One of the things that I find interesting when I think about the future of the internet is how accessible it would be for those with disabilities. I was doing some coding at work recently and while my page looked great, I didn’t even stop to consider how it would display on a screen reader or how functional it would work with a speech-to-text program. With the World Wide Web moving towards a more semantic approach and everyone getting more interdependent on the web, I wonder if those who might have trouble accessing the web will have an even more difficult time in society.
In many ways, there are various programs that have been developed in the past decade that have made it easier for those with disabilities to access the web: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/pla/plapublications/platechnotes/accesstools.cfm . The Web Accessibility Initiative is also a great place to get involved with materials on universal access: http://www.w3.org/WAI/. With web pages becoming more and more complex, it might be harder and harder to find an access tool that could give people with disabilities the full experience of that web page.
The article about libraries having a disconnect with millennials apply to people with disabilities also. If librarians are still thinking that constructing a ramp outside of the library for people with wheelchairs is as much as they need to do to be consider accessible, they are wrong. Libraries need to keep up with technologies for their patrons with disabilities so that no matter what future the web takes, they can still keep up.

Posting #4

Like others, I was also struck by the “Disconnects Between Library Culture and Millenial Generation Values” article. I can definitely see ways in which libraries may not be meeting the expectations of users. I find myself getting frustated with little things like catalogs timing out. But with this article I also wondered how much had changed in five years. I definitely think libraries have made strides in integrating themselves into the Web 2.0 arena. The authors also mentioned instant messaging as a service point. Although I feel like I’ve read plenty of articles on chat reference, my library only just started it using it last week and we’ve already had dozens of questions. And while I shouldn’t lay on too much criticism, I wonder about the popularity of LibGuides because to me they are forcing students to learn another interface when they have enough trouble with library and database webpages. I know that they are supposed to be imitating the wikis that students are already used to, but they can be so clunky. But I digress.

I have few doubts in the future of semantic web. When I was looking for jobs, I saw a lot of positions for SEO (search engine optimization). I think organizations understand the importance of being found on the web, just as search engines understand the importance of finding the right thing. Both sides are working toward a similar goal, and since traditional advertising seems to be declining, it would not surprise me if a lot of effort is placed into making products/information/etc as easy to find as possible. But there is always the danger of certain sites getting preferential treatment. Although I love Google products, their searching has started to frustrate me. Too often it gives me results for sites I’ve already visited which is not what I want!

I am also excited by HTML5 (and CSS3 for that matter, I kept trying to use it during my exercises and had to backtrack). If folks are interested in learning more, I found this link recently: http://diveintohtml5.org/ I agree with others’ comments that it seems much more logical. Check out chapter 4 on the canvas element!

The author of the “Disconnect…” article made some pretty valid points. If we want to keep-up our user base and attract new generations of users, we need to meet the expectations of our users. Hoping that non-users will eventually realize that the old-school library is a great place to get information and resources just won’t cut it. We’ll become even more obsolete to our users – just as the public libraries in the UK have become. The author also challenged the library’s strict policies on copyright – I think he specifically mentions the practice of recombination and personalization of information resources by the outside world. While this would be a super awesome feature to add to library resources or the OPAC, copyright laws still have a considerable strangle hold on libraries. Libraries have historically received a lot of flack regarding copyright concerns (the photocopier was a big scary invention back in the day), and, I think, libraries are hyper concerned about copyright because of this history. Litigation is expensive and reputation damaging. Also, the author mentions the library’s “obsession” with individual privacy – I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. Information can be a very personal thing, and without privacy policies in place, potential harm or embarrassment can be done to an individual.

This brave new web is pretty exciting – the concept of linked data is really intriguing, and it seems, as Berners-Lee envisions it, to be a potentially important invention for the advancement of science and medicine. That’s the part that I find intriguing. The part about sharing or using my personal data, to whom I’m married, what stores I shop at, etc, is kinda scary. In order for his vision to play out (at least the Lucy story mentioned in this article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2102852,00.asp), people would have to opt to share a lot of personal information. I’m not sure many people will be totally comfortable doing this. Right now, there is a lot of personal information sharing, but it’s not done with overt user control. The default settings on Facebook are to share (or allow Facebook to sell) all your information. Users have to search around to change this setting – a task that many non-native social media users overlook or find confusing.

One more thing before this gets too long. I know in previous posts I’ve mentioned various Google projects, but this one is kinda cool. The Google Goggles app allows users to search for information by submitting a photograph. In my experience, it doesn’t really work. BUT, it’s a great step forward into web 3.0 territory. Click on the “Watch a Video” button to learn more about it.
http://www.google.com/mobile/goggles/#text

#5 The idea of ‘raw data’ being shared by the creators and discoverers, available for others to dissect and organize excites me. It makes perfect sense that people do and should share relational data, whether they know its significance or not. I’m still stuck on the format. That’s always been the problem with raw data. Without a context, without a mission statement or explanation or hypothesis of what the data is or where it came from, data can be twisted and misinterpreted and ruined. The idea of ‘raw data’ is so romantic, but without a wider organization and structure or a way to standardize the format how can it really be used? Sites like dbpedia and openstreetmap.org are good starts, but how do we get libraries to open themselves up?
On the knitting site ravelry.com I recently came across a great feature. For patterns that are taken from print books, there is an embedded link to the worldcat record for that book. What a relief to see a link to Worldcat instead of amazon!
I understand the problems with opening library catalogs to general Google searches: MARC21 format instead of XML, network security, proprietary software, a lack of understanding and empathy on both sides of the IT/librarian fence. I don’t understand why featured items and genre’s can’t be shared though. Elmhurst PL should come up in the google search of ‘cookbooks 60126’. They have cookbooks, right? You don’t have to go to Barnes and Noble or Amazon to see a book.
I agree that more data should be shared and that the relational data of my mundane everyday is the key to someone else’s research study or grant request, or civil survey of public needs. I’m afraid that it will continue to be a slow road for the mass participation and understanding that is needed to really get us to Web 3.0.

Post #4:

The article, ”Disconnects between Library Culture and Millennial Values” was an eye-opener for me. I know that in the Youth Services arena, we are expected to have an ever-evolving eye for the new while keeping our cannon of classics in the mix. However, this article reminded me that not only are the children coming into the department as users digital natives, but the parents who are signing their children up and seeking information are also going to be digital natives now. Then, put it into practice–when you see a new restaurant or a new thing that you’re interested in, where the first place you go to get more information? The Internet. Our reliance on this tool has spawned into a daily occurrence for our children, too. I get emailed, texted and facebook messaged links about things to follow or read from my friends on a daily basis! As libraries, can we afford NOT to be a part of these expectations? With that food for though, I went on to read the Cade Mertz article about Web 3.0 and the changes that the internet was going to be making again. The idea of a Semantic Web sounds like they are taking the need for growth found in the original World Wide Web, adding in some of the personalization tools from Web 2.0 and moving to a broader, possibly more search-easy future. Mertz quoted Nova Spivack, CEO of Radar Networks, one of the leading voices of this new-age Internet, ”It’s a set of standards that turns the Web into one big database.” I thought of what new challenges this might present, and after a simple Google search (obviously), I came up with an interesting Semantic Web Wiki to explore (http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Main_Page). We’ve got coding standards already, but who is to determine what the standards are going to be? What are they going to look like? We are all users of Web 2.0 now…is our input going to have influence, too? Web 2.0 gave us that power; now, how are we going to use it?

Posting 5:

I never knew how much the “face” of the web has changed since the very beginning. Since most of the changes occur in the background, it’s not something that is very noticeable, until they are pointed out along with some tangible examples of the change. According to the chart from Radar Reader, we are already in the Web 3.0 phase and yet, I can’t really tell the difference between that and the previous 2.0 incarnation.
Part of this may be due to the fact that Web 2.0 has so many “visible” tools that can be utilized by the users. I may be wrong, but I feel that, at least at the front of the house, most of Web 2.0 has been about participation and creation. Obviously, at the back of the house, things are more about coding and open source software. I think.
Frankly, I’m still not 100% certain that I understand what Web 3.0 and the “Semantic Web” really are. What I gather is that web searching is going to end up becoming easier and possibly even more productive as the web becomes more “mechanized”. While this means that teaching Boolean operators will become a thing of the past (maybe?), I wonder how much restructuring will be necessary to make the Internet more machine- friendly. This looks to be the same question broached by the writers over at pcmag.com (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2102857,00.asp). If the Semantic Web is indeed the future of the Internet, how does that affect usage? Will anyone even notice?
The way that the Internet is changing, we need to change the way we get our useful information. While it is always good to attend professional library conferences, it is also a good idea to attend any new electronics tradeshows likes the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and even festivals like South by Southwest (SXSW), which includes interactive seminars that often highlight the newest tech trends—SXSW helped launch Twitter—along with music and film (http://bit.ly/hpo58c). Information can be found in any format in any place and we can’t allow ourselves to become complacent at our “expertise” with the current technology. Even though we may not be aware of it, the Internet is changing and if we can’t keep up, we’ll find ourselves falling behind.

Posting 4



While the web agents discussed by Berners-Lee seem like a future possibility, I would like to see more about its economic feasibility before I believe it will truly happen. Remember all those things from the 1950’s that we’re supposed to have today? (Video 1 ) We have the technology areas, but the implementation costs for the average consumer far outweigh the benefits (which are more novel than truly life-altering). Is it worth thousands of dollars to press a button and watch your fridge slowly come out of the wall and open before your delighted eyes? Or is it easier to take a half-second and open the damned thing yourself? It’s just plain silly to pay for the housing, indoor lighting, and energy costs of an indoor garden when you can spend a fraction of the cost and use your backyard.
Not to mention the physical bulk of the mechanisms needed for such silly things as joint microwave-refrigerators. There are androids capable of humanlike movement in the face and upper body (video 2), as well as the ability to react to language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EveR-1), but the bodies themselves are probably composed of mostly heavy movement mechanisms and cosmetics, while the computers running their software and the energy sources are separate entities, tucked away out of sight (http://www.robots-dreams.com/2006/11/realistic_andro.html). Even mobile robots with built-in power and programming are still noisy and fairly slow (video 3). With Big Dog, they have artificially replicated some of our capabilities, such as a sense of balance – but they’ve made a major tradeoff in other organic ways: speed and sustained power. We have yet to come up with something that replicates enough human / organic capabilities to be functional on its own.
With each organic capability engineers and programmers try to replicate, they must put in exponentially more work and development. Whether those developments are markup languages or the use of one material or forma t over another, the standards and common practices are changing, and as soon as you log hundreds of thousands of hours into one development, you have to throw it out for a better technology and start over again. It’s not an efficient way of going about things, but it’s the only choice we’ve had so far. Programmers have been working for years on search engines that understand natural language, and we’re closer than we were ten years ago, but not close enough, and it may turn out that their work will be useless in another ten years. Tags and keywords are another development that may be obsolete in a matter of years.
A program still can’t go out into the web to autonomously collect, evaluate, and organize information without a human being behind the wheel to some degree, like a programmer updating the natural language capabilities. However, it seems like the Semantic Web is almost tying to move in that direction. Like the believers in the Semantic Web / Web 3.0 aren’t saying “instead of cassettes, let’s use CDs,” but instead they’re saying “let’s get rid of the CDs, cassettes, MP3s, and the concept of format altogether.” I don’t think that’s humanly possible.

Posting #4

As I was preparing to write my response to this module, I was in the perfect mindset to discover the latest product announcement from Google: Gmail Motion (http://mail.google.com/mail/help/motion.html). Of course, this being April Fools’ Day, we know this product is a takeoff on recent gaming systems and users’ demands for intuitive technology rather than an actual new form of email. However, many of the selling points on Google’s fake launch page resonated with what we read about the semantic web and the future of the Internet. For example, the intro states that since the internet came around, “countless technological advancements have allowed for much more efficient human computer interaction. Why then do we continue to use outdated technology?” Seems like the main argument of many proponents of technological innovation. Even the fake testimonials, which are certainly funny on their own, actually bear striking similarities to concepts behind the next-generation Web. Take this one: ”No longer will people be required bend to the will of technology. Instead, technology will now bend to our will.” This is exactly what concepts like natural language processing seek to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been frustrated in trying to find exactly what I want when computers don’t give me the options or the interpretations I feel I need. Even most of the way through library school, I still run into difficulties in searching the Chicago Public Library catalog for certain materials because the system doesn’t work the way I want it to – and if I have these problems as an almost-librarian, I can’t imagine how irritating the system can be for others. With the increase in digital resources and digital libraries, the need for simple, user-friendly searching will only grow. With those thoughts in mind, I was amused by Google’s April Fools’ Day joke, but I also saw that it might not be as far from reality as some might expect.

That’s not to say I completely bought into everything that was included in the reading for this module right away. The semantic web and data linking seem like very lofty goals that would take a lot of work from a lot of people and companies to make possible. However, looking at what Tim Berners-Lee has launched in the past, I wouldn’t want to bet money against him. While yes, it would be more work to assign useful and relevant metadata to sites in order for Berners-Lee’s idea of the semantic web to be a reality, it might eventually be the kind of technological revolution that feeds itself. If there are enough sites out there that begin to do it to show what the potential is, the marketplace will demand that websites evolve to meet these new needs and expectations. As we’ve seen, the web is constantly evolving, and what worked as a website 10 years ago would in many cases seem laughable today. So while the idea that the web would have to be completely overhauled, page by page, to make the semantic web possible has some truth to it, given the ongoing changes and upgrades that are pervasive throughout the web, it might not be as impossible as it seems at first. Also, the more intuitive the system (which seems to be the goal as we move forward in information management), the easier it will be to see widespread adoption.

Based on the reading, what seems to me to be a major hurdle in this linked data model would be database hugging and gaining access to proprietary information. As we saw in the intellectual property module, money still seems to rule, so amassing copyrighted information could prove quite challenging. It’s all well and good to require government organizations to release data that has been paid for by tax dollars – which certainly would represent a good deal of information – but getting private companies to do the same seems unrealistic to me now. However, there is certainly hope for some information beyond government data, as the open access model is definitely gaining momentum in certain areas. For example, the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org), which aims “to increase the visibility and ease of use of open access scientific and scholarly journals thereby promoting their increased usage and impact,” currently includes 6,335 journals, up from 5,000 less than a year ago, which shows good momentum. DOAJ is a great resource for libraries, as I’m sure many of us learned early on in this program. Finding other areas in which libraries could support or offer similar value to users would tie in with the goals of this next-generation web and perhaps spread the concept of data being for everyone. In terms of a several-years-out view, I would like to remain optimistic, given all the advancement we’ve seen up to this point. I think libraries and information sources can be valuable contributors to this future as long as we recognize the potential and get on board with where technology seems to be heading. And if this means reexamining how libraries have traditionally done things, as suggested in the reading, I think libraries will have to show that they are able to evolve in order to survive. Given the opportunities that might come from interoperability and data linking, it seems like there could be great potential for librarians to help others navigate these new data relationships, helping newly focused libraries not just survive, but thrive.

One of the readings that I found more interesting was ”Disconnects between Library Culture and Millennial Generational Values.” At the beginning of library school we all learned Ranganathan’s five laws. With those concepts we were told to think outside of the law just pertaining to a physical book. I agree with McDonald and Thomas that the values of the library need to change to reflect the values of their user today. Without adapting with the user and their expectations how are libraries supposed to keep up and be relevant. But also throughout library school, I think that we learned a lot about how libraries and changing and adapting to the new information culture that has emerged. McDonald and Thomas seem to think that the disconnect that exists is quite vast, but I disagree. I think many institutions, both in the academic and public spheres, are creating programs, spaces, etc. for this new generation of users. Most public libraries now have a youth services librarian, something that did not exist some time ago. Also a long those lines, many public libraries are setting up gaming nights. http://www.cary.lib.il.us/teenfrontpage.asp.
In the academic realm, many institutions are trying to make their presence on the web known. For example many institutions are now using facebook and twitter to connect with their users in ”their” space. Like Northwestern http://www.facebook.com/pages/Northwestern-University-Library/115574078497997.
We have also learned throughout our education at Dominican that many libraries are promoting the use of the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ to help combat the very issues that McDonald and Thomas bring up, like copyright. Most academic institutions are adapting well to this new generation and trying to provide methods that coincide with their values.
One last way that many academic libraries are trying to adapt to this new culture is by making the library a place. There are numerous examples, many that we learned about in our management class, of institutions redoing their libraries and making it more of a user friendly hang out. Many places have provided a coffee shop like environment for this new generation. A good example of an academic library transforming itself to be the third place is the Welch Memorial Medical Library at Johns Hopkins University http://www.welch.jhu.edu/.
While I think that McDonald and Thomas raise some valid points, I do think that the academic world is trying to evolve with this new generation of users.

The most exciting article about Internet Futures was HTML 5.0. I liked the look of the language and it makes the logic of design more clear to me. Like all languages, website code evolves through shared social interaction and use. Without shared open source forges and the participation of thousands of people, some paid and some unpaid, language would not adapt and evolve as quickly. I am a strong supporter or open access and shared access to scientific and medical research and information. Yes, I am mad about it. Nonetheless, perhaps we don’t need to drive constant change and improvement in every area. One of my favorite lines from Ninotchka, where Greta Garbo played an early Soviet communist visiting Paris, occurs when Melvin Douglas makes her look out over the lights of Paris and exclaims, Isn’t it beautiful? She replies, Yes, but such a waste of electricity! We are all dazzled by the lights of change and rapid improvement. We should be cautious. Tim Berners Lee presents the Semantic Web as a powerful universe of data available for uses of all kinds. Take down the barriers between the data trapped in ’silos’ of Web 2.0. Lee is a programmer or scientist. I have reservations. In this universe, we can all be abused. The controversies over Facebook and other sites sharing personal information without your knowledge reveals that individuals may have things that they want to keep from the universal public view or from use by others. Each one of us is more than just a pile of data for users everywhere. We are in a system where professional writers are paid very little for their work, and they are encouraged to write for free, for the good, so that the site owners can contribute to charity. It is a world of starving writers enslaved by individuals who offer them space or $20 a E-how pop for creating content for advertised sites. I recently purchased an external hard drive that automatically connected me to a back up cloud. All my files and personal photographs appeared in the cloud without first asking for my permission. This irked me. I wanted control over what the cloud could see or not see, and I was not given the option. Years ago a person with tenure wanted my ”data” to use for her own work and her students’ work. The data consisted of 50 interviews that I conducted in person with an occupational group. She never cited me or asked her students to do so, but cannibalized every idea that I had. I refused to release the 50 interviews. My blood, my sweat, and my tears went into the project. I paid for the materials, the time and my own support. I need to finish the book before I release it to everyone to play with. Unfortunately I lost my full time teaching job and my connections with Routledge before I finished the manuscript. Should I release the data? Perhaps. Why should Berner Lee, or that person with tenure, have the power to see everything I do? Am I just a slave to be data mined by the powerful? I don’t have the power to protect myself in a lawsuit so I don’t even encrypt my files. I expect some of my stuff will be stolen or used without permission or citation. I keep data on discs and I have to recopy to new formats sometimes. McDonald and Thomas (2006) regret the lag between library cultures and the expectations of new tool users. I work in a big university library with walls to outsiders use of their databases. The unversity pays a lot of money for the databases. The library does share its catalog and links to OCLC and HathiTrust. The library shares its records, and may one day share much of its collection on Google and Hathil; both are projects underway now. The university distinguishes itself by its resources, and today, everyone wants to see those resources digitized on line and free in open access like MIT and Harvard. Yet, libraries must maintain some control over the use of their resources, if for no other reason that the collection itself is a valuable resource that supports the distinct collegium. Data base hugging, as Berner Lee calls it, is caused by fear, necessity, and the desire to name brand or profit from an investment in the time and effort it took to make the database. My department does not have virtual reference or even a Facebook page. I asked if I could make one. I learned that the department assigned three people to a committee who could not agree on what should go on the Facebook page or who would be responsible for updating it, so it was put aside. You can call the reference desk in my department, and people do, and a librarian will call you back or email you. So perhaps a more elaborate 24/7 wiki is not necessary. Well, change comes slowly. It will take years to digitize all the documents identified for this fate. More likely, technology and social behavior will force changes. For example, people who use maps professionally all use GIS with overlays to make their own maps and GPS for directions. The paper maps collection is now demoted to an undergraduate teaching tool set, a necessity to train geography students to read maps and draw them without the aid of automatic data driven tools. Other than that, they are quaint, art, or a format sought by old folks or historians seeking information about the past. Alas, poor New Yoric, I knew him well. I could make a DNA profile from the skull and maybe even clone from some bio matter. If we all use the new HTML language, our behavior will make it dominate other code, and it will succeed. If we continue to use earlier coding for our websites, perhaps languages will overlap, versions will disappear slowly. Like Homo Sapiens and CroMagnons mating in France, we have some period of transition before all traces of difference disappear.

Internet futures-Posting #4

This module had ideas that made me excited for the future of the Internet, but also made me feel like a bit of a Luddite. Berner-Lee’s idea of Lucy the agent, in the Metz article, would be a great way to save time by having the semantic web take care of the minutiae of life. Instead of being tied to a phone or stuck in an IM, trying to make and change appointments, I could concentrate on homework. My concern is the users that would have Lucy do the homework as well. The convenience of the semantic web and its agents would allow users to spend time on more important things. What would those things be? Would users spend the time saved to make great inventions, spend time with friends and family, make a contribution to society, or just lie on the couch and watch TV?
I would have been great able to shop for my house on the 3D web, however, I would not have traded travel and museum visits for a computerized 3D version.

I found Berner-Lee’s idea of linked relational data having the power to cure medical and economic problems inspiring. PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, a medical database US National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health now requires all recipients of NIH grants must publish in PubMed http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html. This is an example of how linked relational data can be combined to make a sum that is greater than its parts. On the flipside, I find the Amazon recommendations annoying and often incorrect http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=13316081. If I buy an odd gift for someone, the recommendation to purchase similar items pops up for quite some time. I find Pandora http://www.pandora.com/corporate/ more accurate. However, Pandora has a large human input. Still, though it can lead me to things that are similar to what I already like, where is the discovery of music I never knew existed, and would therefore never know I liked? It would not lead me to the steel drum or Andean CDs I purchased from some street musicians. I enjoy both, but they are nothing like anything else I own. I wonder if a complete reliance on a future semantic web will stifle creativity, despite the intent to do the opposite. Maybe I just read Orwell, Bradbury, and Huxley too many times in my youth!