Monthly Archives: June 2007

Some things read this week, 17 – 23 June 2007

Posted on by

Monday, 18 June

Hjørland, Birger. “Semantics and Knowledge Organization.” ARIST 41 (2007): 367-405.

Cited by Zhang, J. (2007). Ontology and the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1897

As much as I need to summarize this for myself I have run out of time, so:

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective (from intro, 367).

It is fairly reassuring to know that I have read about half of the sources he cites as “addressing semantic issues in KO and IS” on p. 370.

It is less reassuring, on one hand, to have this and particularly the other Hjørland article below reinforce my belief that Information Science is not a science. On the other, it is nice to know that someone with far more stature in the field feels the same way. [By the way, I also do not believe that most of modern experimental physics is science, but for different reasons. These views are when I am using "science" in a narrow sense.]

Houston, Ronald D. and Glynn Harmon. “Vannevar Bush and Memex.” ARIST 41 (2007): 55-92.

Stumbled over when copying the previous article above.

Actually quite good. I was really quite torn with myself as I was copying this, but I knew I ought to make the effort to learn a bit more.

Karen, I highly commend it to you. Also commended to others but Karen has been the one here making me think deeper about my views on Bush and AWMT.

This review examines the history, historiography, influences, and apparent misunderstandings surrounding Vannevar Bush’s memex concept and discusses the the manner in which the literatures of information science and other areas have cited the memex and its central idea of knowledge management (KM) by associative trails. The review also challenges the central memex premise that the mind works exclusively through associative thinking by reviewing some competing psychological movements and theories that emerged before and after Bush framed the memex concept (1st paragraph of intro, 55).

The article focuses on Bush’s distinction of personal KM and shared KM in the memex as a primary contribution. It also takes pains to point out Bush’s subsequent downplaying of the technological side and his emphasis on associative trails/thinking.

To provide a short[er] overview I will list the section headings: Introduction; Bush on the Memex; Challenges to Bush’s Associative Thinking Premise; Interpretations of the Memex Legacy; Some Early Reactions to the Memex; Positive Reactions to the Memex: The 1960s and 1970s; The Memex Inspires: 1962 Onward; Apparent Misinterpretations: 1965 Onward; The Memex in ARIST, 1966-2005; The Hand of Mammon: 1985 Onward; Vannevar Bush Reanimated; Memex Influence on Shared KM and the World Wide Web, 1993; The Influence of Memex on Literary Theory; Some Recent Influence of AWMT on Marketing Thought; Memex in the Library; Influence of Memex on Education; Summary and Conclusions; and Epilogue.

Some of my favorite quotes from the article:

“The memex concept and its underlying assumption that the mind works only or essentially through associative reasoning have had a broad, enduring impact throughout information science” (55). Can you say, “Understated?”

“On one hand, associationism has proved to be enormously successful in explaining many thought processes and in providing a basis for hyperlinking and Web technologies; as a consequence, the current task is often seen to consist in building on that associationist infrastructure. On the other hand, some observers have argued that new technologies and approaches are needed to compensate for the shortcomings of Web associationism” (60).

“The memex’s legacy also rests in part on the subsequent conflation of its analog ideas with their digital realizations some decades later” (emphasis in original, 61). I’ll leave it to you to read the article and find out Bush’s views on digital computers, but this is a key point.

“In other words, Bush appears to have served as something of a godparent to the godparents of Berners-Lee, the father of the Web” (68). Please notice the relationship here; it is neither direct nor lineally descendant.

“As documented in the pages of ARIST, then, authors writing about some 25 information science topical areas have acknowledged the memex. In some cases this was simply paying homage to Bush’s notion of the memex, largely as a matter of scholarly ritualism” (72). Oh, yes, because scholarly ritualism lends serious credence and authority to an argument. Michael Gorman, please come smack me down for having the audacity to doubt that scholarly ritualism serves any real intellectual work in the transmission of ideas and knowledge.

“First, we can safely say that the legacies of Bush and his memex endure and remain positive despite their 60-year journey over rocky roads. Although controversies may continue about whether Bush’s concepts or technologies were original, or about his true place in history, his AWMT article retains its inspirational magic” (81). While inspiration is a mighty fine and important thing, magic has no place in IS as a discipline; notice the second letter in that acronym. The art and science of information science need to work together to provide the illusion of magic and wonder for the user, when possible. And while we are users of our own systems and need to be inspired, those of us working in this area have already “peeked behind the curtain” and need to finally fully step behind it. Magic has little place back here.

“Second, although some textbooks since 1995 have tended to credit AWMT as a key root or origin of information science, personal computers, the Internet, the Web, and hypertext, that position distorts the historical record” (81). Amen! Read the article to get more perspective on this.

“Breakthoughs often consist of new syntheses or Gestalten that are more than the sum of their parts: The memex qualifies as such a breakthough” (82). Read the article to find out why I scribbled “kind of humorous, considering …” in the margin.

“Sixth, as argued earlier, authors who cite Bush, AWMT, or the memex need to do so less ritualistically, more critically, and for substantive reasons” (83).

I highly recommend this article; in particular, to LIS students or to anyone who thinks they need to drop a Bush citation in something. I am glad I took the time to read it and have no doubt that I will revisit it at some point.

And while my views on Bush and the memex are quite a bit more nuanced now than prior to reading this, I will still make fun of you if you simply add a ritualistic or uncritical reference to Bush in something. That is perhaps all I ever really meant, but this article has given me a much clearer idea of what constitutes an uncritical reference.

Tuesday, 19 June

Dewdney, Patricia and Gillian Michell. “Asking “Why” Questions in the Reference Interview: A Theoretical Justification.” Library Quarterly 67 (1), 1997: 50-71.

Citation provided to me by Christina Pikas via email 17 June due to our comments re theories of communication back on my David Bade LC WG posts, in particular for the Grice reference. She says I “opened up a bag of worms with this one” but she also knows I like to be schooled. ;) Thanks, Christina.

This is a valuable article, which if it had been assigned in my reference class I might not be saying things like, “We really never discussed the reference interview.” Of course, this is a small part of reference interviewing, or so I imagine, since it only deals with “why” questions.

Christina “assigned” it to me due to the Grice reference and the accompanying section on “Cooperative Discourse” (55-57).

… the preceding analysis drawn from linguistics, philosophy, and cognitive science shows that “why” questions are unlikely to work well in the reference interview because they are perceived by the user as ambiguous, intrusive, or irrelevant. Furthermore, because “why” questions invite false inferences, both the user and the librarian tend to violate the rules governing cooperative behavior (62).

Contextualization, neutral questioning, and help chaining are suggested solutions to the problem of “why” questions.

I do believe that these ideas are important in communication, but I also have some doubts about how relevant this is to my (attempted) critique of Bade’s attempt at communication as I said at some point in that earlier conversation. Useful reading, nonetheless.

Frohmann, Bernard P. [Really is Bernd; just using the data on the article itself.] “An Investigation of the Semantic Bases of Some Theoretical Principles of Classification Proposed by Austin and the CRG.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 4 (1), Fall 1983: 11-27.

Cited by Hjørland above with multiple references, including: “Frohmann (1983) has discussed the semantic bases and theoretical principles of some classification systems. His is one of the few papers in IS to recognize that problems in classification should be seen as problems related to semantic theories” (378).

Why, oh why does CCQ no longer have articles like this?

Demonstrates that Austin’s a priori semantics for machine-based classification is unclear and that it does not both meet the CRG’s criterion of adequacy, to which Austin subscribes, or can serve the purpose of machine retrieval.

[Criterion of adequacy "states that a necessary condition of an adequate system is that it be based upon a classification of knowledge (CRG 1955, 6)" (11). Further implications of this criterion are spelled out in the paper. Full cite for the canonical CRG paper is below.]

Looks at the semantics of the Classification Research Group (CRG) and shows that they are an a posteriori semantics; that is, “the semantic relations between terms are not given a priori but depend upon human activities. Since there is no a priori restriction upon the way human beings employ words in linguistic practices, there is no way to determine semantic relations between terms other than to look and see how people actually employ words” (13).

Then demonstrates that Austin clearly subscribes to an a apriori semantics; that is, “that there are context-free, or subject-neutral, generic relations” (19), according to which the hierarchies are given a priori by the meanings of the terms involved” (21).

A Wittgensteinian criticism is then leveled against Austin’s semantics. Frohmann points out that even if his argument is sound [I believe it is], “it does not follow that an information retrieval system cannot be both machine-compatible and adequate” (26).

Highly recommended for anyone interested in semantics of classification systems and information retrieval.

And CCQ, please ….

[Classification Research Group. "The Need for a Faceted Classification as the Basis of All Methods of Information Retrieval." UNESCO document 320/5515 (International Advisory Committee for Documentation and Terminology in Pure and Applied Science). Paris, 1955.]

Wednesday, 20 June

Beghtol, Clare. “Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between “Professional” and “Naïve” Classifications.” Knowledge Organization 30 (2), 2003: 64-73.

Cited by Smiraglia (2007) “Performance Works: ….”

Examines the purposes, methods, similarities and differences between “naïve” and “professional” classifications.

In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called “professional” classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called “naïve” classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself (abstract, 64).

Despite liking the ideas in this article, I’m still not comfortable with these labels, especially since the 2 types of classifications serve different purposes. Could not a professional in another discipline just reverse the labels? What makes classification for info retrieval more professional than classification for knowledge discovery? Just because it is what “we” have been doing for so long now? One could easily argue that classification for knowledge discovery is epistemologically superior to classification for IR, and thus more “professional.” Anyway ….

There are important ideas in this mini “naïve” classification of classifications. Yes, I think one would have to agree that this is a “naïve” classification. Read the article and you’ll understand why; in addition to the fact that it isn’t a classification for IR.

This is an initial exploration of “naïve” classifications “to see how authors characterize their purposes and what classificatory methods they use” (65). The initial list of purposes includes:

  1. discover gaps in knowledge
  2. fill gaps in knowledge
  3. reconstruct historical situations and evidence
  4. facilitate integration and communication of findings
  5. suggest revisions or amplifications of accepted classifications (66)

These are not meant to be mutually exclusive and certainly not meant to be exhaustive. Examples of a “naïve” classification fitting each of these purposes is given.

Methods of construction are similar despite the differences in purposes. Beghtol claims two major implications follow from this funding.

  • Need to examine whether “naïve” classifications may support information retrieval (as a purpose).
  • Further comparisons will provide insights into their relationships; how different environments account for flexibility or rigidity, for one.

There are several other ideas in the paper, but I will leave it to you find them.

For those interested in classification, highly recommended.

ISO/IEC FDIS 13250-2. Information Technology — Topic Maps — Part 2: Data Model. 2005-12-16.

For Topic Maps class.

Thursday, 21 June

ISO/IEC FDIS 13250-3. Information Technology — Topic Maps — Part 3: XML Syntax. 2006-06-19.

For Topic Maps class.

Hjørland, Birger. “Fundamentals of Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization. 30 (2), 2003: 87-111.

Cited by Smiraglia (2007) “Performance Works: ….”

Read this article! I do not fully agree with everything he says, but he is generally spot on.

Demonstrates that the filed has been driven by information technology and is “largely atheoretic and fragmented” and, thus, it is “difficult to sketch the more theoretical and scientific progress in this field” (88).

As a theoretical concept, “information” tends to move LIS and KO towards theories about control, feedback, coding and noise in transmitting messages, while “document” tends to move LIS towards theories about meaning, language, knowledge, epistemology and sociology. Therefore, in LIS there may be a whole paradigmatic conflict hidden in those words (90).

What an excellent analysis, and I certainly know which side of that conflict I want to work on. Such an analysis has serious implications in issues of power, control, and basic rights, also.

I love some of the distinctions that he rejects as basic methodological ones, such as machine-based methods vs. “manual” methods, or quantitative vs. qualitative methods (104). He also claims that, “In general our knowledge of how humans classify is limited” (104). As a footnote in this area (fn12) he has a comment regarding the need to record and qualitatively discuss our disagreements in the literature so that we may truly learn. Amen!

Smiraglia, Richard P. “Whither Knowledge Organization?: An Editorial.” Knowledge Organization. 33 (1), 2006: 8-10.

Found while getting the Dahlberg from last week.

OK, need to check the formatting and this has to go to press; ready or not.

NASKO 2007 – an historical moment, or perhaps only a moment in time

Posted on by

Last Wednesday morning I headed out for Toronto, Canada with my advisor, Kathryn La Barre, for the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, June 14-15, 2007.

The conference was Thursday afternoon and all day Friday with approximately 40 people in attendance. Big names, little names, old names, young names, academics (mostly), corporate folks, those in various middles.

At the end of the 1st day we had a business meeting at which the North American chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO-NA) was born. I do not mean to be pretentious, but this was an historic moment. I am a bit too fresh to this field to know all of the history but this moment has been a long time in coming and is long overdue.

ISKO’s Mission

Founded in 1989, ISKO is the leading international society for organization of knowledge. ISKO has a broad and interdisciplinary scope. ISKO’s mission is to advance conceptual work in knowledge organization in all kinds of forms, and for all kinds of purposes, such as databases, libraries, dictionaries and the Internet.

As an interdisciplinary society, ISKO brings together professionals from many different fields. ISKO counts more than 500 members all over the world, from fields such as information science, philosophy, linguistics, computer science, as well as special domains such as medical informatics.

In order to achieve its mission and goals, ISKO works to

    • promote research, development and applications of knowledge organization systems that advance the philosophical, psychological and semantic approaches for ordering knowledge
    • provide the means of communication and networking on knowledge organization for its members
    • function as a connecting link between all institutions and national societies, working with problems related to the conceptual organization and processing of knowledge

We were welcomed by Brian Cantwell Smith, Dean of the Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. He told us that despite a hiring freeze across the university FIS was being allowed to double both the number of faculty and students.

Richard Smiraglia, Long Island University, and Chair of NASKO 2007 was the next to welcome us.

[Conference papers available at dLIST.]

Next up was Clare Beghtol as the moderator for Contributed Papers Session 1. Papers presented in this session were:

Exploring Classification as Conversation. David M. Pimentel, Syracuse University. [my pre-conference comments here.]

I think that David is on to something here. I had a nice (but short) chat with him on Day 2. He seems to have narrowed his ideas a bit from what is in the paper, which is fair. I’d like to see this progress and then would be real interested in how we conceptualize and then build systems that can implement such ideas.

Ontology and the Semantic Web. Jane Zhang, Harvard University.

Coffee break

Jens-Erik Mai as moderator of Contributed Papers Session 2:

Everything Old is New Again: Finding a Home for Knowledge Structures in a Satisficing World. D. Grant Campbell, et. al., University of Western Ontario.

This paper is about “moving” vertical files to the Semantic Web. They are working within the area of Alzheimer’s Disease and providing a question and answer system that is designed for patients, family members, care givers and doctors. On the way home I realized that this is not really very Semantic Web-like at all. I guess one could say it is minimal-level SW. I guess I’d concede that, but only with a “barely.” This is not to suggest that it is not a useful project. I do believe that it shows promise. It just isn’t all that semantic.

Beyond Retrieval: A Proposal to Expand the Design Space of Classification. Melanie Feinberg, University of Washington.

Knowledge Strategy and its Influence on Knowledge Organization. Joseph Kasten, Dowling College.

Business Meeting: Rebecca Green was elected to chair the meeting and Clare Beghtol was elected as recorder.

A short discussion ensued as to establishing a North American chapter of ISKO. This was unanimously supported.

Richard Smiraglia, Joe Tennis and Kathryn La Barre were elected to draft our by-laws, submit a formal application to ISKO and to begin the process for our next meeting in 2009.

I am seriously looking forward to being involved with this organization and I hope that it will be a long-lived one. Kathryn has my name (formally) and will help me get involved with the planning for the next conference.

Day 2 will be covered in another post. But before I forget:

I really enjoyed myself at NASKO 2007! Thank you to our hosts, the planners, the student volunteers, the presenters and all in attendance for such a wonderful time.

Stop the World – I Want to Get Off

Posted on by

[cite]

Let me just state for the record: As much as I will miss all my friends who will be at ALA (including the wholesale category I forgot when I was making decisions) and as much as I wish I had been able to accept the offer to be on a panel discussion of a topic near and dear to my heart I am so happy I am not going. I simply cannot do a 3rd conference in a 4-week span.

I am so far behind!

I have barely scratched the surface of reporting on NASIG (not entirely my fault as the slides were not posted before I left for NASKO) and I now have the wonderful and historic NASKO and forming of ISKO-NA to report on.

I have a class that started last Tuesday and already missed a full day (on campus session) on Wednesday [Thanks for the notes, Ben!]. I have to finish my Terminology Services independent study. I have homework.

I have to do my CV. I have to buy an interview suit. I seriously need to talk with some folks as there are things afoot and damn it I am their librarian!

I have pictures to upload which require metadata.

And let’s just leave the household stuff alone, except for the fact that I have a mildew issue and thus cannot close up the apartment and use the AC (not all that effective anyway) and it’s in the mid-90s today. And then there’s what the mildew does to me ….

Anyway ….

I have really enjoyed these conferences the last few weeks. I have seen old friends, met new ones, met my intellectual crush, met other leaders in my area(s) of interest, been present for a historic occasion, fell in love with a big city.

Thanks to those who provided me transportation, housing, conversation and friendship. My heart is strengthened by all that people do for me. I only hope that my efforts to uplift others is also useful, and that when I am in a place where I can do the sorts of things that others have been doing for me that I do so.

I have put/am putting pictures of my Toronto trip in 2 sets at Flickr: O, Canada and NASKO 2007. The 1st is more touristy and the 2nd more conferency. My amazing friend Jennimi also took photos.

Hopefully I will have more to say about both conferences and other things. So much going on in this little head of mine and so little time for any of it. As much as I wish I was “producing” and not just consuming, I am very grateful to all those who I admire and respect who have counseled me to just keep reading and that “it” will come out when I’m ready.

Jenny, Jennimi, June, Steve, Kathryn and others. Thank you.

Some things read this week, 10 – 16 June 2007

Posted on by

Possibly another light week due to all-day on campus class (Topic Maps begins) and travel to Toronto for NASKO.

Sunday, 10 Jun

Van de Sompel, Herbert and Oren Beit-Arie. “Generalizing the OpenURL Framework beyond References to Scholarly Works.” D-Lib Magazine 7 (7/8) July/August 2001.

Pepper, Steve. The TAO of Topic Maps: Finding the Way in the Age of Infoglut.

Originally read 17 Feb 2007 for 590RO Spring 2007. Re-read for 590TML Topic Maps which starts Tuesday.

If you want some non-technical insight into what Topic Maps are this is the article to read.

Campbell, D. G., Brudin, M., MacLean, G., and Baird, C. (2007). Everything old is new again: Finding a place for knowledge structures in a satisficing world. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1896

For NASKO 2007.

Smiraglia, R. P. (2007). Performance works: Continuing to comprehend instantiation. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1910

For NASKO 2007.

Kemp, R. B. (2007). Classifying marginalized people, focusing on natural disaster survivors. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1908

For NASKO 2007.

La Barre, K. (2007). Faceted navigation and browsing features in new OPACS: A more robust solution to problems of information seekers? (extended abstract) Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1912

For NASKO 2007.

Zhang, J. (2007). Ontology and the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1897

For NASKO 2007.

Monday – Tuesday, 11 – 12 Jun

Dahlberg, Ingetraut. “Knowledge Organization: A New Science?.” Knowledge Organization 33 (1), 2006: 11-19.

Cited by Smiraglia, see above.

McIlwaine, I. C. “Trends in Knowledge Organization Research.” Knowledge Organization 30 (2), 2003: 75-86.

Stumbled over while copying a different article.

Discusses the trends in research in knowledge organization for the preceding 5 years.

Wednesday – Thursday, 13 – 14 Jun

Tennis, Joesph T. “Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification.” Knowledge Organization 32 (2): 2005: 79-92.

Stumbled over while copying some of this other stuff.

It is interesting but, at least from what I keep finding, it is more conceptual work from Joe Tennis. Where are the follow on empirical studies that he lays out? Are they just left for someone else, perhaps for a grad student? I like a lot about his conceptual work over the last couple years, which includes some ideas about how to extend thesauri, this piece which actually makes use of Lakoff instead of just citing him, and so on. But all of it needs to be validated, and in several cases actually built so that it can be validated. Tennis admits that. But then seems to move on to something else. Maybe I’ll ask him about it while here in Toronto.

I did not get a chance to ask Joe about this. I could have made it perhaps, but seeing as I was having a hard time figuring out how to phrase it without sounding snarky (which is not my intent!) I just let it go.

Some things read this week, 3 – 9 June 2007

Posted on by

Monday, 4 Jun

Young, Naomi Kietzke. “Formal Serials Education: A Problem We Can’t Solve or a Solution We Can Live With?” Serials Review 31(2), 2005: 82-89. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.02.011

Johnson, Kay G. “Serials—The Constant Midlife Crisis.” Serial Review 32, 2006: 35-39. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.11.002

Goldberg, Tyler and Neal Nixon. “Serials Control: Past, Present and Future Imperfect.” Serials Review 31(3), 2005: 206-209. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.06.004

Tumlin, Michael and 8 contributors. “Everything I Need to Know About Serials I Didn’t Learn in Library School.” The Balance Point (column). Serials Review 29 (1), 2003: 26-35.

Cited by Young and by Goldberg & Nixon, see above.

Rothstein, Samuel. “Why People Really Hate Library Schools.” Library Journal April 1, 1985: 41-48.

Cited by Young, see above (except she mangled the citation).

Tuesday, 5 Jun

Bush, Vannevar. “As We May Think.” The Atlantic Monthly July 1945.

I know, I know. But if I’m going to critique someone for making Bush references I need to make sure exactly what I’m critiquing.

Wolf, George and Nigel Love, eds. Linguistics Inside Out: Roy Harris and His Critics. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, v. 148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 1997.

Read the preface and prologue; looks quite interesting.

As I mentioned previously, Roy Harris has been put on temporary hold as I read some of the papers and extended abstracts for the 1st NASKO Conference just posted to dLIST today.

Green, R. and Fallgren, N. (2007). Anticipating new media: A faceted classification of material types. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1911

Abbas, J. (2007). In the margins: Reflections on scribbles, knowledge organization, and access. (extended abstract) Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1914

Wednesday, 6 Jun

Pimentel, D. M. (2007). Exploring classification as conversation. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1893

I have some issues with this one. Not necessarily the idea of classification as conversation, but more so with some of the things that are said to be conversational. Many of us have expressed reservations about just how much conversation takes place, say, in blogs. Some happens, of course. But just how much and of what quality and depth?

At one point the author writes, “A great deal of conversational exchange occurs on the blogosphere, and other Web 2.0 phenomena are similarly conversationally oriented” (3-4) Support for the claim in the 1st clause comes from this note, “As of May 2007, Technorati claims to track 80.3 million blogs – http://technorati.com/about/” (7).

OK, that’s a fair few blogs. But what exactly does a large number do to support the claim of a “great deal of conversational exchange”? Not a darn thing! It simply assumes what it is being used to support.

There is some possibility here with some of the things mentioned and I agree we need some (lots) of research along these lines. I just worry that what “conversation” is supposed to mean here is extremely diluted. In other words, it makes of “conversation” as it relates to true conversation what social networks make of “friends” in relation to true friendship. I’ll track some of its sources and see what I can discover. Depending on what it’s up against I may try and attend this one.

Feinberg, M. (2007). Beyond retrieval: A proposal to expand the design space of classification. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1892

Thursday, 7 Jun

Talja, Sanna, Kimmo Tuominen and Reijo Savolainen. “”Isms” in Information Science: Constructivism, Collectivism and Constructionism.” Journal of Documentation 61 (1), 2005: 79-101.

Cited by Pimentel above.

Friday, 8 Jun

Dervin, Brenda and Michael Nilan. “Information Needs and Uses.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 21, 1986. 3-33.

Cited by Pimentel above. Also read based on recommendations from Christina Pikas.

Chudnov, Daniel, Richard Cameron, Jeremy Frumkin, Ross Singer and Raymond Yee. “Opening up OpenURLs with Autodiscovery.” Ariadne Issue 43.

Ooh, ooh. This is just the sort of thing I spoke with Dan about after his presentation at NASIG. I’ll be writing more about my desires in this area later, but for now I’m trying to do some reading so I can write half-assed intelligently.

Seriously though, these weekly entries are literally crying out for some solution other than simple text in a blog entry. I tried adding a COinS for an entry earlier in the week using the COinS generator but WordPress just kept screwing it up completely. Even if it did work, it simply is not scalable. I want to enter my readings into Zotero and then do a right-click on the entry that will dump a COinS into my blog post. I also want them formatted so users local OpenURL servers will pick them up for use in their local context.

A boy can dream, can’t he? And honestly, if we can’t make these sorts of things work then we may well become as irrelevant to users as some claim we already are.

Saturday, 9 Jun

Lankes, R. David, Joanne Silverstein and Scott Nicholson. “Participatory Networks: The Library as Conversation.” Produced for the American Library Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy. [lauren’s library blog.

Svenonius, Elaine. “Classification: Prospects, Problems and Possibilities.” In Williamson, N.J. and M. Hudon, eds. Classification Research for Knowledge Representation and Organization, Proceedings of the 5th International Study Conference on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, June 24-28, 1991. FID 698. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1992

This is the Keynote for this conference. Also cited by Pimentel (above).

I love it when I already have a library book here at home with a cited article in it.

Looks at the influence of logical positivism, linguistic analysis (Wittgenstein of The Investigations), and systems analysis on classification research.

Monica Del Castillo

Posted on by

Thursday evening I was going to head out for some beers at The Blind Pig when I got a MySpace message that Kayla Brown would be at Aroma Cafe at 8 with Mike Ingram. There was to be another act also, coming down from Chicago. I don’t get to see Kayla often enough due to the timing of her shows so I put off the beers and went to Aroma for some outdoor summer music.

Monica Del Castillo and Dan Ornduff opened and they were awesome. Dan plays beautifully but very understated and Monica just has an incredible spirit. They mostly play in and around Chicago, but I see from Monica’s tour page that she’s been to Wisconsin and Minneapolis recently. You really should check her out if you get a chance. [And check out Kayla, too, of course. But where's that damn CD, kid?]

www.monicadelcastillo.com

www.myspace.com/monicadelcastillo

I got a nice 6 song EP for $7. This is my favorite song on the EP and perhaps of the evening:

But I keep my distance from these fairy tales
Cuz I really don’t need anyone to hold
And if it takes a lifetime I will wait for someone who

Who dissolves into my smile
And gets swallowed in my eyes
Well I don’t expect that you would understand

You Would Understand – Monica Del Castillo

NASIG : Vision Session I : Bob Stein : The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era

Posted on by

Vision Session I: Bob Stein, Director of the Institute for the Future of the Book. “The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era.”

This was an interesting session in which I only jotted down 2 pages of random and skimpy notes.

In his prologue, he spoke about reading Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers which claims that Copernicus’ book was one of the most important books that nobody read at the time. Years later Owen Gingerich wrote The Book That Nobody Read. Gingerich spent around 30 years looking at every extent 1st and 2nd edition of Copernicus and found that all of them had dense marginalia; conversations, in fact.

Books as “frozen objects”, disconnected from each other.

Standard view of reading and writing is individualistic.

Books are random-access devices.

Today we face a serious issue with user-driven media being taken over by producer-driven media. But perhaps if we put a microprocessor into the mix then we can shift more producer-driven media back to user-driven media. [I can somewhat see the point, but I honestly don't think that providing a pause, rewind, start over, etc. control makes something truly user-driven. He's got a point, but he's focusing on "vision" and not specifying the limits of the shift.]

“Librarians make me rise to the occasion. They are the smartest audiences I ever get to talk to.” [Might as well show a picture of a fluffy cat, Bob, or tell us one of those wonderful anecdotes about how everything you know you owe to the public library.]

The Future of the Book, Geoffrey Nunberg, ed., afterword by Umberto Eco. They were wrong about the book. It’s not about audiovisual, it is all about the network.

Some of the things The Institute for the Future of the Book has done/is doing:

Without Gods: Toward a History of Disbelief

Gamer Theory – McKenzie Wark

The Iraq Study Group Report

Sophie

Gratuitous Vannevar Bush reference. I forced myself to re-read “As We May Think” yesterday and at least it supports his use, mostly, if one reads real generously. Still. Learn a little recently produced history, please.

He left us with 3 questions?

If works are always in process, what does that imply for notions of versions and authority?

Authoritative editions may disappear.

Given the vast amount of information/conversation available on just one subject, should it even be a goal to enable a single individual to master it? [Hear, hear!]

Enable teams … mechanisms are currently missing for this.

What will it mean to be “human” in the age of the digital network?

Our views are wrapped up in the Enlightenment view.

He says various conversations are leading to the view that a new Creative Commons license is needed regarding the right to build marginalia around a work. [I sure wish he would have said more on this. It could be fleshed out a couple of ways and I don't know which one(s) is correct.]

Forethought in technology. Humanists need to be involved. Do not leave the future of technology to the geeks.

He is profoundly nervous about the work the Institute is doing.

Roy Harris, philosopher and linguist

Posted on by

Thanks to a suggestion from David Bade I have been reading a fair amount of Roy Harris lately.

I have read both The Language Machine and The Language-Makers.

David suggested that I begin with the epilogue to The Language Machine, entitled “Saying Nothing.” It is absolutely brilliant! I then read the book from the beginning and re-read the epilogue when I got to the end. Here’s what I said in my weekly reading “log” of 20-26 May:

Thank you, David!

I must say that the lengthy paragraph on page 172-173 caused me to shudder to the core of my soul both times I read it; even more so the 2nd time having the full impact of the book behind it. I will most certainly be reading much more Harris.

Highly recommended! And do begin with the Epilogue.

As much as I enjoyed these books, they are primarily historical analysis and negative philosophy; i.e., they are critiques of other views and theories of language and linguistics. Responding to a lunch invite with David that I had to miss due to being in Louisville, I told my advisor to tell him this:

I’m just about to finish my 2nd Harris book. You can tell him I’m impressed; but I need to find his “positive philosophy” on linguistics soon. These are more historical and how we got to the situation we’re in/have been in, or more of a “negative philosophy.”

In response I was told to read “Signs, Language and Communication” and the books published since 2002. Also to look at some articles in the journal Language & Communication. There is also a new book coming out soon that looks good, Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law.

Harris’ positive theory is known as integrationism. I find his critiques of other views to be enlightening and wonderful, but I want to look at his positive philosophy before reading much more of the earlier critiques. I imagine I will be reading a lot of Roy Harris’ work; I will be looking for good used copies of the ones I’ve already read to purchase even. They were that good.

Today I picked up both of these, following David’s advice:

Wolf, George and Nigel Love, eds. Linguistics Inside Out: Roy Harris and His Critics. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, v. 148. (1997) [Well, this one was on my own advice.]

Harris, Roy. The Linguistics of History. (2004)

I also ordered the following via ILL due to the same:

The Semantics of Science. (2005)

The Necessity of Artspeak: The Language of the Arts in the Western Tradition. (2003)

I also have on hand from my first trip to the stacks a couple of weeks ago:

The Language Myth. (1981)

Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to Play Games with Words. (1988)

Lots of good reading ahead.

And this should only go to show folks who think they ought to “school me” that it may even be possible. ;)

As a teaser, here is the paragraph from the epilogue of The Language Machine that causes my soul to shudder (see above):

The mythology of the language machine is the mythology of a technologically advanced society which has not yet come to terms with its own linguistic self-awareness. It is a society whose linguistic capacities and facilities have fast outgrown its comprehension of them. It is a society which looks in the linguistic mirror, does not like what it sees, and consequently shrinks from linguistic responsibilities. The signs of its linguistic insecurity are everywhere. It is a society whose words change meaning as they cross frontiers, and whose frontiers are maintained by governments with a right to mint their own truths which is as well established as their right to print their own postage stamps. It is a semantically bemused society in which aggression is always defence, censorship is always exercised in the interest of free speech, and wars are invariably fought to preserve peace. It is a society which proliferates jargon while deploring it, and cares more about the pollution of its rivers by detergents than about the pollution of its communicational space by detergent advertisements. It is a society whose citizens are told that smoking may damage their health but that nuclear power is safe. Its mass media daily produce verbiage for public consumption on a scale never before seen. It is a society of people who have more language to cope with than they can possibly manage, of people ceaselessly bombarded by words they only partly understand. It is a society in which language is increasingly perceived as untrustworthy, and its untrustworthiness increasingly perceived as being without remedy. The typical neurosis of such a society is logophobia. It worries about words while abusing them. No other society could have numbered Orwell among its intellectual heroes, or enacted legislation to enforce ‘plain language’, or have seen its most popular poet murdered by an admirer who gave as his reason that he understood the words of the poet’s lyrics, but not their meaning. In short, it is a society which fears the linguistic jungle it has created because it knows that in jungles only the law of the jungle prevails (172-3).

NASKO Conference papers and extended abstracts available

Posted on by

Next week I am going to the 1st NASKO Conference in Toronto and I am seriously stoked!

It is going to be small and intimate, casual (Kathryn said go casual, ladies!), and I’m going to get to hang out with two of my good friends. I’ll also get to meet my intellectual crush and meet some more people along with seeing a few more again.

Just today Joe Tennis sent out an email that the NASKO Conference papers and extended abstracts are available on dLIST (9 full papers and 4 extended abstracts). Woohoo! Guess what I’ll be reading later tonight?

Roy Harris (another post coming shortly) is going to be put on hold for a week or so while I read some of these.

I really have my fingers crossed that somehow the presentation conflict between Green and Fallgren, and Abbas gets unconflicted. I wouldn’t mind attending Smiraglia’s presentation, too, but he’s a definite 3rd to the 1st place tie of Abbas and Green. “Please, please, please. Pretty please with sugar on top.” I don’t ask for much in the world; just this one thing….

North American Serials Interest Group, Louisville, KY

Posted on by

This past weekend I attended my first North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) conference (their 22nd) in Louisville, KY.

It was fun, interesting, and casual. I rode down and stayed with Steve Oberg, who I found out (from someone else) once we got there is a Past President of NASIG. Actually, over the course of 3 days I found it out from many people. It was nice to be able to spend some quality time with Steve and get to know each other better.

I finally got to meet Anna Creech, although we never found more than a few minutes to hang out. I never did manage to catch up with Greg Schwartz. He actually lives a goodly ways outside of town so my only chance was during the day on Friday and it didn’t work out. :(

I did get to talk with Karen for a minutes on late Friday afternoon for 10 minutes or so. Twas nice.

Thursday

The first event I attended was the reception on Thursday evening at the Frazier International History Museum. It was nice. I wandered up to the Late Night Social later in the evening but I didn’t remember anyone’s names although I recognized some faces. I sat around for a few minutes, but not wanting to drink (??) I didn’t “impose” myself on anyone and wandered up to the room.

Friday

Vision Session I: Bob Stein, Director of the Institute for the Future of the Book. “The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era.”

Strategy Session: “From Tech Services to Leadership.” Panel relating skills learned in TS to demonstrating library leadership.

  • Joyce Ogburn, Director of Marriott Library at the University of Utah
    Karen Calhoun, Vice President, OCLC WorldCat and Metadata Services (formerly Asst. University Librarian for Technical Services at Cornell University)
    Carol Pitts Diedrichs, Dean of Libraries at the University of Kentucky

Tactics Session: “Successive Entry, Latest Entry or None of the Above? How the MARC21 Format, FRBR and the concept of a Work Could Revitalize Serials Management.” Katherine C. Adams, Britta Santamauro, both of Yale University.

Strategy Session: “Tumbling Dice: Publishers, Aggregators, and ERM.” Sandy Hurd, Innovative Interfaces, Inc.; Kathy Klemperer, Library and Information Systems Consulting; and Linda Miller, Library of Congress.

Dine Around at Jarfi’s. Good food and conversation.

Saturday

Vision Session II: Karen Schneider. “State of Emergency.” Alternate title: “The Paranoia Presentation.”

Strategy Session: “Hitting the Trifecta: Alternative Career Paths for Those with an M.L.S.” Ann McKee (consortia), Bob Schatz (book vendors), Christine Stamison (subscription agents), Steve Oberg (corporate), Beverley Geer (publisher), and Michael Markwith (subscription agent)

Tactics Session: “A Needle in the Haystack — Finding that First Academic Serials Job and Advancing to the Next Level.” Kay G. Johnson, Radford University and Gayle Baker, University of Tennessee.

Lunch & Informal Discussion Groups — I was interested in 3 of these and not sure exactly why I went to the one I did, but it was interesting. Perhaps it was my interest in continuing education, and that I hadn’t been to the 3rd floor in that wing of the hotel yet.

I attended SCCTP (Serials Cooperative Training Program) instead of Web 2.0 Tools for Libraries or RDA and Serials. Web 2.0 was easy enough to skip, but RDA ….

Tactics Session: “Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: New and Not-So-New Serialists Share Experiences.” Susan Davis, University of Buffalo, SUNY and Sarah Morris, Illinois College of Optometry.

I skipped the Endeavor User Group Meeting. I kind of wanted to go but I had been fighting a headache all day and it was at its worst. If my institution had been paying I would have made myself go but it was my dime ($375) and I took a break.

Brainstorming Session: This was on why and how to remedy the situation of very few wanting to run for leadership offices in the organization.

Dine Around at Saffron’s I wish I knew the name of the restaurant (thanks Steve & Greg), but I just kind of lucked into the group as they were heading over and they had room for an additional person. It was a lovely Persian place. Cost me a bundle, but it was worth every penny. Of course, going with this group caused me to miss hanging out with Anna Creech and her posse for barbecue. But seeing as I was already seated at the restaurant when I got her call…. Great food and conversation.

Open Mic Late Night Social: Some talented and funny people in NASIG. If I go next year (and I’d love to) I’ll have to practice some of my stories.

Sunday

Vision Session III: Daniel Chudnov, Library of Congress. “A New Approach to Service Discovery and Resource Delivery.”

Strategy Session: “It Takes a Community; The CLOCKSS Initiative.” Victoria Reich, CLOCKSS Initiative, Stanford University Libraries

I got to this one late as I stuck around to ask Dan Chudnov a question and then spoke with Britta Santamauro of Yale about her presentation on Friday re FRBR. I was much more impressed after speaking with her. I only stuck around a while. It was standing room only, and despite the lively presentation I could learn all of this from a decent article so I took a break.

Tactics Session: “Education Trifecta: Win attention, Palce knowledge, Show understanding.” Virginia Taffurelli, New York Public Library; Betsy J. Redman, Arizona State University; and Steve Black, College of Saint Rose.

This was about how to do serials continuing education, particularly online, and on Steve’s on campus MLS course in serials at SUNY-Albany.

Conference Closing.

Comments

[Side note: I was reminded once again that quite a few married librarians do not wear wedding rings. (1) Life is hard enough people. (2) I thought we were the "info people." Hmmm. Thought I wrote about this phenomenon before but I can't find it; perhaps they were only f2f conversation which I know I had.]

I will write up some of these presentations although probably not much about any of them. Several reasons for this: (1) My notes are generally pretty skimpy, (2) some of them were less informative than they could have been, (3) I have other things to do, (4) and there aren’t all that many serialists out there.

If you would like some more info on something I have not yet written about or do not write about feel free to contact me and I will shoot you what I can or try to put you in touch with the presenters. I will probably say something about the Vision Sessions. Otherwise it may just be a comment or two here and there.

I haven’t had a chance to check this out yet but it sounds wonderfully intriguing. Steve Black (The College of Saint Rose) has a program where he interviews all sorts of journal editors about all sorts of topics.

Periodical Radio’s mission is to record dialogues with the interesting, creative, dedicated people who edit and produce journals and magazines.

Listen online or download programs.

And a very big “Thanks for everything!” to Steve Oberg. You were more than wonderful!