Topics covered in section will generally match or compliment the
lecture material. The table below will list specific section
reading assignments as the semester progresses. Readings for
the week will be posted no later than Monday evening preceding the
section.
Date |
Topic and Readings |
Notes |
1/26 |
From libraries to the Web: points on a spectrum
|
|
2/2 |
Web Architecture and Information Organization
|
For the Svenonius book you will need to use
http://library.cornell.edu/
and search the library catalog. |
2/9 |
Identifiers and Bibliographic Models
- H.W. Kilse, J. Kothe, Implementing Persistent Identifiers,
Advisory Task Group of the Consortium of European Research
Libraries, October, 2006,
http://xml.coverpages.org/ECPA-PersistentIdentifiers.pdf
- IFLA Study Group, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records: Final Report, September 1997,
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf, parts 3, 4
(skim), 5
|
In the FRBR report, you really need to only skim part 4 just to
get the idea of attributes. |
2/16 |
Data, Information Knowledge
- M. J. Bates, Information and knowledge: an evolutionary
framework for information science, Information Research, July,
2005.
http://informationr.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html.
- R. Rao, From IR to Search, and Beyond, ACM Queue, 2(3), May
2004 (Licensed ACM, find through google scholar and access
from cornell.edu)
- M.K. Bergman, The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value, Journal
of Electronic Publishing, 7(1), August, 2001. (License), find
through google scholar and access from cornell.edu). Read to
text just beyond figure 2 (stop at header "Study Objectives")
|
For the Rao paper, try out some of the search engines linked to
at the end of the paper. |
2/23 |
Resource Description, Metadata, Cataloging
- K. Coyle, D. Hillmann, Resource Description and Access
(RDA): Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century, D-Lib Magazine,
January/February 2007,
http://dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle.html#26
- S. Golder, B. A. Huberman, The Structure of Collaborative
Tagging Systems, arXiv, August 2005,
http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0508082.
|
Reaction Paper 1 due |
3/2 |
Metadata Harvesting
- 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).
- Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., Cornwell, T., Dushay, N., Eckstrom,
D. and Saylor, J. Metadata aggregation and "automated digital
libraries": A retrospective on the NSDL experience. arXiv.org
cs.DL/0601125, Cornell University, 2006,
http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0601125.
|
|
3/9 |
Personal and Corporate Information
- R. Mukherjee and J. Mao, Enterprise Search: Tough Stuff, ACM
Queue, 2(2), April 2004. Search in Google Scholar and
access from Cornell domain.
- E. Cutrell, S. Dumains, and J. Teevan, Searching to
Eliminate Personal Information Management, Communications of the
ACM, 49(1), January 2006, Search in Google Scholar and access
from Cornell domain.
- G. Bell, J. Gemmell, A Digital Life, Scientific American,
296(3), March 2007, Access through Cornell Library Gateway.
|
|
3/16 |
TBA |
|
3/23 |
Spring Break |
|
3/30 |
Web Scale Information Analysis
- Page, Lawrence; Brin, Sergey; Motwani, Rajeev; Winograd,
Terry, The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the
Web., 1999 (find on Google Scholar)
- 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, (find on Google Scholar:
NOTE, THERE ARE SEVERAL PAPERS WITH SIMILAR NAMES, MAKE SURE YOU
READ THE 2000 SIGMOD ONE!)
- A. Heydon and M. Najork, Mercator: A Scalable, Extensible
Web Crawler, World Wide Web, December, 1999, (find on Google
Scholar)
|
|
4/6 |
Semantic Web Applications
|
|
4/13 |
Trust and Reputation
- Gyongyi, Z. and Garcia-Molina, H., Web Spam Taxonomy. in
First International Workshop on Adversarial Information
Retrieval on the Web, (Chiba, Japan, 2005).
- 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.
|
|
4/20 |
Longevity of Digital Information
-
Hunter, J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). PANIC – An Integrated
Approach to the Preservation of Complex Digital Objects using
Semantic Web Services”, International Journal on Digital
Libraries: Special Issue on Complex Digital Objects.
International Journal on Digital Libraries, 6(2),
174-183.
-
Rosenthal, D.S.H., Robertson, T., Lipkis, T., Reich, V., &
Morabito, S. (2005). Requirements for Digital Preservation
Systems: A Bottom-Up Approach. D-Lib Magazine, 11(11).
|
|
4/27 |
Scholarly Communication
-
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M.L. and Van de Sompel,
H. Co-Authorship Networks in the Digital Library
Research Community, arXiv, 2006.
-
H. Van de Sompel, S. Payette, J. Erickson, C. Lagoze,
and S. Warner, "Rethinking Scholarly Communication:
Building the System that Scholars Deserve," D-Lib
Magazine, September 2004.
-
J. Fry, "Studying the Scholarly web: How
disciplinary culture shapes online representation,"
Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics,
Informetrics and Bibliometrics, vol. 10, 2006.
|
|
5/6 |
TBA |
|
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? How is the content of the readings related to the
topics presented in the recent lectures? 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.
Each week, students will need to complete a short set of questions about
the readings. The questions which will be available via CMS each Wednesday evening.
Completed questions will need to be submitted before the beginning of section
each Friday (1:25 PM). The questions will be mainly short, designed to make
sure that the assigned papers have been read. These questions will be graded.
There are three reaction papers due during the semester. The
tentative reaction paper due dates are February 23, April 16, and May 6 at
11:59PM. The second reaction paper is optional and the final reaction
paper will be the final exam.
For each reaction paper you should choose a topic covered in the
course thus far. The notion of a "topic" is reasonably fuzzy
but broadly it is something that you can use as a vehicle for
framing a discussion about three papers. Examples of topics
are "Libraries in the digital age", "Information Interoperability",
"Semantic Web", etc. You should then choose two of the
assigned readings from the course thus far that are related to your
topic of choice. Then choose a third 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. Make sure to include
proper citations to the three papers you have chosen.
You should then write approximately 4-5 pages (approximately 2000-2500 words)
in which you address the following points:
The reaction papers will be graded on a 12 point scale, with points allocated
in the following categories:
Papers will be submitted via CMS, and should be in word (doc) or pdf format.