Unit 8: Service Provider Review

The service providers I have selected are as follows:

1) METALIS: Service Provider for the Library and Information Science field. We harvest metadata from institutions that offer full-text papers and documents about Library and Information Science

2) OASIC : Search engine for french articles, memories and thesis in Communication and Information Sciences. It provides a single point of access to a significant number of Open Archives in these areas.

3) Scirus: Concentrates on scientific content only and by searching both web and (often proprietary) databases. Scirus' aim is to provide scientists with one comprehensive search platform covering both the web and the normally "invisible" databases. Scirus now harvests Open Archives data.

A good federated search I would offer has several characteristics. Some characteristics that come to mind are that a federated search should…

• Have a high level retrieval effectiveness of individual collections/resources. If each collection/resources does not have good metadata the results will also mediocre.
• Retrieving unique results across different resources
• The ability to be able to present the search results is a meaningful way to the user, either by categorizing the results that came from a specific collection, by a certain author and the like.
• Be sustainable as the number of collections being searched grows.

I do feel that the service providers were good overall examples of employing federates searches for the reasons discussed above and especially for the reason I address below in being a source of similar information and thus producing a better searh results page from a specified query.

Some sites may choose to index metadata from a large number of repositories and my outlook on this is that has both its advantages as it does its drawback. For example, if the College of Arts and Humanities is implementing a repository then it would serve a great purpose if the contents and collections were of relevancy and within a certain scope so that its community could make most of the information. An individual not seeking information in this area of expertise or interest would not find this repository of the highest value. In that sense, if a repository is made up of a large quantity of unlike and broad disciplines, then the usefulness to the focused user would diminish. Generally speaking, we categorize the like with the like and similarly my thought would agree with a repository. The amount repositories indexed is not a problem so much as that resource has a defined purpose. Have repositories of unique and unrelated meta data can slow things down and just present other challenges, such a process of elimination for search results for the user.

Unit 7: Catalog Record Challenges

There were two distinct challenges that I experienced in cataloging my items:

Challenge #1: Selecting the Subject Listing

This proved not to be as straight-forward as I expected, especially considering there is a wide range of possible subjects. In my situation where I found myself having to make a decision, and having to really consider what really my deposit was, was deciding the most appropriate subject. Specifically. for a couple of images I ended up deciding to choose “T Technology > TR Photography” as the subject. Technology really would not have been my first thought. Originally I started out thinking the subject that best suited the images of my children was “N Fine Arts > N Visual arts (General)”. This is because such an image depending on what I may use the image for can be considered visual arts as it is an image that has a purpose to produce general feelings through the sense of seeing, the visual aspect of our senses. Ultimately I decided that the best subject was “T Technology > TR Photography” because the images will be many and not all of them will used as art, but instruments of memory and personal gratification that came through the use if technology, the digital camera which produced a digital image.

Challenge #2: Selecting the appropriate keywords

I had to ask myself if this was supposed to be something different than the text I inputted in the “abstract” field. Generally speaking, they were always the same because the words that were used depict the abstract were keyword terms that appropriately and most accurately described the image. I then decided the keywords needed to have a set of rules or guidelines, especially in the word tense and other grammatical distinctions. This is so that when that when I, or others, are attempting to search for an item the conventions will be set forth so that searches do not produce empty results as a consequences of choosing to input the wrong word choice, for example inputting a verb as or a plural instead of a noun or the single form of a word. This will increase search timing and increase system efficiency in locating and displaying the correct results.

As far as approaching the problem of consistency I believe it is important to set conventions and guidelines when inputting information in fields such as “keywords” and “abstracts” as well as “subject”. This will minimize the potential for error in search results and it will improve efficiencies and produce a well formed, balanced and predictable repository system. I mean this in the sense that if the user follows the conventions/guidelines in the text they input they can predictable results that correspond to their search terms.

Unit 5: Drupal Discussion

I installed the Link module, it is CCK content field which let me add a link to my content types. I was able to decide if I wanted to include URL, title, and optionally a target attribute.

Now that I have had the opportunity to experiment with some modules I can a much better grasp of how Drupal can help me manage my image collection. Different modules add to the cleanliness of the entering and updating data. Also, I like how I can prevent errors is making certain characteristics required or through the “Help” text box let the user know what I am expecting them to type in and how. Such error checking and specificity will allow me to confide more in others to enter data, and at the way that I and it, not how they happened to enter the information. I will not have to rely on if they remember how I wanted information entered. I also do not have to think about the potential deletion of items, I can specify what each user has the capability of doing. Overall, I have to say that I have a very positive impression of this product. Even though you provided the instructions, it was easy to use and navigate. Again, these assignments also allowed me to accomplish 2 things, very important at that. I can a now have a very real and likely option for my digital collection as well as a minor understanding of how this may work in an organization setting as with an intranet. Instead of having to hear a presentation of the prepackaged CMS, this allowed me to have a better understanding of the behind the scenes requirement of such a product. Very cool!