For this week's blog post, I am choosing to write about what I felt was the most interesting part of my research into Folksonomies: metadata. More specifically, how it has been used in libraries and how it has been used (and not used) on the Internet.
Apparently, metadata was included as part of the original proposal for the Internet, which was envisaged as “a collection of organized, linked ideas.” While a structured system such as this would have made accessing and navigating the early Internet infinitely more efficient and effective, metadata was initially absent from the Internet because it’s designers felt that “the flexibility and simplicity of the Web was more important to its early users than the maintenance of a strict structure.”
Metadata did eventually find its way onto the Internet, however, as it continued to grow in popularity during the end of the previous millennium and the beginning of the current one. Marcel Gordon attributes this eventual inclusion of metadata by the Internet to two particular Internet innovations: “First, search engines began to map the Web, introducing what is now the Web’s primary interface.” These search engines, recognizing that metadata could be used to organize the Web, “began to use identity metadata such as titles and keywords in assessing the relevance of a page to a given query.” Accordingly, metadata’s importance to the Internet increased exponentially.
The second innovation was that not long after the appearance of search engines, commercial interests also appeared on the Web. In response, to the increasing use of metadata by search engines, “commercial Web site operators supplied false metadata about their pages to ensure that they appeared more frequently in search results and attracted more users.” As a result, metadata was essentially removed from the Internet once again because it had become “untrustworthy and effectively useless, depriving the Web of this powerful information management tool.”
Today, of course, metadata has returned to the Internet once again with the development and popularity of Web 2.0, which allows users to not only browse the Internet but to actively contribute to it by contributing original online content…just like I’m doing right now!
To learn more about the history of metadata use on the Internet and in libraries, and about how metadata is being used today in this wonderful Web 2.0 world, be sure to read Marcel Gordon’s article “Cleaning metadata on the World Wide Web: Suggestions for a regulatory approach.” As always, here’s the citation:
Gordon, M. (2006). Cleaning metadata on the World Wide Web: Suggestions for a regulatory approach. The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 531-570.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wikis and Folksonomies
Speaking of citation information (as I did at the end of my previous post), here are the citations for the two articles that I found for this week's class about wikis and folksonomies:
Bell, S. (2008). Wikis for reference, enthusiasts, and government information. Online, 33(1), 20-23.
Cosentino, S. L. (2008). Folksonomies: Path to a better way? Public Libraries, 47(2), 42-47.
Bell, S. (2008). Wikis for reference, enthusiasts, and government information. Online, 33(1), 20-23.
Cosentino, S. L. (2008). Folksonomies: Path to a better way? Public Libraries, 47(2), 42-47.
An Effective Example of Library 2.0 Service
After reading "Building a Library Web Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0" by Karen A. Coombs, I think that the library at the University of Houston has truly understood and embraced Web 2.0 and is making great efforts to effectively incorporate elements of it into its website and services.
Upon determining that their previous website “needed a new structure for both managing and organizing it” and that “the site’s structure was rigid and inflexible and provided no space for staff or users to participate,” Coombs began researching many elements of Web 2.0 including blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social software, and from this research identified six “Pillars of Web 2.0” that the library would use as the foundation for rebuilding its web site.
These six pillars are:
1. Radical decentralization, which Coombs says helped librarians to establish ownership of their library website content due to its “wiki-like nature,” in which “any staff member can make changes to a page if they see a problem.”
2. Small pieces loosely joined. Referring to the library’s previous website as “a monolithic silo that stood separate from the rest of the library’s web-based systems,” Coombs and the other librarians decided to make their new website “a combination of different technologies” which gives the new site “as much flexibility as possible.”
3. Perpetual beta, an idea that “embraces change” and creates an environment where “constant improvements can be made”to their new website.
4. Remixable content, which Coombs defines as “content and/or data that is accessible to be repurposed in other applications,” giving the example of subject guide content being “incorporated into the corresponding department’s website or appropriate classes” in addition to being hosted by the library’s website.
5. User as contributor, which allows library website users to “create content and give feedback,” and
6. Rich user experience, which is what Coombs and the other librarians at the University of Houston hope their website users will have as a result of their incorporation of the previous five pillars of Web 2.0 into their website.
For more detailed information about each of these six pillars and how Coombs used them to improve her library's website, be sure to read her full article. Here is the citation:
Coombs, K. A. (2007). Building a library web site on the pillars of Web 2.0. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 16-19.
Upon determining that their previous website “needed a new structure for both managing and organizing it” and that “the site’s structure was rigid and inflexible and provided no space for staff or users to participate,” Coombs began researching many elements of Web 2.0 including blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social software, and from this research identified six “Pillars of Web 2.0” that the library would use as the foundation for rebuilding its web site.
These six pillars are:
1. Radical decentralization, which Coombs says helped librarians to establish ownership of their library website content due to its “wiki-like nature,” in which “any staff member can make changes to a page if they see a problem.”
2. Small pieces loosely joined. Referring to the library’s previous website as “a monolithic silo that stood separate from the rest of the library’s web-based systems,” Coombs and the other librarians decided to make their new website “a combination of different technologies” which gives the new site “as much flexibility as possible.”
3. Perpetual beta, an idea that “embraces change” and creates an environment where “constant improvements can be made”to their new website.
4. Remixable content, which Coombs defines as “content and/or data that is accessible to be repurposed in other applications,” giving the example of subject guide content being “incorporated into the corresponding department’s website or appropriate classes” in addition to being hosted by the library’s website.
5. User as contributor, which allows library website users to “create content and give feedback,” and
6. Rich user experience, which is what Coombs and the other librarians at the University of Houston hope their website users will have as a result of their incorporation of the previous five pillars of Web 2.0 into their website.
For more detailed information about each of these six pillars and how Coombs used them to improve her library's website, be sure to read her full article. Here is the citation:
Coombs, K. A. (2007). Building a library web site on the pillars of Web 2.0. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 16-19.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software Tools for Teacher Librarians
As a follow-up to my previous post, here is the specific citation information for the article that I referenced in that post, as well as citation information for the other article that I found for tonight's class session dealing with public libraries:
Atwater-Singer, M., & Sherrill, K. (2007). Social software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & you: A practical guide for using technology @ your library. Indiana Libraries, 26(3), 48-52.
Giustini, D., & Naslund, J. (2008). Towards school Library 2.0: An introduction to social software tools for teacher librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 55-67.
Atwater-Singer, M., & Sherrill, K. (2007). Social software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & you: A practical guide for using technology @ your library. Indiana Libraries, 26(3), 48-52.
Giustini, D., & Naslund, J. (2008). Towards school Library 2.0: An introduction to social software tools for teacher librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 55-67.
Models of Constant and Purposeful Change
With Professor Torres' suggested blog journal entry topic of "Library 2.0 as a model for constant and purposeful change" in mind, as I was reading "Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software Tools for Teacher Librarians" by Dean Giustini and Jo-Anne Naslund, I couldn't help but think of the school classroom as an equally (if not even more) appropriate model of constant and purposeful change.
In order for a teacher to connect with every single one of the students in her classroom, she must attempt to diversify her lessons, constantly and purposefully changing and adjusting her plans and activities in one way to best meet the needs of the traditional text-based learners, in another way to engage the more audio/visual learners, in yet another way to address the bodily/kinesthetic learners, etc.
The teacher must first be aware of many different types of lesson plans and activities that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she feels will help her to best meet the needs of her students, must implement them in her actual classroom with her actual students to see if they are as successful and effective as she expected them to be, and then must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
Giustini and Naslund suggest taking the same approach to Library 2.0 technologies in their article: The librarian must first be aware of the many different types of Library 2.0 technologies that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she fells will work best in her particular library in her particular school and with her particular students and teachers, must use them herself and must make them available for student and teacher use to see if they function as successfully and effectively as she expected them to, and must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
School classrooms and Library 2.0: two excellent models of constant and purposeful change.
In order for a teacher to connect with every single one of the students in her classroom, she must attempt to diversify her lessons, constantly and purposefully changing and adjusting her plans and activities in one way to best meet the needs of the traditional text-based learners, in another way to engage the more audio/visual learners, in yet another way to address the bodily/kinesthetic learners, etc.
The teacher must first be aware of many different types of lesson plans and activities that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she feels will help her to best meet the needs of her students, must implement them in her actual classroom with her actual students to see if they are as successful and effective as she expected them to be, and then must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
Giustini and Naslund suggest taking the same approach to Library 2.0 technologies in their article: The librarian must first be aware of the many different types of Library 2.0 technologies that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she fells will work best in her particular library in her particular school and with her particular students and teachers, must use them herself and must make them available for student and teacher use to see if they function as successfully and effectively as she expected them to, and must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
School classrooms and Library 2.0: two excellent models of constant and purposeful change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)