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.