CS 431: Architecture of Web Information Systems, Spr. 2004

CS 431
Architecture of Web Information Systems
Spring 2005

Discussion Section and Readings

Readings

The subject of the course is a dynamic area. Most of the material in the course is the result of research and implementation over the past 3-5 years. Fortunately almost all of this work is available through papers on the open-source Web. Readings are assigned for each week's discussion section as listed in the schedule below. The content in each week's section is linked to that presented in coincident lectures, listed in the syllabus.

Students are expected to approach each week's readings critically. Are the ideas sound? What are the alternatives and trade-offs? How well do the ideas fit into the larger information context? What are the barriers to success: technical, social, legal, and economic. Weekly sections are meant to be a forum for discussing these critical reactions, driven by student participation and NOT by instructor or teaching assistant presentations. The amount of section participation and the degree to which it represents critical evaluation of the readings is an important criteria of grading.

Date	Topic and Readings
Section 1 1/30	From libraries to the Web: points on a spectrum V. F. Bush, "As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly, July, 1945. http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~duchier/pub/vbush/vbush-all.shtml C. L. Borgman, "The invisible library: Paradox of the global information infrastructure," Library Trends, 51 (4), pp. 652, 2003. (accessible through CUL library catalog) T. Berners-Lee, Information Management: A Proposal, 1989 http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
Section 2 2/04	Bibliographic and Information Systems and Theory Denton, W., FRBR and Fundamental Cataloguing Rules, 2003 http://www.miskatonic.org/library/frbr.html. Svenonius, E. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization, Chapters 2-3 (Available from http://www.netlibrary.com).
Section 3 2/11	Cataloging and Identifiers H. Van de Sompel and O. Beit-Arie, "Open Linking in the Scholarly Information Environment Using the OpenURL Framework," D-Lib Magazine, 7 (3), 2001. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/vandesompel/03vandesompel.html D. Levy, "Cataloging in the Digital Order," presented at The Second Annual Conference on the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, 1995. http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/DL95/papers/levy/levy.html T. A. Phelps and R. Wilensky, "Robust Hyperlinks: Cheap, Everywhere, Now," Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2023 (2004) Springer-Verlag, electronic version available from the Cornell Library Catalog.
Section 4 2/20	Metadata: Issues and Simple Answers A. Gilliland-Swetland, Introduction to Metadata: Setting the Stage, 2000. http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/pdf/swetland.pdf T. Gill, Metadata and the World Wide Web, 2000 http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/pdf/gill.pdf. C. Lagoze, "Keeping Dublin Core Simple: Cross Domain Discovery or Resource Description?," D-Lib Magazine, 7 (1), 2001. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january01/lagoze/01lagoze.html
Section 5 2/25	Beyond Simple Documents Kahn, R. and Wilensky, R. A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services, Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, 1995.http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/k-w.html Library of Congress, METS: An Overview & Tutorial, http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.v2.html J. Bakaert, P. Hochstenbach, H.Van de Sompel, "Using MPEG-21 DIDL to Represent Complex Digital Objects in the Los Alamos National Laboratory Digital Library", D-Lib Magazine, 9(11), 2003, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november03/bekaert/11bekaert.html
Section 6 3/4	Federation Architecture Davis, J. and Lagoze, C. NCSTRL: Design and deployment of a globally distributed digital library, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(3), 2000, (Locate through Google Scholar) Lagoze, C. and Van de Sompel, H., The Open Archives Initiative: Building a low-barrier interoperability framework. in Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, (Roanoke, VA, 2001). (Locate through Google Scholar) Lagoze, C., Arms, W., Gan, S., Hillmann, D., Ingram, C., Krafft, D., Marisa, R., Phipps, J., Saylor, J., Terrizzi, C., Hoehn, W., Millman, D., Allan, J., Guzman-Lara, S. and Kalt, T., Core Services in t+he Architecture of the National Digital Library for Science Education (NSDL). in Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, (Portland, Oregon, 2002), ACM/IEEE. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0201025
Section 7 3/11	Beyond Human-Generated Metadata Bulterman, D.C.A. Is it time for a moratorium on metadata? IEEE Multimedia, 11 (4). 10-17. http://www.computer.org/multimedia/mu2004/promo1.pdf Mathes, A. Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html. IVia Under the Hood. http://infomine.ucr.edu/iVia/newtech.shtml.
Section 8 4/1	Semantic Web Introduction Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. The Semantic Web Scientific American, 2001. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21 Swartz, A. and Hendler, J., The Semantic Web: A Network of Content for the Digital CIty. in Second Annual Digital Cities Workshop, (Kyoto, Japan, 2001). http://blogspace.com/rdf/SwartzHendler Heflin, J.D. Towards the Semantic Web: Knowledge Representation in a Dynamic, Distributed Environment Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2001. (Chapters 1,2) http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~heflin/pubs/heflin-thesis-orig.pdf Faaborg, A. and Lagoze, C. Semantic Browsing. in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Trondheim, Norway, 2003, 70-81. (Find on Google Scholar)
Section 9 4/8	Web Scale Information Analysis Page, Lawrence; Brin, Sergey; Motwani, Rajeev; Winograd, Terry, The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web., 1999, http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/1999-66 -/ S. R. Kumar, et. al., The web as a graph, presented at Nineteenth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Dallas, 2000, http://www.almaden.ibm.com/webfountain/resources/TheWebasaGraph.pdf A. Heydon and M. Najork, A Scalable, Extensible Web Crawler*, World Wide Web, December, 1999, http://www.research.compaq.com/SRC/mercator/papers/www/paper.html
Section 10 4/15	Trust and Reputation Lynch, C. (2001). The Battle to Define the Future of the Book in the Digital World. First Monday. 6. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_6/lynch/index.html Lynch, C. A. (2001). "When Documents Deceive: Trust and Provenance as New Factors in Information Retrieval in a Tangled Web." Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology 52(1): 12-17, http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~rik/others/lynch-trust-jasis00.pdf Hirtle, P. B. (2000). Archival Authenticity in a Digital Age. Authenticity in a Digital Environment, Washington, D.C., Council on Library and Information Resources., http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/hirtle.html.
Section 11 4/22	Scholarly Publishing S. Thorin, �Global Changes in Scholarly Communication,� Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC 2003. http://www.arl.org/scomm/disciplines/Thorin.pdf. S. Hitchcock, D. Bergmark, T. Brody, C. Gutteridge, L. Carr, W. Hall, C. Lagoze, and S. Harnad, �Open Citation Linking: The Way Forward,� D-Lib Magazine, 8 (10), 2002. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/hitchcock/10hitchcock.html H. Van de Sompel, S. Payette, et. al., "Rethinking Scholarly Communication Building the System that Scholars Deserve", D-Lib Magazine, 10(9), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html
Section 12 4/29	Longevity of Digital Information A. Kenney, N. McGovern, et. al., " Preservation Risk Management for Web Resources," D-Lib Magazine, 8 (1), 2002, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january02/kenney/01kenney.html B. Kahle, �Preserving the Internet,� Scientific American, 276 (3), March, 1997. (Available through library catalog) S. Granger, �Emulation as a Digital Preservation Strategy,� D-Lib Magazine, 6 (10), 2000. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/granger/10granger.html

Reaction Papers

The reaction paper assignments are structured as follows: you should cover at least two closely related papers relevant to the current section of the course. One of the papers should be from the course syllabus (assigned for discussion section on which the paper is due or the two preceding sections). Another should be a related paper that you discover via another method such as references in the papers you have read, searching on Google, Google Scholar, via the library gateway, or from other information source. Think of finding this paper as a mini resource discovery exercise. The beginning of the reaction paper should include citations (with URLs) to the two papers you have chosen.

You should then write approximately 3-4 pages (approximately 1500-2000 words) in which you address the following points:

How did you find the related paper and why did you choose it?
What is main content of the papers?
Why is it interesting in relation to the course, reflected in both readings and lecture?
What are the weakness of the papers, and how could they be improved?
What are some promising further research questions in the direction of the papers, and how could they be pursued?

Reaction papers should not just be summaries of the papers you read; most of your text should be focused on synthesis of the underlying ideas, your own perspective on the papers, and thinking on how the content of the papers relates to the overall content of the course. Reaction papers should be done individually (i.e. not in groups).

The reaction papers will be graded on a 12 point scale, with points allocated in the following categories:

Choice of papers (2 points) - Points will be awarded based on the scholarly nature of the second paper that is chosen and its relationship to the course content and to the paper selected from the syllabus.
Presentation (2 points) - Points will be awarded based on clarity in preparation and coherence of ideas presented.
Content understanding and summarization (4 points) - Points will be awarded based on the demonstrated understanding of the content of the two papers and that way in which that understanding demonstrates an understanding of the course content in general..
Synthesis (4 points) - Points will be awarded based on the depth of analysis of the relationship between the papers, critique of their content, and integration into the issues raised by the course in general.

[CS 431 Home Page]

Carl Lagoze
(lagoze@cs.cornell.edu)
Last changed: April 25, 2005