https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5762270205496001556&postID=1233933044973598143
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7036399065753048748&postID=4733897159971341260
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Muddiest Point #3
I think we're all familiar enough with PANs, LANs and CANs because of personal use, but I think it would be beneficial to the class if we went over MANs, WANs and GANs as they relate to LIS professions.
Reading Notes, Week 6
Local Area Network
The wikipedia article was basic enough I could understand it. Besides, if you've used the internet at any time in your life, you should probably have an idea of what LAN means. Of course, being literate enough to take this class and do well only takes you so far; I wasn't aware of the technologies encompassing LANs. For example, I've used Ethernet and WiFi, but I've never even heard of Token Ring or how it works. I assume that it's similar, in some way, to internet access afforded to those using Ethernet and WiFi (Okay, it does. I just read the link).
The history covered in this article was interesting, but I would wanted to read more about the future of LANs.
Computer Network
This article doesn't seem to differ too much from the prior article in the sense that we're still discussing a connected system. The connection systems appear to be very much the same. The differentiation between the area networks (e.g. PAN, LAN, CAN, etc) was helpful because it gave us a sense of how varied connected networks can be.
The "basic hardware components" were a little less clear, but I attribute that to the terminology. For example, I know what a router is (you need to if you have internet at home), but I never understood it in the detail given by wikipedia - and I'm not sure that I should.
Common Types of Computer Networks
Interesting - Instead of PAN, I thought LAN would be the most common type of network. Of course, this makes sense. I didn't really think of it on the level given by the man in the youtube video. But, of course, my computer transferring information to my printer is an example, although I still think I use my LAN more than my PAN since I'm using the internet probably more than anything else on my PC.
Management of RFID in Libraries
RFID is an acronym I'm familiar with, mostly because of the paranoia that seems to inherently follow it's name and purpose. After all, any time radio waves are used to track something (hopefully not free adults unless, of course, they want that), then people tend to scared.
Anyway, it's good to know that RFID is used for many reasons, which Coyle presents here in her article. For example, "to identify drugs and counterfeiting" or "to track animals on farms or identify lost pets," but what we're talking about here is RFID's usefulness in libraries. Not surprisingly (see rest of blog), there are privacy concerns here as well. Coyle makes a key and, I think, appropriate comparison barcodes. Barcodes are now, and have been for years, the way we pay for almost anything. I'm sure about the tracking system of the bar codes (or if there even is one, which I don't think there is), but it's worth mentioning that there was a subgroup of citizens fearful of barcodes for exact reasons they are fearful of RFID - privacy. Is this just another "sky is falling" reaction?
Maybe it is, but Coyne gives us the distinction in cost. RFID might not be used to purchase anything as a result of cost (again, though, paranoia. Some think we'll be chipped with RFID in order to buy anything, but that's another story), yet it would be cost-efficient, perhaps, in libraries since books are checked out and returned. I'm not so sure, though. Many books stay on the shelves for years, which would probably offset any of the cost savings of implementing RFID. Inventory, however, should be considered.
RFID may be convenient, but, as Coyle states, it could cut out the "human factor" that I think we need.
The wikipedia article was basic enough I could understand it. Besides, if you've used the internet at any time in your life, you should probably have an idea of what LAN means. Of course, being literate enough to take this class and do well only takes you so far; I wasn't aware of the technologies encompassing LANs. For example, I've used Ethernet and WiFi, but I've never even heard of Token Ring or how it works. I assume that it's similar, in some way, to internet access afforded to those using Ethernet and WiFi (Okay, it does. I just read the link).
The history covered in this article was interesting, but I would wanted to read more about the future of LANs.
Computer Network
This article doesn't seem to differ too much from the prior article in the sense that we're still discussing a connected system. The connection systems appear to be very much the same. The differentiation between the area networks (e.g. PAN, LAN, CAN, etc) was helpful because it gave us a sense of how varied connected networks can be.
The "basic hardware components" were a little less clear, but I attribute that to the terminology. For example, I know what a router is (you need to if you have internet at home), but I never understood it in the detail given by wikipedia - and I'm not sure that I should.
Common Types of Computer Networks
Interesting - Instead of PAN, I thought LAN would be the most common type of network. Of course, this makes sense. I didn't really think of it on the level given by the man in the youtube video. But, of course, my computer transferring information to my printer is an example, although I still think I use my LAN more than my PAN since I'm using the internet probably more than anything else on my PC.
Management of RFID in Libraries
RFID is an acronym I'm familiar with, mostly because of the paranoia that seems to inherently follow it's name and purpose. After all, any time radio waves are used to track something (hopefully not free adults unless, of course, they want that), then people tend to scared.
Anyway, it's good to know that RFID is used for many reasons, which Coyle presents here in her article. For example, "to identify drugs and counterfeiting" or "to track animals on farms or identify lost pets," but what we're talking about here is RFID's usefulness in libraries. Not surprisingly (see rest of blog), there are privacy concerns here as well. Coyle makes a key and, I think, appropriate comparison barcodes. Barcodes are now, and have been for years, the way we pay for almost anything. I'm sure about the tracking system of the bar codes (or if there even is one, which I don't think there is), but it's worth mentioning that there was a subgroup of citizens fearful of barcodes for exact reasons they are fearful of RFID - privacy. Is this just another "sky is falling" reaction?
Maybe it is, but Coyne gives us the distinction in cost. RFID might not be used to purchase anything as a result of cost (again, though, paranoia. Some think we'll be chipped with RFID in order to buy anything, but that's another story), yet it would be cost-efficient, perhaps, in libraries since books are checked out and returned. I'm not so sure, though. Many books stay on the shelves for years, which would probably offset any of the cost savings of implementing RFID. Inventory, however, should be considered.
RFID may be convenient, but, as Coyle states, it could cut out the "human factor" that I think we need.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Reading Notes, Week Four
Database (Wikipedia)
A database seems pretty self-explanatory. Going through the different operating systems, however, has made me realize more acutely than before just how much they can differ (i.e. the database model).
Not surprisingly, IBM was one of the first companies to further the models we're not familiar with. Ironically, the closer the article got the present, the more confused I became. Words like PostgreSQL and MySQl, if they can be called words, are totally foreign to me, but I do know what an open source database is. Although I'm functioning computer illiterate (at least by the standards of this class), I am intrigued by open source databases. If someone could explain them a little better, that would be great. Until then, I'll be checking the Wikipedia article and probably the idea of the Free Culture movement.
Honestly, I think this is one of the more interesting and understandable articles we've read, probably because most of us are at least familiar with some type of database. What makes it more difficult to understand is due to the sheer number of databases.
Introduction to Metadata: Setting the Stage
Anytime the word 'meta' is used, you know it's going to have some convolution, and this article is no exception. Luckily, Gilliland provides some context, providing what she calls a "big picture" of "the sum total of what one can say about any information object." Additionally, she provides the three feature of information objects: Content, context, and structure. Of course, it was helpful to provide library terms we all use or may use. For example, when I work at CCAC, we use MARC fairly often, and I didn't know what the acronym stood for until now (I guess I could have been a little less lazy and looked it up).
In my opinion, this article was very helpful in terms of career relevance, because it provided good examples of how and why we must organize material for our patrons, and how the concept of metadata helps us accomplish that feat.
An Overview of the Dublin Core Data Model
Miller's article is almost ten years old and he admits that it's a work in progress, but I think that having an article this old might help me better understand some concepts here since, at the time, it was fairly new to everybody as it is to me now.
The DCMI seems comparable to an open source model. Is this correct in any way? Apparently its purpose is to be open to a large population, but I don't know if this makes it "open source" at all. If it's not open source, is it simply a model that usable, or attempts to be more usable, for everyone else?
"When we write a sentence in natural language we use words that are meant to convey a certain meaning. That meaning is crucial to how humans understanding the statements and, in the case of applications on the web, is critical to establishing that the correct processing occurs as intended. It is very important that both the writer and the reader of a statement understand the same meaning for the terms used, such as 'Creator', 'approvedBy', 'Copyright', etc. or confusion will result. In a medium of global scale such as the World Wide Web it is not sufficient to rely on shared cultural understanding of concepts such as "creatorship"; it pays to be as precise as possible. [RDFMS]" No kidding. I think this a huge problem, actually, when it comes to making the public (heck, even students) into savvy, or even competent, users. Not that everyone needs to understand how to create a database or comprehend the fine intricacies of metadata, but in order for any database to be usable, there needs to be a vernacular that's friendly to all users if for no better reason than it makes it easier to study.
A database seems pretty self-explanatory. Going through the different operating systems, however, has made me realize more acutely than before just how much they can differ (i.e. the database model).
Not surprisingly, IBM was one of the first companies to further the models we're not familiar with. Ironically, the closer the article got the present, the more confused I became. Words like PostgreSQL and MySQl, if they can be called words, are totally foreign to me, but I do know what an open source database is. Although I'm functioning computer illiterate (at least by the standards of this class), I am intrigued by open source databases. If someone could explain them a little better, that would be great. Until then, I'll be checking the Wikipedia article and probably the idea of the Free Culture movement.
Honestly, I think this is one of the more interesting and understandable articles we've read, probably because most of us are at least familiar with some type of database. What makes it more difficult to understand is due to the sheer number of databases.
Introduction to Metadata: Setting the Stage
Anytime the word 'meta' is used, you know it's going to have some convolution, and this article is no exception. Luckily, Gilliland provides some context, providing what she calls a "big picture" of "the sum total of what one can say about any information object." Additionally, she provides the three feature of information objects: Content, context, and structure. Of course, it was helpful to provide library terms we all use or may use. For example, when I work at CCAC, we use MARC fairly often, and I didn't know what the acronym stood for until now (I guess I could have been a little less lazy and looked it up).
In my opinion, this article was very helpful in terms of career relevance, because it provided good examples of how and why we must organize material for our patrons, and how the concept of metadata helps us accomplish that feat.
An Overview of the Dublin Core Data Model
Miller's article is almost ten years old and he admits that it's a work in progress, but I think that having an article this old might help me better understand some concepts here since, at the time, it was fairly new to everybody as it is to me now.
The DCMI seems comparable to an open source model. Is this correct in any way? Apparently its purpose is to be open to a large population, but I don't know if this makes it "open source" at all. If it's not open source, is it simply a model that usable, or attempts to be more usable, for everyone else?
"When we write a sentence in natural language we use words that are meant to convey a certain meaning. That meaning is crucial to how humans understanding the statements and, in the case of applications on the web, is critical to establishing that the correct processing occurs as intended. It is very important that both the writer and the reader of a statement understand the same meaning for the terms used, such as 'Creator', 'approvedBy', 'Copyright', etc. or confusion will result. In a medium of global scale such as the World Wide Web it is not sufficient to rely on shared cultural understanding of concepts such as "creatorship"; it pays to be as precise as possible. [RDFMS]" No kidding. I think this a huge problem, actually, when it comes to making the public (heck, even students) into savvy, or even competent, users. Not that everyone needs to understand how to create a database or comprehend the fine intricacies of metadata, but in order for any database to be usable, there needs to be a vernacular that's friendly to all users if for no better reason than it makes it easier to study.
Muddiest Point #2
Although I have defragged my computer, I only did it the past because my old computer forced me to...I didn't really understand why, except that I needed more space (I think). Anyway, two points:
1. When you decide to defrag a computer, how you be sure that a needed file won't be moved to a place you can't find it or, worse, erased?
2. Why does the space between two given files make a computer run slower?
1. When you decide to defrag a computer, how you be sure that a needed file won't be moved to a place you can't find it or, worse, erased?
2. Why does the space between two given files make a computer run slower?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Reading Notes, Week 3
Introduction to Linux: A Hands on Guide
I know the word 'Linux,' but that's about it. As someone whom others will say finds comfort in structure and routine, then perhaps it will be appreciated how much I appreciated an article about a system I know next to nothing about...except for those commercials that came out several years ago.
Anyway, since I'm doing this whole library thing, here's what grabbed my attention:
-Obviously, I'm beginning to see how important linux is. "It is also worth to note that modern Linux not only runs on workstations, mid- and high-end servers, but also on "gadgets" like PDA's, mobiles, a shipload of embedded applications and even on experimental wristwatches. This makes Linux the only operating system in the world covering such a wide range of hardware." However, what was the alternative to linux? I'm assuming (though I can't be sure) that another operating system would have been today's linux.
-"Whether Linux is difficult to learn depends on the person you're asking." That's certainly true. But - "[e]xperienced UNIX users will say no, because Linux is an ideal operating system for power-users and programmers, because it has been and is being developed by such people." That's comforting. Logically, that makes a lot of sense, although I have my doubts because such an undertaking doesn't account for user efficiency, I think, since everyone seems to have their own whims. Still, it's made me more open to using a linux operating system since the, apparently, main developers don't have the attitude of Nick Burns (see: RTFM).
-Taking a turn for the worse, I found section 1.3.2 to be almost too technical.
-""Quot capites, tot rationes", as the Romans already said: the more people, the more opinions. At first glance, the amount of Linux distributions can be frightening, or ridiculous, depending on your point of view." Precisely my point earlier. I may be able to find everything I need, but suspect there's more to learning the system then that. Also, obsessive as I am, I'd still feel in the dark if I didn't know everything about it.
-After reading this article, I'm not sure I feel more like I'm more of a novice or better informed. I'll have to read further in-depth and, more importantly, brush up on technical terms that I still don't have a full grasp on.
Mac OS X
-This article was a little easier to understand...less formal and better written for the layperson.
-I still use the standard PC Windows computer. It's what I'm used to. However, I'm meeting more and more people who swear by Macs; after reading this article, I'm not sure why. It's still a relatively new system for me to learn, although I'm more familiar with it than I am any other system outside of the Microsoft applications.
-The "architecture" section is just as technical as the most technical parts of the prior article, although, like I said, I'm a little more familiar with the terminology, so that makes it easier.
-"Life is still much better for a developer on Windows than on Mac OS X - no matter what one might think of the usability, etc. of Windows. Apple has been trying to improve things for developers lately, which is a good sign." Although I really don't know for sure, I can only concur with this statement. The author does state that Apple is improving in this area, though. If you're a Mac user, I'd really like to hear more about this and why you've chosen a Mac. Some of this is answered in the conclusion.
-Although I mainly commented on the first Mac OS X article, I found the wikipedia entry easier to digest and more organized in a way that I could understand it.
An Update on the Windows Roadmap
-As you could probably tell from my notes above, this article makes much more sense. I must say, though, that I don't care for Vista. I much prefer XP - many of the functions shut down. For example, if I'm running Internet Explorer (I haven't used Mozilla on Vista yet) and the program doesn't respond, and have more than one window up, Vista automatically shuts down all open windows, which is extremely frustrating. If I donated a nickel to PITT every time I cursed when this happened, I could probably pay for my tuition this semester. The only reason I have Vista is because I just bought my laptop about year ago, and it was on there instead of XP.
-Hmmm, apparently I can go back to XP for free? According to the article, there are more advantages to owning Vista, but I can't see any appreciable differences outside of the better video. Again, I probably don't use my computer enough beyond the basic capabilities of any usable system, but perhaps Vista is worth the problems right now. My level of literacy allows me to accomplish what I want with ease, though I'd be interested in hearing what I'm missing and how it could make my life easier.
-Like the article says, I find Vista compatible with other applications of the past....at least the ones I've used.
-By the end of the article, I'm not sure if I should go back to XP. Microsoft only supports it until 2014, and if they're continuing to make improvements to Vista, then I guess wouldn't mind keeping it. As far as looks are concerned, I like that better, but I'm still convinced XP is the way to go. Until it gets better, I might just have to look forward to Windows 7.
I know the word 'Linux,' but that's about it. As someone whom others will say finds comfort in structure and routine, then perhaps it will be appreciated how much I appreciated an article about a system I know next to nothing about...except for those commercials that came out several years ago.
Anyway, since I'm doing this whole library thing, here's what grabbed my attention:
-Obviously, I'm beginning to see how important linux is. "It is also worth to note that modern Linux not only runs on workstations, mid- and high-end servers, but also on "gadgets" like PDA's, mobiles, a shipload of embedded applications and even on experimental wristwatches. This makes Linux the only operating system in the world covering such a wide range of hardware." However, what was the alternative to linux? I'm assuming (though I can't be sure) that another operating system would have been today's linux.
-"Whether Linux is difficult to learn depends on the person you're asking." That's certainly true. But - "[e]xperienced UNIX users will say no, because Linux is an ideal operating system for power-users and programmers, because it has been and is being developed by such people." That's comforting. Logically, that makes a lot of sense, although I have my doubts because such an undertaking doesn't account for user efficiency, I think, since everyone seems to have their own whims. Still, it's made me more open to using a linux operating system since the, apparently, main developers don't have the attitude of Nick Burns (see: RTFM).
-Taking a turn for the worse, I found section 1.3.2 to be almost too technical.
-""Quot capites, tot rationes", as the Romans already said: the more people, the more opinions. At first glance, the amount of Linux distributions can be frightening, or ridiculous, depending on your point of view." Precisely my point earlier. I may be able to find everything I need, but suspect there's more to learning the system then that. Also, obsessive as I am, I'd still feel in the dark if I didn't know everything about it.
-After reading this article, I'm not sure I feel more like I'm more of a novice or better informed. I'll have to read further in-depth and, more importantly, brush up on technical terms that I still don't have a full grasp on.
Mac OS X
-This article was a little easier to understand...less formal and better written for the layperson.
-I still use the standard PC Windows computer. It's what I'm used to. However, I'm meeting more and more people who swear by Macs; after reading this article, I'm not sure why. It's still a relatively new system for me to learn, although I'm more familiar with it than I am any other system outside of the Microsoft applications.
-The "architecture" section is just as technical as the most technical parts of the prior article, although, like I said, I'm a little more familiar with the terminology, so that makes it easier.
-"Life is still much better for a developer on Windows than on Mac OS X - no matter what one might think of the usability, etc. of Windows. Apple has been trying to improve things for developers lately, which is a good sign." Although I really don't know for sure, I can only concur with this statement. The author does state that Apple is improving in this area, though. If you're a Mac user, I'd really like to hear more about this and why you've chosen a Mac. Some of this is answered in the conclusion.
-Although I mainly commented on the first Mac OS X article, I found the wikipedia entry easier to digest and more organized in a way that I could understand it.
An Update on the Windows Roadmap
-As you could probably tell from my notes above, this article makes much more sense. I must say, though, that I don't care for Vista. I much prefer XP - many of the functions shut down. For example, if I'm running Internet Explorer (I haven't used Mozilla on Vista yet) and the program doesn't respond, and have more than one window up, Vista automatically shuts down all open windows, which is extremely frustrating. If I donated a nickel to PITT every time I cursed when this happened, I could probably pay for my tuition this semester. The only reason I have Vista is because I just bought my laptop about year ago, and it was on there instead of XP.
-Hmmm, apparently I can go back to XP for free? According to the article, there are more advantages to owning Vista, but I can't see any appreciable differences outside of the better video. Again, I probably don't use my computer enough beyond the basic capabilities of any usable system, but perhaps Vista is worth the problems right now. My level of literacy allows me to accomplish what I want with ease, though I'd be interested in hearing what I'm missing and how it could make my life easier.
-Like the article says, I find Vista compatible with other applications of the past....at least the ones I've used.
-By the end of the article, I'm not sure if I should go back to XP. Microsoft only supports it until 2014, and if they're continuing to make improvements to Vista, then I guess wouldn't mind keeping it. As far as looks are concerned, I like that better, but I'm still convinced XP is the way to go. Until it gets better, I might just have to look forward to Windows 7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)