in,” Savage said. “Even if it does invalidate their ballot.”
“In Oklahoma, write-in candidates are not counted,” says Cleveland County election board secretary, Paula Roberts. “Our machines are not set up to read write-in candidate names. And writing in a name could invalidate the ballot.”
That fact doesn’t bother Savage, he says, because not allowing write-in candidates is wrong. “It’s ridiculous and it needs to be changed,” he said. “I know I will be writing Lemons’ name in and I highly encourage anyone who doesn’t know who they are voting for to write Lemons’ name in.”
People, he said, should not be discouraged from voting.
“That’s why we’ve put the date on our sign,” he said. “To let people know when they could vote.”
So what happens to Jim Lemons after the election?
“I think Jim will stick around,” Savage said. “I was thinking, ‘From now on anytime I want to be philanthropic to help further society, Jim Lemons will help me do it.’ Plus he may write the occasional opinion piece or letter to the editor.”
A fictional way to solve some very real problems, he says.
And Lemons today?
“Oh he’s everywhere,” Savage said. “That’s what the signs say.”
M. Scott Carter writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript.
Oct. 30: Ding, Golder and Huberman
Ying Ding's article, "A review of ontologies with the Semantic Web in view," discusses several important ontologies in relation to human-computer interaction. Ontologies "can be seen as metadata that explicitly represent the semantics of data in a machine-processable way" (377). A widely cited definition of an ontology comes from Gruber: "an ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization" (378). What is important here for the information science community is an ontology's relationship to the Semantic Web, which allows for machine-readable information exchange. Ding lists several important ontologies, ontology languages, and ontology tools. Each community may have its own specialized ontology. For example, the business community uses Enterprise Ontology, which highlights terms related to processes and planning, the structure of organizations, high level planning, and marketing and selling goods and services (379). Ontology languages "are either logic-based (frame logic), or web-based (RDF, XML, HTML)" (379). Continuing with our business ontology example, Enterprise toolsets "are implemented using an agent-based architecture to integrate off-the-shelf tools in a plug-and-play style" (380). Enterprise toolsets support the Enterprise Ontology discussed earlier. Ding also lists several ontology projects, including Enterprise, which is "aimed at providing a method and computer toolset which will help capture aspects of a business and analyse these to identify and compare options for meeting the business requirements" (381). Although much of Ding's article was very abstract to me, I understand the importance of ontologies with regard to the Semantic Web. Ontologies provide a set of standards which can support the interoperability of common tools and aid in their design.
On a lighter note, Scott Golder and Bernardo Huberman look at Del.icio.us, a popular site for bookmarking and tagging URLs. The authors discuss the difference between collaborative tagging, such as is the practice in Del.icio.us, and taxonomies, which are more hierarchical and exclusive. With collaborative tagging, individuals make the distinction as to what tag to apply to a certain bookmarked URL, which is influenced by the individual's level of expertise as well as social factors such as language and culture. Although collaborative tagging does present some problems, it also provides the "opportunity to learn from one another through sharing and organizing information" (201). Golder and Huberman looked at data from Del.icio.us to reveal patterns of use. They found that users initially prefer more general tags and that successive tags were more specific and/or personal in nature. Another important finding is that users often imitate other users and share knowledge in the network, meaning that they often choose tags that have been created by other users because they perceive them as being 'correct' when they may not know how to tag a particular URL. The authors assert that this factor may be a cause for the stabilization of tags to describe URLs. Interestingly, Del.icio.us in this way can be seen as a URL recommendation service "even without explicitly providing recommendations" (207).
I've never used Del.icio.us myself but, after reading Golder and Huberman's article, I am interested to see how it all works. As I was reading I was reminded a lot of Flickr, a photo storage service that allows its users to tag photos to be searched by other users. Flickr is, in my opinion, much more personal, or at least it can be, as it allows users to tag their own photos with personal names of friends, family, and even complete strangers. Of course, other more general tags can be and are used in Flickr. Searching through the millions of photos can provide hours of time-wasting fun!
On a lighter note, Scott Golder and Bernardo Huberman look at Del.icio.us, a popular site for bookmarking and tagging URLs. The authors discuss the difference between collaborative tagging, such as is the practice in Del.icio.us, and taxonomies, which are more hierarchical and exclusive. With collaborative tagging, individuals make the distinction as to what tag to apply to a certain bookmarked URL, which is influenced by the individual's level of expertise as well as social factors such as language and culture. Although collaborative tagging does present some problems, it also provides the "opportunity to learn from one another through sharing and organizing information" (201). Golder and Huberman looked at data from Del.icio.us to reveal patterns of use. They found that users initially prefer more general tags and that successive tags were more specific and/or personal in nature. Another important finding is that users often imitate other users and share knowledge in the network, meaning that they often choose tags that have been created by other users because they perceive them as being 'correct' when they may not know how to tag a particular URL. The authors assert that this factor may be a cause for the stabilization of tags to describe URLs. Interestingly, Del.icio.us in this way can be seen as a URL recommendation service "even without explicitly providing recommendations" (207).
I've never used Del.icio.us myself but, after reading Golder and Huberman's article, I am interested to see how it all works. As I was reading I was reminded a lot of Flickr, a photo storage service that allows its users to tag photos to be searched by other users. Flickr is, in my opinion, much more personal, or at least it can be, as it allows users to tag their own photos with personal names of friends, family, and even complete strangers. Of course, other more general tags can be and are used in Flickr. Searching through the millions of photos can provide hours of time-wasting fun!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Oct. 23: Dawson, Greenberg
Jane Greenberg's article "Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes" presents an approach for the study of metadata schemes. Her MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domains and Architectural Layout) framework proposes the examination of the features of various metadata schemes, such as EAD, RSS, Dublin Core, FRBR, etc., to provide a way to study and interpret schemes and to aid in their design. Although the subject matter is far beyond the scope of my studies thus far, Greenberg provides ample background information and definitions to aid in the understanding of the MODAL approach. Metadata, or data about data, "addresses attributes that describe, provide context, indicate the quality, or document other object (or data) characteristics" (20). There are many different functions that metadata supports, including the discovery, management, usage, audience(s), authentication, linking and hardware/software needs of particular resources. Examples of such functions might include author, title, subject, the price of a particular resource, its rights and reproduction restrictions, and so on. There are many different metadata schemes for different organizations. One thing all metadata schemes have in common, however, is that they incorporate objectives and principles that govern how the scheme will use metadata to describe the organization's collection(s). Greenberg's MODAL approach also looks at the domain of an organization's collection(s) to further understand its metadata scheme. Domain includes "the discipline or the community that the scheme serves" (29), as well as object types and formats. Architectural layout refers to a scheme's structure - how deep the metadata elements go and how they branch off into different directions to describe the collection(s). Greenberg states that "although metadata schemes vary tremendously, they are shown to be similar when examining their objectives and principles, domain foci, and architectural layout" (33).
Dawson and Hamilton's "Optimising metadata to make high-value content more accessible to Google users" presents, in my opinion, a very balanced view of the Google vs. academia debate that has caused so much controversy among information professionals in recent years. I agree with the authors' position that Google has the capability to reach millions of information seekers, so information providers should do everything in their power to make their collections available to the casual Internet surfer as well as to the more serious scholar, both of whom may just be using Google because of its speed and ease of use. The authors point to several success stories of private and public institutions that have used metadata implementation to increase their rankings in Google searches. If it is our job as information professionals to make information easy to find and access, why then is there so much skepticism regarding Google as a reliable source for information? Of course, the cost involved in creating metadata for such extensive collections as library catalogs is quite high but in many cases I would think that the potential benefits to the institutions would eventually outweigh the bottom line. Dawson and Hamilton introduce the term "data shoogling," which means "rejigging, or republishing, existing digital collections, and their associated metadata, for the specific purpose of making them more easily retrievable via Google" (313). The authors offer relatively simple solutions for "shoogling" data that one need not be a cataloging expert to carry out successfully. The Glasgow Digital Library (GDL) serves as a poignant example of what data shoogling can do for a relatively small library. The GDL published an electronic book about old country houses in Glasgow. Because of optomized metadata the book ranked number one when "old country houses" (without quotation marks) was searched in Google in 2004. In fact, I just searched those terms myself in Google, and the same holds true today! The authors realize that Google may not be on top forever but offer ways to get around that. For example, they suggest that information providers "remain flexible and...establish procedures that will allow output and optimisation for different applications in future" (324). Finally, the authors urge institutions to reconsider the Google question since, after all, that's where many of their potential users already are.
Greenberg's article made me think back to my archives class last semester, for which I wrote a research paper on Encoded Archival Description (EAD). It was very interesting learning about the levels of classification and the history of this metadata scheme, which originated at UC Berkeley in the 1990s. Here is the web site: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/uc-ead/ (sorry, my equal key doesn't work because I spilled limeade on my laptop - true story - I'll fix the link tomorrow!). I had a lot of fun using the metadata tags to find photos in the Online Archive of California (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ - again, I'll fix it tomorrow...) At the time I saw metadata tags as something similar to Library of Congress Subject Headings, which I guess they are, but they go much deeper as they can easily be slipped into the code of a web page to make the content more findable to information seekers. EAD and other metadata schemes just make so much sense to me. Why not make the information-rich collections of public institutions available to Google and other search engine users? Isn't the point of having these free resources so that people can and will want to access them?
Dawson and Hamilton's "Optimising metadata to make high-value content more accessible to Google users" presents, in my opinion, a very balanced view of the Google vs. academia debate that has caused so much controversy among information professionals in recent years. I agree with the authors' position that Google has the capability to reach millions of information seekers, so information providers should do everything in their power to make their collections available to the casual Internet surfer as well as to the more serious scholar, both of whom may just be using Google because of its speed and ease of use. The authors point to several success stories of private and public institutions that have used metadata implementation to increase their rankings in Google searches. If it is our job as information professionals to make information easy to find and access, why then is there so much skepticism regarding Google as a reliable source for information? Of course, the cost involved in creating metadata for such extensive collections as library catalogs is quite high but in many cases I would think that the potential benefits to the institutions would eventually outweigh the bottom line. Dawson and Hamilton introduce the term "data shoogling," which means "rejigging, or republishing, existing digital collections, and their associated metadata, for the specific purpose of making them more easily retrievable via Google" (313). The authors offer relatively simple solutions for "shoogling" data that one need not be a cataloging expert to carry out successfully. The Glasgow Digital Library (GDL) serves as a poignant example of what data shoogling can do for a relatively small library. The GDL published an electronic book about old country houses in Glasgow. Because of optomized metadata the book ranked number one when "old country houses" (without quotation marks) was searched in Google in 2004. In fact, I just searched those terms myself in Google, and the same holds true today! The authors realize that Google may not be on top forever but offer ways to get around that. For example, they suggest that information providers "remain flexible and...establish procedures that will allow output and optimisation for different applications in future" (324). Finally, the authors urge institutions to reconsider the Google question since, after all, that's where many of their potential users already are.
Greenberg's article made me think back to my archives class last semester, for which I wrote a research paper on Encoded Archival Description (EAD). It was very interesting learning about the levels of classification and the history of this metadata scheme, which originated at UC Berkeley in the 1990s. Here is the web site: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/uc-ead/ (sorry, my equal key doesn't work because I spilled limeade on my laptop - true story - I'll fix the link tomorrow!). I had a lot of fun using the metadata tags to find photos in the Online Archive of California (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ - again, I'll fix it tomorrow...) At the time I saw metadata tags as something similar to Library of Congress Subject Headings, which I guess they are, but they go much deeper as they can easily be slipped into the code of a web page to make the content more findable to information seekers. EAD and other metadata schemes just make so much sense to me. Why not make the information-rich collections of public institutions available to Google and other search engine users? Isn't the point of having these free resources so that people can and will want to access them?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)