Saturday, 12 May [due to early posting last week]
Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:
- Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself” [a snippet]
- Emily Dickinson, “Because I Could Not Stop for Death
- Emily Dickinson, “Safe in Their Alabaster Chambers”
Tuesday, 15 May
Ward, Jewel. “Unqualified Dublin Core Usage in OAI-PMH Providers.” OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 20 (1), 2004: 40-47.
Hutt, Arwen and Jenn Riley. “Semantics and Syntax of Dublin Core Usage in Open Archives Initiative Data Providers of Cultural Heritage Materials.” JCDL ’05 June 7-11, 200, Denver, Colorado: 262-270.
Both of these were read for Metadata Round Table tomorrow.
Wednesday, 16 May
Shreeves, Sarah L., Ellen M. Knutson, Besiki Stvilia, Carole L. Palmer, Michael B. Twidale, amd Timothy W. Cole. “Is “Quality” Metadata “Shareable” Metadata? The Implications of Local Metadata Practices for Federated Collections.” ACRL 12th National Conference April 7-10, 2005, Minneapolis, Minn.: 223-237.
Also read for Metadata Round Table today. I even attended this presentation at ACRL.
Priss, Uta. “Multilevel Approaches to Concepts and Formal Ontologies.” In Efthimis N. Efthimiadis, ed. Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 12: Proceedings of the 12th ASIST SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 64th Annual ASIST Meeting, November 2-8, 2001, Washington, DC. Medford, NJ: Information Today, c2004: 93-111.
Argues for viewing the “classical” or symbolic approaches to representation and that of fuzzy or category-based approaches as complementary forms of representation that can and should be combined.
ontologies, symbolic representation, formal logic, category-based representation, categories, fuzzy logic, neural networks, formal concepts, associative concepts, knowledge systems, emergent structure, cognition, feedback, ASIST SIG/CR
Tennis, Joseph T. “Layers of Meaning: Disentangling Subject Access Interoperability.” In Efthimis N. Efthimiadis, ed. Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 12: Proceedings of the 12th ASIST SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 64th Annual ASIST Meeting, November 2-8, 2001, Washington, DC. Medford, NJ: Information Today, c2004: 113-129.
Proposes a multilayer conceptual framework for a system for subject access interoperability, where levels of meaning, relationships, extension and intension are individually controlled. Claims this will solve the problems Lancaster identified as inherent in switching between vocabularies: 1) overlap of subject matter, 2) specificity, 3) degree of pre-coordination, and 4) hierarchical, synonymous and other relationship structure.
subject access, interoperability, subject access interoperability, vocabularies, mapping, switching, compatibility, ICC, BSO, intension, extension, meaning, relationships, supra-thesaurus, reconciliation, conceptual warrant, literary warrant, Universal Source Thesaurus, conceptual framework, concepts, subjects, classes
Thursday, 17 May
Greenberg, Jane and Eva Méndez. “Introduction: Toward a More Library-Like Web via Semantic Knitting.” Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43 (3/4), 2007: 1-8 and: Knitting the Semantic Web (ed. Jane Greenberg and Eva Méndez) Haworth Information Press, 2007: 1-8. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_01
This is the introduction to the issue of CCQ that was mentioned several times at the LC Working Group meeting. Basically sets up the issue and then gives a brief overview of the articles. The issue is divided into 2 parts: Semantic Web foundations, standards and tools; and Semantic Web projects and perspectives.
Semantic Web, web, libraries, introduction
Harper, Corey A. and Barbara B. Tillett. “Library of Congress Controlled Vocabularies and Their Application to the Semantic Web.” Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43 (3/4), 2007: 47-68 and: Knitting the Semantic Web (ed. Jane Greenberg and Eva Méndez) Haworth Information Press, 2007: 47-68. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_04
This article was also mentioned several times during the LC Working Group meeting. Discusses how historically-library controlled vocabularies and classification schemes “can serve as some of the building blocks of the Semantic Web” (47). Talks about how they might fit within the structure of the Semantic Web, possible uses, how they can be encoded, and some early collaborations. Also discusses authority control and how this can fit within the Semantic Web.
Is at a fairly big picture view and falls short of any discussion of the economics and rights management. Based on all the discussion at the LC Working Group meeting I thought this was supposedly some “radical” call to “Free the Authorities!” Alas, it is no such thing. Jennifer Bowen was far more radical than this. That isn’t saying much, btw.
Semantic Web, web, LC, controlled vocabularies, compatibility, authority control, standards, XML, OWL, SKOS, MODS, MADS, DCMI, DC Abstract Model, MARC relator terms, DC, MARCXML, RDF, DDC, LCC, LCSH, TGM I, TGM II, GSAFD, TGN, AAT, classification schemes, UDC, MeSH, NLM, Terminology Services (OCLC), identification, disambiguation, collocation, VIAF, AUTHOR, metadata, FOAF, markup, encoding
Weibel, Stuart L. “Social Bibliography: A Personal Perspective on Libraries and the Semantic Web.” Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43 (3/4), 2007: 227-236 and: Knitting the Semantic Web (ed. Jane Greenberg and Eva Méndez) Haworth Information Press, 2007: 47-68. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_13
Billed as “present[ing] a personal perspective on libraries and the Semantic Web” (227). Major sections are: Computing power, Processable text, Social software and Web 2.0, and the final section, Social bibliography and the declining hegemony of catalog records.
Weibel begins by asking if perhaps we are not seeing the same sorts of claims for the Semantic Web as we did for artificial intelligence two decades ago. He then sets out to show what is different in this situation, and seems to have a fairly balanced perspective. Part of the problem as he says is that the “Semantic Web isn’t primarily about semantics at all” (228). As the W3C states:
The Semantic Web is about two things. It is about common formats for interchange of data, where on the original Web we only had interchange of documents. Also it is about language for recording how the data relates to real world objects (228)
A few sentences that resonated with me:
Libraries need to support not the Semantic Web, but the semantic lives of our users, … (231).
MARC cataloging remains one of the most successful structured data exchange standards in use (and one of the most long-lived, as well) 232.
The specification of an ontology implies a thorough understanding of the scope and structure of a knowledge domain. Semantic coherence of this kind is rare outside a tightly constrained domain, and leads one to wonder whether ontologies are likely to play a practical role on the open Web (233).
[This is extremely interesting considering Ontologies make up one of the main layers of the Semantic Web Stack, and that this layer has been implicated in the slow progress of the Semantic Web by Berners-Lee, for one (See Harper & Tillett (above p. 49).]
The last section talks about “social bibliography” and I must admit I am not really familiar with this concept. Hmmm … there’s a book by this title by Ranganathan, although I don’t think this is the same use as some of the web pages I saw using this term. I’m not convinced it is even one concept, but perhaps many. I wish Weibel had said more about what he meant by this concept. The discussion was mostly about online reviews at places like Amazon.com and how reviews should be first class objects and, thus, need to have persistent identities, be harvestable on the open Web, and be “managed intellectual content in their own right” (234). In other words, be curated, be citable (linkable), and claimable by their authors (234).
I’m not really sure what work “social” is doing in this concept, although it is doing some. I’m just ready for the day when “social” is no longer applied as a modifier to almost every concept. But then perhaps we need to grow past “friends” first.
Semantic Web, web, libraries, social bibliography, Web 2.0, computing power, processable text, social software
Tennis, Joseph T. “Diachronic and Synchronic Indexing: Modeling Conceptual Change in Indexing Languages.” [pdf] In online proceedings: Clément Arsenault and Kimiz Dalkir, eds. “Information Sharing in a Fragmented World: Crossing Boundaries” Canadian Association for Information Science. Held at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, May 10 – 12, 2007.
The 1st important point is that there are several years worth of proceedings of the Canadian Association for Information Science available online. The link for this article was sent to me by my advisor for my controlled vocabulary-related work, along with a few others from these proceedings.
Outlines a model of conceptual change in indexing languages; in other words, provides for diachronic indexing. Demonstrates conceptual change in an indexing language by looking at eugenics in DDC. Describes3 ways in which meaning and relationships are established and change in n indexing language: structural, terminological, and textual.
I hope to get a few minutes to talk with Joe Tennis at NASKO. I’m not sure how his work has been progressing the last few years, but most of his papers that I’ve been reading (see above for another) are at this fairly abstract level. They sound like great ideas, but can we code them (currently) and make them work? And, if so, do they actually make a positive difference towards any of our needs? Maybe he can fill me in on such work, or point me to the work itself.
indexing, conceptual model, diachronic indexing, synchronic indexing, annotation, revision, concept record, classification format, transfer encoding, structurl change, terminological change, textual change, intertextuality
Thursday – Friday, 17 – 18 May
Lakoff, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, ch. 15 “Putnam’s Theorem.”
Discusses Putnam’s logical critique of objectivist semantics as internally inconsistent.
Friday, 18 May
Harris, Roy. “Epilogue: Saying Nothing.” In The Language Machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.
This is quite good as David Bade said a few days ago. I read the Epilogue and have now begun at the beginning. I also picked up 3 other Harris books.
Saturday, 19 May
Harris, Roy. The Language Machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Read Introduction and chapters 1 – 3.
“I wish Weibel had said more about what he meant by this concept.”
Social bibliography seems to have a broad meaning for Weibel, if this blog post http://weibel-lines.typepad.com/weibelines/2006/08/dangerous_water.html
is any guide:
“Social bibliography – reviews, tagging, recommender systems”
“Social” gets tired but what else would you use? Collaborative bibliography? Does that apply even when you don’t interact with your “collaborators” directly? I think we need more specific words. There are many sorts of “social bibliography”:
-the tendency to post reviews for digital and non-digital materials (not published in newspapers, journals, or community newsletters but on Amazon, blogs, LibraryThing, OpenWorldCat, …)
-tagging of webpages
-tagging of academic papers (e.g. CiteULike, Connotea)
-widely sharing lists of reading materials (e.g. this post, LibraryThing, …)
-tagging of conference blog coverage with pre-arranged tags (e.g. CiL2007)
-collaboratively constructing and sharing bibliographies in real-time using formal groups or group accounts, (e.g. the MMORPG studies bibliography at CiteULike
http://www.citeulike.org/group/MMORPGStudies
(which is specifically called a “social bibliography” in this post:
https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/educators/2006-October/002861.html
))
There is a continuum. We could argue whether previously established web activities like these are social bibliographies:
-listing one’s own publications, on a personal website
-sharing a more general bibliography on a personal website, e.g. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/bib-intro.html
-posting interlinked CS bibliographies such as CiteSeer, DBLP, and Rexa
Are these all the same activity? Or different activities? To what extent do they correspond to traditional activities of bibliography-making and -publishing? And to what extent are they some new activity?
Hey Mark,
I was thinking more about Levinson, musical works, and a general conception of works.
I think that the concept of the work is basically the same. What I see as being different is the relationship between the work, a manifestation, and the actor creating a manifestation. Compare the role that a musician plays in creating a manifestation of a musical work to the role a publishing house plays in creating a manifestation a written work.
-karen.
Jodi, thanks for reminding me of that Weibel post.
No, I agree that “social” is the best term. But I am tired of it as a modifier. I guess part me, too, is wondering how much of bibliography and especially book reviews throughout history were only for the individual doing the work? That is, many bibliographies and, dare I say, all book reviews have always been social.
I simply do not see that because some book review is on Amazon vs. printed in the local newspaper or even the New Yorker makes it any more social. In fact, it does not. It only makes it more accessible to those with a computer and an internet connection. Being linkable does not “social” make!
Perhaps I fear these uses of language are as dangerous s those that have led us to the brain is (simply) a computer, among other things.
Collaborative (another overused but still useful concept) is different and should be reserved for when something truly is collaborative.
Your last set of questions are interesting, but I do not have any answers at the moment. My first stab is to say that they are highly similar activities to past activities. There are a few axes they can be divided along–solely produced, collaboratively produced, self-published, formally published, etc. They are also highly analogous to pre-Internet activity. But I imagine that the “easy” availability and facilitated sharing add something to the equation. I am just not convinced how much that is, and I do not believe it makes them any more “social” than previous activities that were meant to be shared.
Pingback: Some things read this week, 20 - 26 May 2007