Saturday, April 12, 2008
Technology rules!
I finally have my information dissemination model posted, imperfect and rudimentary though it may be. You can find it at the bottom of the page. Don't forget to scroll all the way down, as there are 3 drawings. Links to my classmate's blogs can also be found at the bottom of the page.
e-publishing
Well......it has been an interesting and challenging week as a library science student, as I have attempted to publish a drawn model of dissemination here on my blog without much success. Maybe you can't teach an old dog new tricks. However, I do have another important topic to discuss here: e-publishing.
Publication of research, and fiction or non-fiction books, is another aspect of dissemination. It is the mass distribution of ideas without diffusion, as our textbook states it (Greer, Grover, and Fowler, 2007). Traditionally this has been done through the print medium, but advancing information technologies are changing that. E-publishing is the process where "manuscripts are submitted in electronic form and edited, printed and distributed to readers via computer networks" (Mohd and Premlet, 2004). Scholarly e-journals and e-books are the two main forms of e-publishing.
The American Chemical Society was the first professional body to publish their journals in electronic form, in 1983. Since then, the e-journal has really taken off, and is available from many different sources. The publication process for scholarly journals in print form is time-consuming. The manuscript is sent to the editor, then to referees for criticism, then perhaps rewritten and resubmitted, then formatted and sent to the printer. This process is shortened considerably when done electronically, and the quick turn-around time is one of the best features of e-publishing. This time-saving feature could be important to researchers. Another benefit is the ability to do keyword searches of the material (Mohd and Premlet, 2004).
One of the major downsides to e-journals though, is the difficulty in accessing them through directories and catalogs. One study found that dead links or non-working URLs are a big problem in online directories and catalogs. Catalogs fared better than directories in this regard (Ford and Harter, 1998). In an Internet environment, URLs and content may change rapidly, and this makes it difficult to maintain these access guides. In another study, problems with e-journals in general were found, such as "multiple modes of access and data formats, numerous difficulties in connecting to e-journals, incomplete archives, inaccessible articles, and inaccurate printed e-journal directories" (Harter and Kim, 1996).
Clearly, technology has been a boon to information dissemination, but it is still evolving. We need to improve usability, access, and the accuracy of directories and catalogs for e-journals.
The other part of e-publishing is e-books, which so far hasn't been a great success in terms of popularity or demand. Most people don't want to do pleasure reading from a computer screen, or print out an entire novel for themselves. E-book readers like Amazon's Kindle are now available, but I don't see that as much better than reading from your PC. It is portable, but it's still like a computer screen. I don't see the library becoming "paperless" antime soon. As a society, we will always want and need printed material. Younger and future generations may feel differently than I do about information technology, which brings me back to my original thought in this blog entry. I grew up learning to type on an electric typewriter, which I used for many years. Computers are a relatively new tool for me. As a library professional, I will need to have some familiarity with computer and word-processing programs, so I welcomed the challenge of posting a drawing on a blog. I hope the older generations embrace information technology, because it really is changing our world. We are becoming an Info-Nation.
References:
Ford, C.E., & Harter, S.P. (1998). The downside of scholarly
electronic publishing: Problems in accessing electronic
journals through online directories and catalogs.
College & Research Libraries, 59(4), 335-46.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Greer, R.C., Grover, R.J., & Fowler, S.G. (2007).
Introduction to the library and information professions.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Harter, S.P., & Kim, H.J. (1996).
Accessing electronic journals and other e-publications:
An empirical study.
College & Research Libraries, 57, 447-49.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Mohd, A.A., & Premlet, B. (2004).
E-publishing: Need of the hour.
DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 24(2), 3-7.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Publication of research, and fiction or non-fiction books, is another aspect of dissemination. It is the mass distribution of ideas without diffusion, as our textbook states it (Greer, Grover, and Fowler, 2007). Traditionally this has been done through the print medium, but advancing information technologies are changing that. E-publishing is the process where "manuscripts are submitted in electronic form and edited, printed and distributed to readers via computer networks" (Mohd and Premlet, 2004). Scholarly e-journals and e-books are the two main forms of e-publishing.
The American Chemical Society was the first professional body to publish their journals in electronic form, in 1983. Since then, the e-journal has really taken off, and is available from many different sources. The publication process for scholarly journals in print form is time-consuming. The manuscript is sent to the editor, then to referees for criticism, then perhaps rewritten and resubmitted, then formatted and sent to the printer. This process is shortened considerably when done electronically, and the quick turn-around time is one of the best features of e-publishing. This time-saving feature could be important to researchers. Another benefit is the ability to do keyword searches of the material (Mohd and Premlet, 2004).
One of the major downsides to e-journals though, is the difficulty in accessing them through directories and catalogs. One study found that dead links or non-working URLs are a big problem in online directories and catalogs. Catalogs fared better than directories in this regard (Ford and Harter, 1998). In an Internet environment, URLs and content may change rapidly, and this makes it difficult to maintain these access guides. In another study, problems with e-journals in general were found, such as "multiple modes of access and data formats, numerous difficulties in connecting to e-journals, incomplete archives, inaccessible articles, and inaccurate printed e-journal directories" (Harter and Kim, 1996).
Clearly, technology has been a boon to information dissemination, but it is still evolving. We need to improve usability, access, and the accuracy of directories and catalogs for e-journals.
The other part of e-publishing is e-books, which so far hasn't been a great success in terms of popularity or demand. Most people don't want to do pleasure reading from a computer screen, or print out an entire novel for themselves. E-book readers like Amazon's Kindle are now available, but I don't see that as much better than reading from your PC. It is portable, but it's still like a computer screen. I don't see the library becoming "paperless" antime soon. As a society, we will always want and need printed material. Younger and future generations may feel differently than I do about information technology, which brings me back to my original thought in this blog entry. I grew up learning to type on an electric typewriter, which I used for many years. Computers are a relatively new tool for me. As a library professional, I will need to have some familiarity with computer and word-processing programs, so I welcomed the challenge of posting a drawing on a blog. I hope the older generations embrace information technology, because it really is changing our world. We are becoming an Info-Nation.
References:
Ford, C.E., & Harter, S.P. (1998). The downside of scholarly
electronic publishing: Problems in accessing electronic
journals through online directories and catalogs.
College & Research Libraries, 59(4), 335-46.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Greer, R.C., Grover, R.J., & Fowler, S.G. (2007).
Introduction to the library and information professions.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Harter, S.P., & Kim, H.J. (1996).
Accessing electronic journals and other e-publications:
An empirical study.
College & Research Libraries, 57, 447-49.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Mohd, A.A., & Premlet, B. (2004).
E-publishing: Need of the hour.
DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 24(2), 3-7.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
OPAC Must Change
I think it’s high-time we discuss the role libraries and librarians play in disseminating information. Libraries have served as a point of information dissemination for at least 1400 years, long before Information Science came into being. One of the earliest classification schemes on record was created in China around 600 B.C. (Jiang, 2007).
It is not possible to really separate information organization, storage, and retrieval from dissemination. In order to make information available for dissemination, librarians must first organize it and store it in a way that makes retrieval possible. Information retrieval has undergone tremendous change in the last half-century. Once the province of the classification scheme and a card catalog, retrieval now is largely electronic. The card catalog morphed into the OPAC, but librarians and patrons have never been fully satisfied with the traditional OPAC’s functionality. It cannot easily be used for subject browsing, and is more difficult for patrons to use, who have become used to the ease of Internet searches with Google. To better fulfill their dissemination role, I think librarians must educate patrons and administrators on the value of classification systems, and OPACs must be improved to compete with Google.
One way to improve subject browsing would be to integrate an online classification system into the OPAC. In 1984 OCLC undertook an ambitious research project called the The DDC Online Project (Markey, 2006). Their team built an experimental online catalog that integrated the DDC schedules and relative index into its search capability. Evaluation during and after the experiment confirmed the success of the venture – subject browsing was enhanced, and participants gave rave reviews to its performance. In spite of these positive results, online classification as an end-user’s tool was not embraced by the nationwide library community. As Karen Markey, one of the primary researchers in online classification states, “Despite thirty-five years of research, the way in which today’s end users search classification online in OPACs is through simple shelflist browsing…..which has not changed since its initial implementation in the first OPACs in 1979” (Markey, 2006).
There have been other suggestions for improving the library online catalog, thereby improving dissemination. One involves using web-based technology by Endeca. In 2006, North Carolina State University deployed the first “next generation” online catalog in a library. The new software, Endeca’s Information Access Platform, replaced the old keyword search engine based on Boolean searches with state of the art retrieval technologies (Antelman, Lynema, and Pace, 2006). Up to this point, faceted navigation and browsing search software had only been used in commercial websites like Barnes and Noble. This development, along with a proposed partnership between Google and the Library of Congress for a “World Digital Library”, has stimulated discussion on the necessity for new OPACs using Endeca-style technology.
I can’t predict the future, but one thing is for sure: the Internet, Google, and mass digitization are forcing libraries to change the way they disseminate information. If libraries and librarians are to remain relevant in the 21st century, they must adopt improvements fairly quickly, or they will be swept aside in the tide of technological change.
Antelman K., Lynema E., & Pace A.K. (2006). Toward a twenty-
first century library catalog. Information Technology and
Libraries, 25(3), 128-139.
Jiang, S. (2007). Into the source and history of Chinese culture:
Knowledge classification in ancient China. Libraries and the
Cultural Record, 42(1), 1-20. Retrieved from
Project Muse database.
Markey, K. (2006). Forty years of classification online:
Final chapter or future unlimited? Cataloging and Classification
Quarterly, 42(3/4), 1-63. Retrieved from Haworth Press
database.
It is not possible to really separate information organization, storage, and retrieval from dissemination. In order to make information available for dissemination, librarians must first organize it and store it in a way that makes retrieval possible. Information retrieval has undergone tremendous change in the last half-century. Once the province of the classification scheme and a card catalog, retrieval now is largely electronic. The card catalog morphed into the OPAC, but librarians and patrons have never been fully satisfied with the traditional OPAC’s functionality. It cannot easily be used for subject browsing, and is more difficult for patrons to use, who have become used to the ease of Internet searches with Google. To better fulfill their dissemination role, I think librarians must educate patrons and administrators on the value of classification systems, and OPACs must be improved to compete with Google.
One way to improve subject browsing would be to integrate an online classification system into the OPAC. In 1984 OCLC undertook an ambitious research project called the The DDC Online Project (Markey, 2006). Their team built an experimental online catalog that integrated the DDC schedules and relative index into its search capability. Evaluation during and after the experiment confirmed the success of the venture – subject browsing was enhanced, and participants gave rave reviews to its performance. In spite of these positive results, online classification as an end-user’s tool was not embraced by the nationwide library community. As Karen Markey, one of the primary researchers in online classification states, “Despite thirty-five years of research, the way in which today’s end users search classification online in OPACs is through simple shelflist browsing…..which has not changed since its initial implementation in the first OPACs in 1979” (Markey, 2006).
There have been other suggestions for improving the library online catalog, thereby improving dissemination. One involves using web-based technology by Endeca. In 2006, North Carolina State University deployed the first “next generation” online catalog in a library. The new software, Endeca’s Information Access Platform, replaced the old keyword search engine based on Boolean searches with state of the art retrieval technologies (Antelman, Lynema, and Pace, 2006). Up to this point, faceted navigation and browsing search software had only been used in commercial websites like Barnes and Noble. This development, along with a proposed partnership between Google and the Library of Congress for a “World Digital Library”, has stimulated discussion on the necessity for new OPACs using Endeca-style technology.
I can’t predict the future, but one thing is for sure: the Internet, Google, and mass digitization are forcing libraries to change the way they disseminate information. If libraries and librarians are to remain relevant in the 21st century, they must adopt improvements fairly quickly, or they will be swept aside in the tide of technological change.
Antelman K., Lynema E., & Pace A.K. (2006). Toward a twenty-
first century library catalog. Information Technology and
Libraries, 25(3), 128-139.
Jiang, S. (2007). Into the source and history of Chinese culture:
Knowledge classification in ancient China. Libraries and the
Cultural Record, 42(1), 1-20. Retrieved from
Project Muse database.
Markey, K. (2006). Forty years of classification online:
Final chapter or future unlimited? Cataloging and Classification
Quarterly, 42(3/4), 1-63. Retrieved from Haworth Press
database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
