 |
|
CS 502 : Computing Methods for Digital Libraries Spring 2001 -- Monday, Wednsday, Friday 02:30 - 03:20 PM Professor Herbert Van de Sompel 3 Credit Hours |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
administration
|
|
||||
|
|
CS 502 : Computing Methods for Digital Libraries Spring 2001 -- Monday, Wednsday, Friday 02:30 - 03:20 PM Professor Herbert Van de Sompel 3 Credit Hours |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
administration
|
|
||||
| Full Course Schedule | Click syllabus |
| Instructor | Herbert Van de Sompel, herbertv@cs.cornell.edu, Rhodes 426, 255-3085 |
| Instructor's Assistant | Rosemary Adessa, rosemary@cs.cornell.edu, Upson 5147, 255-9555 |
| Teaching Assistant 1 | Ken Hopkinson, hopkik@cs.cornell.edu |
| Teaching Assistant 2 | Michael Frei, mbf3@cornell.edu |
The course grade will be based on:
The weightings given to these components are expected to be as follows, but these weightings may be changed:
| Assignments |
30%
|
| Performance in Labs |
20%
|
| Examinations |
50%
|
The first CS 502 test was graded on a 16 point scale. One point was given for each correctly answered multiple choice question (for a maximum possible score of 4 if you answered all four multiple choice questions correctly)
The two essay questions and the XML question were worth 4 points each. The first two essay questions were somewhat open-ended and so the grading criteria was not defined in the strict sense of "You must mention x, y, and z to get a 3; y, z, w to get a 2; . . ." Rather, we graded according the personal insight you demonstrated in answering the questions. If we thought that you understood the question asked and your response was reasonable and well thought out then this was worth a score of 3. A good grasp of the concepts, but a lack of some important details received a 2. A 1 was assigned to answers that were severely lacking in important concepts and which seemed to drift away from the question that was actually asked. 0's were only assigned in extreme cases. (ie Either the question was left blank or the answer was so far off topic that the question may as well have been left blank). The optional extra parts to the first two essay questions were each worth one point. Hence, extra points were granted in a binary fashion based on whether you gave an reasonable answer to the question asked (entirely independently of how well you had answered the main/non-optional essay question). To receive 4 points (of 4) on one of the first two essay questions you needed to get 3 points for the main question plus 1 point for the optional/bonus section.
The XML question had much stricter grading guidelines. Scores were assigned on a 3-point basis. (Everyone automatically received 1 extra point on top of their score for a maximum possible total of 4 points) Many students had problems accessing the unicode reference web page during the test so we were flexible on this issue. If one used a <place unicode here> or embedded any unicode markings at all (whether or not they were the ones we were looking for) then full credit was given for the unicode part of the question. To get a 3, everything needed to be correct (taking the unicode adjustments into account). A 2 was given as long as a small number of transformations were needed to convert the given answer into a correct answer. A 1 was assigned when many transformations were needed to transform the given answer into a correct answer. Leaving the question blank or answering an unrelated question warranted a 0.