10/12 readings

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet-infrastructure.htm/printable


This article was incredible! Such a good introduction to basic Internet terminology, easy to read but not too dumbed down. Many terms that I was familiar with were properly defined: the difference between a host and a client, routers prevent communication channels from clogging, domains are as broad as .com, and "cached" basically means "saved." I hadn't known about NAPs, DNS servers, or backbones before, even though I've used them daily for years.

It is an amazingly complicated process for how fast it runs. After the article's explanation of these terms and the flow of information between them, some of the standard error messages make more sense, rather than just appearing from the "black box" of the internet.

I'm still not sure I fully understand who sets up all this web equipment. Some of it is set up by ISPs or by businesses expanding the range of their own networks. I was especially intrigued by the Internet Society, who oversees universal policies and protocols. Who is in this group, and how is membership decided?

A takeaway message was stated in the Backbone section: "The entire Internet is a gigantic, sprawling agreement between companies to intercommunicate freely."


Discussion question: Is the process of a DNS searching for an IP address similar to other types of search engines? How is the search process similar or different?




Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5173.
http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr/publications/gavrilis/Enhancing%20Library%20Services%20with%20Web%202.0%20functionalities-rev5-chr.pdf


Web 2.0's focus on the user also makes it inherently collaborative. The phrase Library 2.0 was also used in this article. Just as library's physical spaces are changing to accomodate more information commons or knowledge cafes, the OPAC of the future will be partly searching and partly knowledge sharing. This transition has already begun, as some OPACs now list standard bibliographic information alongside ratings, reviews, comments or tags from users.

In some ways, this reminds me of movie review websites, where you can read what the professional critics have to say as well as what the average audience-goer thought. The difference is that both professional and amateur critics are evaluating the quality of the movie in a similarly displayed format. Cataloguers do not evaluate the quality of their materials; presumably if a record is in the OPAC, then the librarians approved of the source's quality. Giving librarians and users separate collaborative roles for record creation is a good idea. OPACIAL's recommendations for tags will move the user-added information in the direction of controlled vocab, without losing the flexibility intended by OPAC 2.0.

A takeaway message is that users find the new OPAC is satisfying and useful because of these added features. The new attitude expressed by updated OPACs, even more than the new abilities, may help Library 2.0 rebrand itself for the 21st century.


Discussion question: The article states that 28% of Internet users tag, usually for their own devices. Is it a problem that a minority of Internet users create these tag clouds? Will tags from late-comers will have less power?




Paul Anderson (2007). All That Glitters Is Not Gold–Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 39, No. 4, 195-198.


This article was a good balance to the other two, and to much of the readings assigned for the LIS intro courses. Most information professionals feel that new ways to share information, and new speedy trendy technologies are inherently good and should be adopted. While being too old-fashioned is an arguably worse problem for libraries' survival, it was good that the author defined Web 2.0 and looked at some of it's obstacles rather than just rejoice in the vague marvel of it all.

His "long" definition of Web 2.0 was much more clear than "it has wikis and social networks," focusing on the maturation of software and network design that allows information to be shared on such an epic scale. The development of Web 2.0 is due to more than just a sudden surge of interested users; computer engineers helped design a system that allowed this enthusiasm to thrive.

A takeaway message is that it is important to understand and define terms thoroughly. In the introduction, Anderson mentions that comparing OPAC and Amazon's ability to search their records is relevant to Web 2.0 technology, while comparing the shipping speed of ILL and Amazon is not. If Web 2.0 is fuzzily defined as "something websites do to be more efficient," confusion like this is certainly possible.



Discussion question: Anderson says that one potential problem of Web 2.0 is that software will be in "perpetual beta." Do you think this will actually happen? If software exists in perpetual beta, does the definition of beta change?