The subject of the course is a dynamic area. Much of the material in
the course is the result of recent research and implementation.
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. When a specific URL is not listed with
the paper, you should use Google Scholar to find the paper (in cases where the
content is protected by licensing, you will need to do this from within the
cornell.edu domain).
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.
| Date |
Topic and Readings |
Section 1
1/27 |
From libraries to the Web: points on a spectrum
|
Section 2
2/3 |
Information modeling: the library catalog
- Svenonius, E. The Intellectual Foundation of Information
Organization, Chapters 2-3 (Available from CU library e-reserve).
- Denton, W., FRBR and Fundamental Cataloguing Rules, 2003
http://www.miskatonic.org/library/frbr.html.
- DiLauro, T., Choudhury, G. S., Patton, M., Warner, J.W., and Brown,
E.W., Automated Name Authority Control and Enhanced Searching in the Levy
Collection, D-Lib, 7(4), April 2001,
http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/aw/d-lib/dlib/april01/dilauro/04dilauro.html.
(I only care about the sections on automated name authority control)
|
Section 3
2/10 |
Identifiers
|
Section 4
2/17 |
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 12
(1). 2006.
http://dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html
|
Section 5
2/24 |
Rich Information Models
- C. Lagoze and J. Hunter, "The ABC Ontology and Model," Journal of
Digital Information, vol. 2, 2001.http://metadata.net/harmony/JODI_Final.pdf
- T. Gill, "Building semantic bridges between museums, libraries and
archives: The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model," First Monday, vol. 9, 2004.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/gill/index.html
- M. Doerr, "The CIDOC CRM - an Ontological Approach to Semantic
Interoperability of Metadata," in AI Magazine - Special Issue on Ontologies,
vol. 24, 2003.
http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/ontological_approach.pdf
|
Section 6
3/3 |
Metadata Harvesting and Digital Library Architecture
- 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).
- Shreeves, S., Knutson, E.M., Stvilia, B., Palmer, C.L., Twidale, M.B.
and Cole, T.W., Is "Quality" Metadata "Shareable" Metadata? The Implications
of Local Metadata Practices for Federated Collections. in ACRL Twelfth
National Conference, (Minneapolis, 2005), ALA.
- 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.
|
Section 7
3/10 |
Complex Digital Objects
- R. Daniel Jr., C. Lagoze, and S. D. Payette, "A Metadata Architecture
for Digital Libraries," presented at IEEE Forum on Research and Technology
Advances, Santa Barbara, 1998.
- 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
- [1] H. Van de Sompel, M. Nelson, C. Lagoze, and S. Warner, "Resource
Harvesting within the OAI-PMH Framework," D-Lib Magazine, vol. 10, 2004.
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december04/vandesompel/12vandesompel.html
|
Section 8
3/17 |
Motivating the Semantic Web
- 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
- Hendler, J. Agents and the Semantic Web, IEEE Intelligent Systems,
March/April 2001
|
Section 9
3/31 |
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, Mercator: A Scalable, Extensible Web Crawler,
World Wide Web, December, 1999
|
Section 10
4/7 |
Semantic Web Applications
- Huynh, D., Mazzocchi, S. and Karger, D., Piggy Bank: Experience the
Semantic Web Inside Your Web Browser. in International Semantic Web
Conference (ISWC), (2005).
- Kahan, J., Koivunen, M.-R., Prud'Hommeaux, E., et al., Annotea: An Open
RDF Infrastructure for Shared Web Annotations. in WWW10, (Hong Kong, 2001).
- Karger, D. and Quan, D. What Would It Mean to Blog on the Semantic Web?
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3298 (October). 214-228.
|
Section 11
4/14 |
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.
|
Section 12
4/24 |
Longevity of Digital Information
- Rosenthal, D.S.H., Robertson, T., Lipkis, T., et al. Requirements for
Digital Preservation Systems: A Bottom-Up Approach. D-Lib Magazine, 11 (11).
- Hunter, J. and Choudhury, S., A Semi-Automated Digital Preservation
System based on Semantic Web Services. in JCDL, (Tucson, AR, 2005), ACM.
- Rusbridge, C. Excuse Me... Some Digital Preservation Fallacies? Ariadne,
February 2006 (46).
|
Section 13
5/1 |
Applications and wrap-up
- H. Van de Sompel, S. Payette, et. al., "Rethinking Scholarly
Communication: Building the System that Scholars Deserve", D-Lib Magazine,
10(9)
- Dempsey, L. Libraries and the Long Tail - Some Thoughts about Libraries
in the Network Age. D-Lib Magazine, 12 (4).
- Lagoze, C., Krafft, D.B., Payette, S., et al. What Is a Digital Library
Anymore, Anyway? Beyond Search and Access in the NSDL. D-Lib Magazine, 11
(11).
|
On-line questionnaire
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.
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.
Papers will be submitted via CMS, and should be in word (doc) or pdf format.
