1) Data Compression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression
I don’t know anything about encoding, but this article explained it well, especially in relation to any communication: The sender and the receiver have to understand the encoding. Because information is increasing at an explosive pace, compression is vital. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the resources to handle the information. The example of lossless vs. lossy was effective for understanding as well, showing that lossless maintains more accuracy, but lossy has a smaller file.
2) Data compression basics (long documents, but covers all basics and beyond): http://dvd-hq.info/data_compression_1.php
This article seemed to repeat a lot from the Wikipedia article, with a similiar example of lossless vs. lossy, using letters instead of numbers. It then went into different “families =” of coding, debating the pros and cons of each. The text was a bit confusing because of the technical terms, but the charts at the bottom illustrated the difference in families for images. After reading this article, I think that it would be a lot harder if not impossible to share information without compression, because as technology increases, so has the file size. I’m not sure which family is “best”; I think it depends on the type of file you want to transfer.
3) Edward A. Galloway, “Imaging Pittsburgh: Creating a shared gateway to digital image collections of the Pittsburgh region” First Monday 9:5 2004 http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/galloway/index.html
I visited the Historic Pittsburgh website after reading this article, and it has obviously grown substantially since the paper was written. The paper focused mainly on photographs, but the website now includes maps, videos, texts, census records and more. I found the portion of the paper on Dublin Core relevant because the week 5 readings were confusing to me, and this gave it a real-life application. (Sidenote: I didn’t realize the week topics had been switched, so I read Week 5 readings before this week’s.) But seeing the discourse of deciding what type of scheme to use was interesting, especially because they chose eight categories. I think it shows that metadata schemes need to be uniquely tailored to the resource.
4) Paula L. Webb, YouTube and libraries: It could be a beautiful relationship C&RL News, June 2007 Vol. 68, No. 6
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crlnews/2007/jun/youtube.cfm
I found this article especially relevant to my situation: I am in a high school library completing my practicum, and the kids are always trying to get on YouTube. But the district’s policy prohibits them from visiting it. So I was glad to read about some positive uses for YouTube. I know there is a lot of terrible stuff on there, but I think libraries can make use of the site. People are already on there, and if they subscribe to the library, they can easily find out what’s going on. I wish the article had mentioned TeacherTube, which is a school-friendly version of YouTube. That might alleviate some of the fears that come with YouTube, which has few restrictions. But YouTube would be good for reaching a wider audience of the general, adult population.
I don’t know anything about encoding, but this article explained it well, especially in relation to any communication: The sender and the receiver have to understand the encoding. Because information is increasing at an explosive pace, compression is vital. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the resources to handle the information. The example of lossless vs. lossy was effective for understanding as well, showing that lossless maintains more accuracy, but lossy has a smaller file.
2) Data compression basics (long documents, but covers all basics and beyond): http://dvd-hq.info/data_compression_1.php
This article seemed to repeat a lot from the Wikipedia article, with a similiar example of lossless vs. lossy, using letters instead of numbers. It then went into different “families =” of coding, debating the pros and cons of each. The text was a bit confusing because of the technical terms, but the charts at the bottom illustrated the difference in families for images. After reading this article, I think that it would be a lot harder if not impossible to share information without compression, because as technology increases, so has the file size. I’m not sure which family is “best”; I think it depends on the type of file you want to transfer.
3) Edward A. Galloway, “Imaging Pittsburgh: Creating a shared gateway to digital image collections of the Pittsburgh region” First Monday 9:5 2004 http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/galloway/index.html
I visited the Historic Pittsburgh website after reading this article, and it has obviously grown substantially since the paper was written. The paper focused mainly on photographs, but the website now includes maps, videos, texts, census records and more. I found the portion of the paper on Dublin Core relevant because the week 5 readings were confusing to me, and this gave it a real-life application. (Sidenote: I didn’t realize the week topics had been switched, so I read Week 5 readings before this week’s.) But seeing the discourse of deciding what type of scheme to use was interesting, especially because they chose eight categories. I think it shows that metadata schemes need to be uniquely tailored to the resource.
4) Paula L. Webb, YouTube and libraries: It could be a beautiful relationship C&RL News, June 2007 Vol. 68, No. 6
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crlnews/2007/jun/youtube.cfm
I found this article especially relevant to my situation: I am in a high school library completing my practicum, and the kids are always trying to get on YouTube. But the district’s policy prohibits them from visiting it. So I was glad to read about some positive uses for YouTube. I know there is a lot of terrible stuff on there, but I think libraries can make use of the site. People are already on there, and if they subscribe to the library, they can easily find out what’s going on. I wish the article had mentioned TeacherTube, which is a school-friendly version of YouTube. That might alleviate some of the fears that come with YouTube, which has few restrictions. But YouTube would be good for reaching a wider audience of the general, adult population.
Kristen,
ReplyDeleteI also noticed how much Historic Pittsburgh has expanded over the years. I really like the map feature because you can search for images from different neighborhoods, and I also like how you can search for images from specific time-periods. The project has expanded its metadata to capture even more information. I noticed that some pictures have not been uploaded but their metadata is in the system so that users could actually go to the institution and find the images if they really need them. So even though the pictures have not been uploaded, users still get a sense of what the collection embodies.
Hi Kristen,
ReplyDeleteI have had the same experience as you, the kids at my school do not have access to facebook on the school's network.(I agree with this during the instructional part of the day). It does however limit their access to some pretty good stuff, including videos that can help them with their school projects. The public libraries are more liberal though.
Kristen and Nan,
ReplyDeleteI met with my CTL on Tuesday, and I told her I hoped I could increase the visibility of the library, maybe through Facebook. She was not at all interested in Facebook--too many risks. The students don't have school e-mail accounts, so an all-school e-mail blast is out. This article provides another way to showcase the library in a teen-friendly way. And Kristen, thank you for mentioning TeacherTube. I had forgotten all about it.