Monthly Archives: July 2007

Public apology to Peter Morville

Posted on by

It seems that I have managed to offend Peter Morville with a “nasty personal attack” in my ASIS&T 2007 Annual Meeting program posted post.

For that I sincerely apologize. Although my comments were snide, I most certainly did not mean to offend him.

I actually have more to say but I will refrain because: (1) my comments might seem to belie my sincerity in apologizing, and (2) I must remember that as librarians we do not tolerate ourselves or others expressing personal opinions.

And if this apology seems insincere, it is not. I am truly sorry for the offense caused. My issue lies in whether I feel it should have caused offense, but that is irrelevant to whether it did.

Balance?

Posted on by

well, I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you’ve never stared off into the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I’ll never forget your face,
sometimes I can’t remember my name

Counting Crows – Mrs. Potter’s Lullaby – This Desert Life

Balance.

I once thought I knew what this meant. I once thought I had a modicum of it.

Now, I’m not so sure of either of those.

There has been a lot of talk in the biblioblogosphere about balance. Walt Crawford, in particular, has devoted a couple of words to the subject here and there [buy his book]. During all of these discussions I felt that I had a decent balance in my life, or at least as much as I could based on my circumstances.

But I think I was drastically wrong. First off, deciding whether one has balance in a certain situation is vastly different from deciding one actually has balance in one’s life. That was my 1st mistake.

Mistake number 2 was perhaps lying to myself. Maybe I did; maybe I didn’t. Either way, I think I have changed my mind.

Despite taking time to relax, enjoying reading for pleasure, watching movies, going to the bar, hanging with friends, coming to accept much about the productivity of being a graduate student, and so on, I have been and am repeatedly ill. Physically, in particular. But also existentially.

I have been to the doctor and she has been unable to determine anything wrong.

Despite all the things I do to amuse (or is it to distract?) myself, my life seems to revolve around school and related-educational/professional experiences. Unfortunately, I am becoming less comfortable with formal education. I absolutely love parts of it, and parts of it I despise (the production aspect and semester system, primarily). This is a problem on several fronts. It is a definite problem in light of what a very dear friend of mine wrote to me recently:

I think it’s because you’re afraid that you might find Life post-school as disappointing (wrong word, but I can’t quite get the right one this morning) as you found it before you started back in education. You’re used to your role in the classroom and are unsure how you’ll find your role as a librarian.

I think she makes a very valid point. I have elided the exact context of our discussion, but it is a part of my current issues.

I truly need to discover what balance is for me in my life. Then I need to pursue it. A large part of my recent problems are related, if not directly causally-related, to this issue of balance. A large part of the problem, besides needing to come to an acceptance of this truth, is that I feel like I have little control over much of the things I lack. A second large problem is that to get to a point where I am able to remedy some of these issues requires successfully negotiating myself through some of the things that I dislike the most in life. The primary reason I ended up in the Army so many years ago had to do with avoiding some of these same issues.

Some of the things I need in life are mostly out of my control (see, I was good and did not say completely). I try to go places where I might meet people/someone but I cannot simply conjure up discussion partners nor a companion. Perhaps there is more I could do all along this spectrum of companion-seeking. I have had a few suggestions from some folks, some of which I try, some I do not. Doesn’t mean they are bad suggestions but just that they don’t sit right with me, or at least not now.

There are things I could (theoretically) do and that I could possibly work harder at. I have a couple of folks who would love to have in-depth conversations about some of the topics of prime interest to me, which is one of the main things lacking in my life. And, bless their hearts (Jodi, primarily), they keep trying, but our prime communication mechanism is email.

Call me a Luddite, or non-L2, or whatever you like, but serious conversation is almost impossible for me in a non-face-to-face setting. I am looking for full-blown, full-on conversation and not some pale specter of it that can happen in email, blogs and other electronic means. Because, well, I already have that. I am not claiming that such is impossible by any means. It happens (for me) on rare occasions. But it is vastly too hard for me to accomplish via these means generally; it is too hard for me and takes far more time than I would like. It takes forever to clarify terms and fine points, which leads to leaving some of them unglossed, which, in turn, leads to needless argument over things which are in actuality agreed on. Knowing that I have folks who’d like to converse with me and being unable to do so effectively just adds to my issues.

Things that I want very much to do do not get accomplished. Things that I tell others I will do drop by the wayside. Luckily, so far nothing of major significance that I have promised anyone else has slipped. But, for example, when I tell Jodi I will write a post on a certain conference program then I should. I know she understands, and I even understand, but whether it has to be or not, the “failure” increases the feeling of unbalance, amongst other feelings.

The kid could really use a vacation. I could be wrong, but the last real vacation I remember having was in 1984 or 1985 when my mom and her man came to visit me in Belgium and we traveled around Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.

Sure, I’ve had things called vacations since. But when I was in the Army most of my vacations happened when things at home got so backlogged that I had to take time off to deal with domestic chores. When we have taken a vacation as in going somewhere it was usually for more ulterior motives even if there was a bit of amusement and relaxation mixed in. Right before I left the Army the whole family took a trip to Illinois to visit colleges for both Jeremy and me. On the way up from Texas we stopped at the Cotton Bowl to see a Major League Soccer game and fireworks. It was the 4th of July.

Vacations as a student have been for the exact same reason. There is so much to do around here; always.

I’ve been to visit family in DC at some point early in this century and while it was quite relaxing I don’t exactly consider visiting family to be a vacation. And considering that my apartment was invaded by a large number of mice which ended up making me deathly ill for the next 6 months, well, not so vacation-like in the end.

The last couple conferences I went to were in many ways vacation-like but they were not vacations. They were conferences.

So I ought to just take a vacation, you say? Right. Drop me a line in my comment form and I’ll tell you where you can mail the check.

I do not know what any of this means. Not as regards my life; other than things need to change. Not as regards school. Not as regards job hunting. And not as regards this blog or my other adventures in cyberspace.

I won’t say that I’m going away because I don’t think that’s true. I may be fairly quiet for a while, both here and in commenting on others’ blogs. Or I may not. I will try and accept that my weekly reading lists may be most of what I do for a while. I have had a few people tell me that they find them useful. Feeling useful is a nice feeling for me. As for anything else I cannot say. I have no doubt that on occasion something will exercise me past the point of silence.

I am not avoiding anyone and I most certainly do not want my friends to think they must or should avoid me. My friends know the various means to get a hold of me and I am thankful that they do use those means, and I hope that they will continue to.

I have some very big, and to me terrifying, changes to face in the near future all the while attempting to deal with the issue of identifying and incorporating some balance in my life. I have no idea how I’ll fare. But I go into it knowing that I have many people who care about me, some deeply. This knowledge, in the fullest sense of the word, can only help.

…we drove out to the desert
just to lie down beneath this bowl of stars…

Counting Crows – Mrs. Potter’s Lullaby – This Desert Life

Now wouldn’t that be nice…

ASIS&T 2007 Annual Meeting program posted

Posted on by

Thanks to Christina, I was alerted to the posting of the program for this years ASIS&T Annual Meeting in Milwaukee in Oct.

It looks really exciting! Some time slots have a lot of competition for my attention, some not so much. I also know my interests will change some between now and mid-Oct. Nonetheless, it looks like my poor brain will be overloaded with amazing amounts of information.

The full-day, Friday pre-conference, Taxonomies in Search, looks like it could be amazing but this kid doesn’t have $245 on top of conference registration!

Saturday, is the SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop pre-conference.

This half-day pre-conference on Sunday, Information Architecture 3.0 with Peter Morville looks good. But $300 for a half-day? Hahahaha. Dude, I already bought that piece of crap “find me” book of yours! People tell me Morville is a librarian; I say he is a huckster. I guess when I can charge people $600/day to hang out with me then I’ll be a professional librarian and not a minute sooner. Update: This is far too much money for me to pay, but my overly snide comments were perhaps inappropriate. My current state precludes me from deciding if they truly constitute a “nasty personal attack” or not. Either way, they were found offensive by the subject and for that I truly apologize.

On to the real conference and people more on my level:

Sunday, Oct. 21

Dang it! June Abbas is up against Michael Buckland, et. al. Tagging vs. History and foundations applied to the current situation (you know, that little bugaboo of mine).

The late afternoon session looks a little weaker as regards my interests, but crossword puzzles could be interesting.

Monday, Oct. 22

Everyday classification in the AM. Or, perhaps, live usability testing with Dorothea and others.

Early afternoon has several interesting presentations, like these folks who claim some LIS schools are teaching us about social computing, but I’m not missing danah boyd.

Late afternoon has another presentation with danah boyd, which I’m guessing jennimi will be at. An interesting presentation on personal info management by my friend, Christina Pikas. And a 3rd one on KOS Standards. Seeing as I’m on the Standards Committee ….

Tues, Oct. 23

Early AM: Kind of open at the moment, but probably this on the applications of traditional & non-traditional KM.

Mid-morning: Oh, boy! Improving Online Dating with Virtual Dates! I am so not there. Pretty much open at the moment. Break time is always good.

Mid-afternoon: Social epistemology in LIS.

Late afternoon also seems kind of open for now.

Evening: SIG CON. Woohoo! And notice, my friends, it is labeled “Tag Me!” Seems a certain rogue group had some influence last year.

Wed, Oct. 24

AM looks like tough choices: Next generation catalogs, Christina and others on blogs & wikis, or another look at Randall Kemp’s humanitarian relief organizations work and the traveling road show of Renear and Dubin on FRBR Group 1 entities in a slot entitled “Standards/Restrictions/Reinterpretations.”

I’ve heard sketches and pieces of this argument and I agree:

We examine the conceptual model of the “bibliographic universe” presented in IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and argue, applying the ontology design recommendations developed by N. Guarino and C. Welty, that three of the four Group 1 entity types should be considered roles (relationships) rather than types. We then show how this analysis generalizes the solution to a previously identified puzzle in entity type assignment and is supported by John Searle’s notion of a cascade of social facts established through collective intentionality — which we take to be confirmation that this re-factoring results in a more accurate picture of the bibliographic domain. Finally we make some suggestions as to why it seemed that these entities were types rather than roles and note that in specific applications there may in fact be good practical reasons for models that treat types as roles.

Mid-morning: Plenary with Clifford Lynch.

Early afternoon: Digital natives research or social capital. Probably the 2nd since I have serious issues with most claims made about the 1st.

Late afternoon: More social capital stuff, or perhaps time to head home?

There is so much more going on and as I said my interests will shift. Dorothea will be there. I sure hope she’s staying for more than her presentation. Other friends who I’ve seen more recently than Dorothea will also be there.

I’m so excited and it’s only a little over 3 months away. Alright, GSLIS students. Time to do some serious planning!

Library & Information Anecdotes

Posted on by

I’ve decided on a personal moratorium on the use of LIS; i.e., Library & Information Science.

My personal beliefs are such that it isn’t really a science anyway, but don’t worry as I don’t really consider physics to be one either. Hasn’t been so for a long time now.

So what’s my current beef you might ask? Having watched a fair amount of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control’s 3rd meeting via live webcast yesterday, along with attending the 2nd one in Chicago, toss in a few other odd reports and such here and there, and one should quickly notice that we have pretty much nothing but anecdote. Not a damn shred of actual evidence for anything anywhere. Just a lot of talking heads talking about what they think is wanted by users or about what systems and data we need to supply that to them.

Hell, even the players (variables) aren’t fully explicated. As was pointed out yesterday, where are the publishers in these discussions? And give me a break with that ridiculous bipartite division of the “use environment” that was devised in the 1st meeting, “consumers” and “management.” These may be the “apparent” ones, but please tell me we will look beyond apparent.

OK. I’m shutting up because I will be looking for a job sometime in the next few months or less. [I will not silence myself for the sake of a job.] Just please don’t talk to me about no damn “science” in our field. I simply find this whole charade unbelievable. Librarians really are too nice for their own good and certainly for the good of the profession. More importantly, we are too nice to do the job needing doing for our (multi-faceted) users.

Please, can someone show me the science?

[This morning I wrote a nice postscript adding a little nuance to the above as in admitting that there is some science-like work being done in our field and that it just doesn't seem to be being used in this project. Alas, my host's spam filters trashed it all upon trying to save it. Besides not being able to comment on my own blog; now I cannot post to it. Blake has hopefully fixed it but it was/is very frustrating. It didn't just not save, but instead trashed a fairly complex and, I might add, eloquent paragraph. As it is, I shall extend this little rant.]

Regarding the lack of publisher presence in these discussions: It seems pretty evident that little effort went into thinking about which communities needed to be part of this process. The way I see it LC and the Working Group decided that whoever was interested (much less, whoever should be interested) would just show up because they decided to have some meetings. This move (or lack of a move) leaves them in the clear. If they had actually spent time considering this point and had issued calls for participation for all groups “we” think need to participate and then some group had turned up overlooked they would be responsible. But by avoiding this, when it becomes apparent that some community is missing the fault is definitely not their’s. They have been inclusive and certainly not exclusionary. They are immune from blame. Well, I cry foul and hold this group responsible for failing to try to ensure that representatives from all needed communities are present.

Publishers, it seems to me, have little apparent incentive to worry about what we as a discipline do to describe their materials after they are published. Perhaps they should. Perhaps we could convince them that they do. But that seems as if it will take an active effort on our part to convince them of such. And just because we may need their assistance (if possible) does not mean they need to be willing to provide it.

Dan Chudnov has become my personal hero. [The following is a loose paraphrase of something Dan said much more politely and eloquently. I suggest you watch the webcast of yesterday's meeting—towards the end of the day—to see/hear this in Dan's own words.]

It seems that earlier in the day a comment (or more) had been made about some of the issues with current institutional repository software design and that if only the software designers had involved catalogers and other library professionals earlier in the process…. Dan stated that as a librarian, coder, and institutional repository software designer he noticed what seemed to be an awful lot of talk about the capabilities of software/technology to solve a lot of our problems and that it was clear that not too many people knew what they were talking about. [Again, this is an extremely loose paraphrase. Perhaps it is what I wanted to hear.] He volunteered to serve as a liaison between the coding and library communities and asked/suggested that another series of meetings be scheduled at which the ILS vendors, open source folks, library coders and techies, etc. can sit down with the bibliographic structure/control folks and come to some common understanding of what is possible and to what degree.

Yay, Dan! Many of us owe Dan Chudnov our hearty thanks for calling trump on these folks. I treat the concept of hero very seriously, but in this situation I am calling Dan Chudnov my personal hero.

The software/coding community is another one pretty much completely missing from this process. Instead we get to listen to folks like Karen Calhoun tell us what software is capable of. While Karen Calhoun is a smart person, she really has little idea of what she speaks about when she makes these claims. As do few of the others who make them. It is all more/mere anecdotes and finding an article or two that supports what you want to claim. Although, in the Working Group process all the support (superficial, or not) seems to be missing.

Why is it that librarians think they know so much about other areas of knowledge? I certainly am not claiming scientific status or even that this is a theory, or that this is universally generalizable (it is not), but I have a hypothesis.

Many librarians have multiple degrees, often advanced degrees, and we are trained to be experts in search, sometimes in research, and we have a good grasp of the structure of knowledge “universally.” Or so we think, anyway. I think this leads many to think that they can just look up something that they don’t know in some book, article, or even a so-called reputable reference source. We can do a little digging and discern the structure of an unknown field.

So. Need to know the capabilities of concept x, or software technique y, or anything else? Just look it up. Read a couple review articles. We’re librarians, we can just do a little research and we’ll be competent.

What a complete and utter joke! Clearly, there are times where this cursory depth and breadth suffices for some need. But, if one even remotely believes in the process of higher education and specialization, whether instantiated in our current system of higher education or some other manner in which to address the vast panoply of the universe of knowledge, then it follows that a little study is frequently not enough to address the needs we have. I stand awestruck from the hubris involved in such thinking.

I am not trying to be derogatory toward each and every member of the Working Group individually. But there truly is (often) an almost complete numbness of mind that comes over committees. I truly must believe that on occasion some individual member or another wakes up and asks a real-world complex question and reminds the others that they need real data, perhaps even new research to back up any answer. And then for various “institutional” reasons—artificial deadlines, efficiency, cost, committee narcosis—that all gets waived aside.

Clearly, there are a lot of bright people working on this. But seeing as this is one of the most important revolutions of our time—as in all revolutions some things should stay, some should change, and some should go—why, oh why, is it being so utterly fucked up?

I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone with any of this. I truly do. But this could be one of the most important things to happen in the fundamental ways in which we in the field of librarianship structure our world so that we may meet the needs (current and future) of our users, in and for a long time. And the process as instantiated is a complete and utter joke!

I am frustrated. I am pissed off. I am dumbfounded. I am confused. And based on personal conversations so are others. It is only right for me to allow them to speak for themselves if they so choose, though.

Me. I said my piece. And, yes, I am mad.

Some things read this week, 1 – 7 July 2007

Posted on by

Sunday, 1 Jul

Uta Priss, “Associative and Formal Concepts,” Conceptual Structures: Integration and Interfaces, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 2002, http://www.upriss.org.uk/papers/icc02.pdf (accessed July 1, 2007).

Cited by Tennis (2005) “Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification.” Knowledge Organization 32 (2), 2005: 79-92. Read 13-14 June 2007.

Monday, 2 Jul

RDA-related items:

Comments on scope and structure: I fully realize the status of FRAD and FRANAR but, according to section 1.2 and 1.3, subjects and subject relationships are currently out of scope for RDA as either descriptive data or access point control data. On what basis can RDA be a standard for access then?

Section 2.1 Part A – Description: Formalizes the content vs. carrier dichotomy [see my comments on Howarth below] and makes it worse by associating carrier with manifestation and item and content with work and expression. This is such a gross simplification of the real world. These folks really need to read Rebecca Green’s recent analysis of this situation. Content and carrier are far more intertwined than these folks are willing to admit. And failure to admit and plan for this means ambiguous, and conflicting interpretations of the, rules for description.

Same section: Acquisition and access. Restricts this to manifestation and item level elements. One might think they mean things like terms of availability, remote access privileges, etc. relate to commercial resources, and I believe that is their focus. But. Under the head of “obtaining access to a resource” and “restrictions on access” I would most certainly put content and expression-level attributes that affect access. You know. Like anything having to do with “pornography.” Cause I’m really failing to see how any manifestation or item-level attributes have anything to do with why we as a society try and restrict such expressed content from minors. It is most definitely the content and its expression to which we restrict access.

Comments on objectives: 2. Functionality of records produced using RDA: Principles: Relationships.

The descriptive data provided for in the guidelines and instructions should indicate significant bibliographic relationships between the resource described and other resources.

The access point data provided for in the guidelines and instructions should reflect all significant bibliographic relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, persons, families, and corporate bodies (p. 4).

I am elated to see this spelled out here. My concern is, though, just what constitutes a “significant bibliographic relationship,” much less all of them? I have not seen these enumerated anywhere.

Admittedly, if you look at the RDA-FRBR mapping beginning on page 7 you will notice that they are using Tillett’s taxonomy of 7 bibliographic relationships in the mapping. That’s good to see. As a start. But where are they explicitly explicated as the and all of the “significant bibliographic relationships?”

I have not read much of the actual Parts of RDA. I have only begun that task. RDA looks to be making significant progress in some respects. In others it has completely missed the boat. As for people actually learning to use this I have some serious doubts. I may not be a “new world order” metadata expert but I have had a class in it and have made assorted resources using MODS, TEI, DC, Topic Maps and a few others. I have spent a semester looking at FRBR, CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo. I know how to read an ER diagram. I have written my own XML schema and modified others. I have a decent grasp of elements and attribute-value pairs and other related concepts. I say all this only to illustrate my concern for how more traditional folks doing description and access work are going to make the transition to RDA. Perhas it won’t be as difficult as I’m envisioning, but I worry ….

Tuesday, 3 Jul

Grice, H. P. “Logic and Conversation.” In The Logic of Grammar, edited by Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, pp. 64-75. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 1975. This lecture was originally delivered at Harvard University in 1967.

Cited by Dewdney & Michell (1997) “Asking “Why” Questions in the Reference Interview: A Theoretical Justification.” Read 19 June 2007.

I think Grice makes some very valid points, but he’s also a bit too logical about it. Also, the assumption that much of human communication is conversational is flawed. And Grice’s view of conversation seems to be seriously based on a certain British, educated, and perhaps even classist view. [I really should have written about this shortly after reading it.]

Anyway, it is recommended. It is not very long and is useful goad to thinking about these matters.

Wednesday, 4 Jul

Pepper, Steve. Towards the Semantic Superhighway: A Manifesto for Published Subjects. (2006).

Pepper’s manifesto for Published Subjects and published subject indicators (PSIs). Here are my PSIs (so far) for my Topic Maps project.

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Began; read introductory matter and 1st 3 chapters.

I would have liked to read the 2 previous books first, but this one has the shortest loan period, by far.

Monday – Wednesday, 2-4 Jul

The Successful Academic Librarian: Winning Strategies from Library Leaders (Medford, N.J: Information Today, Inc, 2005).

Read most of this, but not every word. Not sure if I want to recommend it or not, but (parts of) it might be very useful to some of you.

Thursday, 5 Jul

Lynne C. Howarth. “Content versus Carrier.” Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada October 23-25, 1997, 1998. [Green’s presentation at NASKO will be the beginning of a new canonical view of content and carrier and ….

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Read chapter 4-5.

Friday, 6 Jun

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Read chapter 6-7.

Saturday, 7 Jun

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Read chapter 8-9 and App. 1 “Einstein on science and reality” and App. 2 “Heisenberg on language.” Finished. Fits in well with my views of science.

Highly recommended.

A totally bought off but, nonetheless, truthful post

Posted on by

Yesterday afternoon I went to see Michael Moore’s Sicko with my friend, Tracy.

I met Tracy and her husband, El Diablo, about 40 minutes before the movie started so we went to Farren’s for drinks beforehand.

The movie was actually pretty good. While there was certainly a lot of rhetoric involved, it is probably the most balanced Moore movie so far. If even any of what he says about our health care system is correct—much of it certainly is—then we have a pretty much completely broken, and morally bankrupt, system.

After the movie we met El Diablo over at The Blind Pig for drinks. Tracy’s friends, Tony & Susan and Kevin [I think those names are correct], some local Greens who were also at the movie, came along. Lots of good conversation and a small amount of alcohol later we all adjourned to Farren’s for dinner, more beer, and conversation.

I had a great time getting to know some new folks and discussing things of lots and of little consequence.

The reason this post is bought off is because Tracy and El Diablo have this crazy rule about paying when they invite you out. So—again—they paid for my beers, the movie, and dinner. Thanks, guys! But this silliness really needs to stop.

Some things read this week, 24 – 30 June 2007

Posted on by

Saturday – Sunday, 23-24 June

Corry, Richard. “Causal Realism and the Laws of Nature.” Philosophy of Science 73 (3), July 2006: 261-276.

Sunday, 24 June

Smiraglia, Richard P. and Gregory H. Leazer. “Derivative Bibliographic Relationships: The Work Relationship in Global Bibliographic Database.” JASIS 50 (6), 1999: 493-504.

Cited by Tillett, B. B. “Bibliographical Relationships.” In Bean & Green (2001), amongst many other places, which I’m re-reading closely for my Topic Maps work.

Interesting empirical data on extent, prevalence and size of bibliographic families, types of relationships and their prevalence, and some data on characteristics of progenitor works and the correlation of these characteristics on the size and shape of a bibliographic family.

Monday, 25 Jun

Hjørland, Birger, and Jeppe Nicolaisen. 2004. Scientific and scholarly classifications are not “naïve”: a comment to Begthol [sic]. Knowledge Organization 31, no. 1: 55-61.

Beghtol, Clare L. 2004. Response to Hjørland and Nicolaisen. Knowledge Organization 31, no. 1: 62-63.

Nicolaisen, Jeppe, and Birger Hjørland. 2004. A rejoinder to Beghtol (2004). Knowledge Organization 31, no. 3: 199-201.

Thanks to Kristina for pointing out in a comment on last week’s post that these follow-ups exist regarding Beghtol’s use of the term “naïve.” Always nice to see smart people have already thought the same things that I notice.

Mann, Thomas. “The Peloponnesian War and the Future of Reference, Cataloging, and Scholarship in Research Libraries.” [pdf here]

I think is Mann’s most balanced piece (lately) so far. It has been getting a lot of play including a nice write-up by David Weinberger.

Well worth the read no matter which side of the controlled vocabulary / tagging debate you come down on. [I cannot believe I just wrote that. Perhaps I should say that if you believe there is said debate then you absolutely need to read it. If you are with most of us who believe they both have a time and place, and that may they might even serve to describe the same entity, then reading it is also a good idea.]

Introna, Lucas D. “The (im)possibility of ethics in the information age.” Information and Organization 12, 2002: 71-84.

Cited by Kemp (NASKO 2007) “Classifying marginalized people, …”, p. 59, but I was really more drawn to it by its title and not by its use as a citation.

Wow!

Written about at length here.

Tuesday, 26 Jun

Tillett, Barbara B. “A Summary of the Treatment of Bibliographic Relationships in Cataloging Rules.” Library Resources & Technical Services 35 (4), Oct 1991: 393-405.

2nd in a series of 4 articles based on Tillett’s dissertation.

Read for Topic Maps and GP cause I’m geeky like that.

Wednesday, 27 Jun

Tillett, Barbara B. “A Taxonomy of Bibliographic Relationships.” Library Resources & Technical Services 35 (2), Apr 1991: 151-158.

1st in a series of 4 articles based on Tillett’s dissertation.

Re-read for Topic Maps and GP cause I’m geeky like that. First read 25-26 Jan 07.

I also read a bunch of articles about Topic Maps, but I will spare you since I want no one as confused as I ended up. I actually thing I have a decent grasp in them conceptually (as a beginner, anyway) but all the articles are using assorted versions of the standard, or the DTD vs. the schema, and so on, which makes it real difficult when you start actually writing syntax and expecting validation.

If you want TM references let me know but most are available on the open Web.

Thursday, 28 Jun

Tillett, Barbara B. “Bibliographic Relationships: An Empirical Study of the LC Machine-Readable Records.” Library Resources & Technical Services 36 (2), Apr 1992: 162-188.

4th in a series of 4 articles based on Tillett’s dissertation.

Read for Topic Maps and GP cause I’m geeky like that. Yes, I skipped the 3rd article for now, “The History of Linking Devices.” I will read it but it serves no purpose for my Topic Maps assignment.

I did bring the following home today, though, to trace some of the references she made in her articles:

Tillett, Barabara Ann Barnett. Bibliographic Relationships: Towards a Conceptual Structure of Bibliographic Information used in Cataloging. Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1987.

Crawford, Walt. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large 7 (8), July 2007 [pdf]

Friday, 29 Jun

Pepper, Steve and Geir Ove Grønmo. Towards a General Theory of Scope. 2002.

For Topic Maps.

Saturday, 30 Jun

Kauffman, Bill. Bye, Bye, Miss American Empire; Or, the sweet smell of secession. Orion July/Augusut 2007.

A very interesting article on the topic of secession as it makes it way back into conversation in the US. [I only mean interesting in the broadest and vaguest of senses; I am making no value judgements with its use.]

Found at 3 quarks daily.