Cloud Computing

Cervone, H.F. (2010).  An overview of virtual and cloud computing.  OCLC Systems and Services, 26(3), 162-165.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2139271291&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312791836&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Article:

Cervone (2010) distinguishes among traditional, virtual, and cloud computing with respect to their principles, techniques, and utility to organizations.  First is “traditional computing”, which involves the installation of software “for one or more physical servers” within the organization.  Its limitation is on its rigid scalability.  Virtual computing, on the other hand, uses the hypervisor, which enables “multiple operating system environments and their associated applications” to run on a single physical machine. Through this model, continuity of organizational processes is ensured.  Last is cloud computing; this enhances virtual computing by enabling one to run applications without necessarily owning or knowing the exact location of the physical hardware in which the application is ran.  Organizations that subscribe to cloud providers usually enjoy the benefits of lessened production cost.  Nevertheless, Cervone (2010) is cautious on the security and legal impediments in engaging to cloud computing.  In the end, he recommends that, to best protect itself, organizations ought to work with cloud providers that are “committed to transparency”.

3 Things I Learned:

1.       “Cloud” computing stands for “common location independent, on-line utility on demand”.

2.       Utility of hypervisor: such that as it simulates the operating environment of a virtual machine, it avoids process or service interruption when a particular hardware on the cluster fails.

3.        Augmenting hardware to increase the scalability of servers must be thoroughly evaluated because it often leads to inefficiency in such a way that the extra capacity may not be used for other work loads.

 Application / Implication:

Cervone (2010) taught me the different models of hosting applications.  Although I am aware of the traditional model to call it as such and to know its theoretical underpinnings make me a greenhorn on the topic at hand.  More so was I enthusiastic when I read about virtual and cloud computing.  Hence, I look forward to the report and class discussion; it’s high-time to clear the clouds.

Open Access Online Journals for Libraries

Kopak, R. (2008). Open access and the open journal systems: making sense all over.  School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 45-54.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1567446531&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312791639&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Article:

Kopak (2008) works on the proposition that open access system is not just about having free access but also about ensuring that “high quality information sources” are available to the community.  He further proposes that the mode of presentation should be supportive of “engaging, interactive, and increasingly social” knowledge integration, which should be manifested in the user-interface of an open-access system.  

Kopak (2008) uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) of the Public Knowledge Project as his example.  In terms of the quality of content, the OJS serves as the platform for the production and distribution of scholarly journal articles which are product of publicly-funded researches.  In terms of its presentation, OJS uses reading tools to enhance users’ engagement.   These reading tools are grouped into two, viz: the structural, which aim is to provide access to information and other services (e.g. ”abstract”, “how to cite item”, “review policy”, “about the author”,  “notify colleague”, and  “look up terms”) and the topical or domain specific, which aim is to enhance “contextual meaning of knowledge” (e.g. “ related studies”, “media reports”, “book searches”, “annotation”, and “hypertext linking tools”).    In the end, Kopak (2008) aspires that OJS would serve as a platform for knowledge-based interaction and in the long run promote life long learning.

3 Things I Learned:

1.       Open access should not just stop at information retrieval but should move further towards information interaction and meaning-making.

2.       As a public good, research and scholarship should be non-rival (i.e. one’s consumption of good does not reduce the amount available to others) and non-excludable (i.e. one cannot be excluded from utilizing the good).

3.       Directly annotating a document is an indicator of active reading.  As such, it has the advantage of convenience, easier visual searching, and intensified immersion in the context of the document.

 Application / Implication:

The development of open access platforms for scholarly journals should be maximized by any library and information center.  This calls for me to initiate and promote the use of open access journals on law and associated topical interests such as business and corporate governance to users of the OGCC Library. Through this, the convergence of theory and practice may help enhance the quality of discourse in the often presumed and arbitrarily labeled corrupt bureaucracy.  

Visualization

Gang, W. (2006). Visualizations for digital libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(2), 88-94.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1082361561&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312523017&clientId=51710

Marcus, A. (2002). Information visualization for advanced vehicle displays. Information Visualization, 1(2), 95-102.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=420333511&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312523268&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Articles:

Gang (2006) puts forward that effective visualization of user interface is based on “a detailed understanding of users, their information needs, and their tasks”. Online information retrieval tasks generally include searching, navigation, and browsing. He describes the various techniques and applications used by the digital libraries of Indiana University, the University of California System, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Tufts University. He also identifies the principal metaphors of Borner and Aqualab, which are the Semantic Treemap and Word Cloud respectively. In the end, Gang (2006) suggests that future researches on visualization should focus on the extent in which a “visual interface facilitates a user’s perception of information”.  

Gang (2002) focuses on the best practices in information retrieval visualization; but the factors in the development of “best practice” in visual prototypes are discussed by Marcus (2002).  Although the latter’s study is on the application of user-interface to vehicles, he provides a thorough discussion of the context in which IR user tasks are done. He identifies the underlying components of user interface as well as the cultural dimensions that must be considered in developing an effective user interface.  Marcus (2002) describes how culture affects the various components of user interface. Consequently, for visual images to become effective communication tools, developers must understand and incorporate these cultural dimensions into the user-interface.  

3 Things I Learned:

 

1.       Detailed enumeration of user tasks with respect to online information retrieval, viz: browsing of sources, viewing context of query match, visualizing passages within documents, rendering sources and results, reflecting time cost of interaction, managing multiple-search processes, integrating multiple search and browsing techniques, and visualizing large information sets.

2.       The components of user-interface are metaphors, mental models, navigation, interaction, appearance, and communication structures (i.e. lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic).

3.       Cultural dimensions cover power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and, long-term time orientation.

Application / Implication:

I am now more aware of the values and biases of computer icons and how they are presented.  What is commonly perceived as detached and random metaphors are value-laden.   Taking hold of that knowledge, I would be more considerate and patient to library users, especially the senior and elderly members of my work place.  Although we belong in the same society and organization, each of us carries our respective sub-culture values, which in turn affect our behavior towards the equally value-laden information and computing system.  The challenge is to find the conjunction where users’ expectation and system standards meet; and it is in that conjunction where the greater challenge lies for library and information students and professionals. 

Web 2.0 Technology Application to Libraries

Joint, N. (2009).  The Web.20 challenge to libraries.  Library Review, 58(3), 168-178.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=1858574581&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312292302&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Article:

  Joint (2009) gives an overview and more importantly caveats of the effect of Web 2.0 to libraries. Initially, he describes Web 2.0 as having “heightened functionality” compared to Web 1.0 as offering only “passive text describing library services and hyperlinks to information sources”.   As he has observed, it is the reference service that foremost benefited from the proliferation of Web 2.0 applications such as RSS feeds, blogs, wikis, instant messaging, social networking, and podcasting.  According to Joint (2009), this development has widened the reach of libraries; however he is quick to warn that one must have an integrated purpose in using these applications. In other words, Web 2.0 applications are simply tools of established objectives.  Another caveat is the long-term difficulty of using external platforms for various library services such as acquisition, cataloging, and circulation.  For Joint (2009), building the institutional services of a library on an “external, non-institutional server” can lead to legal and technical problems, viz ownership and security.  In the end, the utility of Web 2.0 applications cannot be undermined; it’s just that libraries must be critical in employing it.

3 Things I learned:

1.       The distinction between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The former offer only “passive text” and “hyperlinks to information sources” while the latter is characterized by more interactive applications.

2.       The development of Web 2.0 paved the way for digital libraries to have an increase and enhanced web presence; thus extending its reach but also placing it in a relatively vulnerable position.

3.       The popularity of Web 2.0 applications can be attributed not just to its interactive trait but also to the sense of personal control it gives to individual users.

Application / Implication:

   Developing a portal for the OGCC Library, which will utilize Web 2.0 applications, should not be seen as a harebrained idea.  In fact, I should be considering it as one expected output from my proposed study of redefining the role of the OGCC Library in the government corporate sector (LIS 299).  Now that’s another step albeit a single one in the long winding road towards a pro-active OGCC Library. May the force be with me.     

Netiquette

Sturges, P. (2002). Remember the human: the first rule of netiquette, librarians and the Internet. Online Information Review, 26(3), 209- 216.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=5&did=268883701&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312287573&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Article:

     Sturges (2002) contends that the first rule of netiquette is “respect for the human”.  For him, librarianship is not just about books and information system but more of respecting the individuality of every library user; but the challenge lies in this very basic value.  By protecting individuality, the library is ensuring the users a space to be themselves.  In being themselves, a number of users utilize the Internet as a means for their malicious or criminal behavior.  To curb these behaviors, administrators block a number of sites or randomly checked users as they use the Internet facility of the library.  In doing so, libraries somehow exploit user data and ultimately encroached on one’s individuality.  As Sturges (2002) aptly stated, “the dilemma faced by the library administrators was weather serious offence and distress caused by a few people justified monitoring and controlling the access of a blameless majority”.  Thus, the challenge for libraries is to institutionalize policies that would seek to balance individual privacy and community values.

3 Things I learned:

1.       The issue of privacy is merely one of the sub-issues of ownership. 

2.       Semantics of ownership include: solitude (ownership of space), anonymity (ownership of one’s name and details about oneself), bodily modesty (ownership of one’s body), psychological integrity (ownership of contents and workings of one’s mind), and confidentiality (ownership of information about oneself).

3.       Findings of the research at Loughborough University at the United Kingdom suggest that “there is a dangerous gap between the privacy protection that the public believes the library offers, and the preparedness of librarians for providing this protection”.

Application / Implication:

     The findings of the Loughborough Research demands that upholding the privacy of users should not just be lip service; the commitment to do it should be initiated and constantly carried out by librarians and information professionals in our own respective backyard.  This emanates from the fundamental value that each of us (users and library staff) has our own individuality, distinct, unique, and allow me to add special.   Despite individual differences, there is a family or another person loving the library user whom we least like. In the same manner that whenever we use the Internet; no matter how long we sit in front of our computer or how complex and abstracted our interaction with the computer machine, somehow at some point behind the interface is another human being, equally seeking respect and care --- like you and me. 

Information Science

Klempner, I. (1969). Information science unlimited?... a position paper. American Documentation., 20(4).  


Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=640703831&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312117224&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Article:


   Kempler (1969) explores the concept of information and calls for a re-evaluation of the Information Science curriculum to make it more responsive to the changing needs of his time.  He jumps-off from the definition provided by the American Society for Information Science, viz “information science investigates the properties and behavior of information, the process governing the transfer process, and the technology necessary to process the information for optimum accessibility and use”.  For him, the inability of the discipline to develop theories is mainly attributed to the way information is defined, as the “product of conceptualization”.  As such, information is presented as a highly subjective matter. He contends that in order to strengthen the discipline one must understand and build a framework around the various segments of information as provided in the above definition, viz conceptualization, storage or transmission, and utilization.  One does not stop at the conceptualization segment.  In the end, information should be evaluated not just in terms of its value in a technological system, for lack of better term, but also in terms of its relevance to the human person. 

3 Things I learned:

1.   As academic disciplines, Information Science and Information Technology are distinct but complementary to one another.

2.    Based on its various segments, information has its technological and human component.  The conceptualization and utilization segments represent the human component, whereas the storage or transmission represents technological part.  Being segments of a whole, man and technology do not contend but rather complement each other.

3.       Shannon’s (1948) definition of information is placed in a more appropriate context and that is in the storage or transmission segment, as it deals with the “physical nature” of information.

Application / Implication:

      Reading this article reminds me of the metaphor of the elephant, which I first heard from Prof. Clarita Carlos way back in 2000.  As discrete persons, our perspective is merely one way of looking at things.  Philosophically, we can only claim the truth based on our limited sense-perception and established mechanisms but we cannot prove it.  The same is true when dealing with the central object of our study; information has to be approached from various segments.  But then again, have we exhausted all segments of the object?  I believe that there are still a lot of things to explore, and that makes the study of information interesting.