[2670] Week 2 Reading Responses

Overall themes: interoperability, modularity.

A Framework for Building Open Digital Libraries has me totally sold on the ODL concept and on the extension of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI_PMH) to build every future Digital Library ever. I think it's a great idea; interoperability is a desirable thing. My one critique is that their very simple mock-up and animated gif detracted, a little bit, from the picture they were painting. Perhaps I am unnecessarily picky.

Architecture for Information in Digital Libraries is interesting enough, but I'd love to know what they've done in the last decade. As I was reading, I found myself wondering if the meta-object to object link worked in the opposite direction; that is, whether pulling up an object would pull up a link to its meta-object (for instance, if the object is part of a larger collection). I would think it would come up on the catalog page when a search is done, but I was just surprised not to see them point that out explicitly.

I smiled when I saw that they based RAP on CORBA. That was the big thing, back then. And it stayed big for quite a while; I imagine it's still fairly widely used nowadays, even. (Though I admit, I really don't know. I hear something [neither a protocol nor a language] called "SOA" is in vogue, now, but I don't delve into specifics.)

As I read through Interoperability for Digital Objects and Repositories, I begin to be grateful that our reading list was put in the order it was. They just whip through those acronyms. But I like the structure of their experiment, and I admit, I was holding my breath, a little bit, wondering whether they would find their systems interoperable--even after extending them (if that's the right conjugation of the verb that goes with "extensibility"). Again, I began to get worried, until, finally, in their last paragraph, they mentioned their plan to add access management. (I know if I were curating a DL or DA, I wouldn't want to grant remote locations the ability to add digital objects except in very specific ways.)

I decided that the broken link in Blackboard must have meant to refer to this particular description of the Internet.

I'm pretty familiar with web technology, so I didn't find too much to say about this article. I think he's a little bit overzealous in his defense of Internet-as-proto-DL; the truth lies somewhere between his statements and the statements he derides. There's hope for the 'net, but I could definitely see it going either way, at this point.

(A lighthearted aside: "Recently, attempts have been made to rewrite the history of the Internet ... and for individuals to claim responsibility for achievements that many shared." Hey, now! That quote was taken out of context! He was joking!)

I have another aside, not strictly relevant to this article, but the discussion of Los Alamos brought it to mind. I've seen several articles--including a required reading for Understanding Information--that suggest that the sciences are all progressive, all sharing their information immediately and collaboratively over the Web, but I just don't see it. At least in engineering, which, despite Kuhn's disparagement in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is a subset of "the sciences" (seriously, ask me about my research), we tended to hold our papers--and with it our most recent research results--until a conference accepted them. And then the conferences (really, the IEEE) required that we not post the papers anywhere else. (That's what I recall, anyway.) With conference deadlines being six months or more before the conferences, themselves, I really feel that this "real-time collaboration" people talk about it is not particularly widespread.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm in favor of it. But the current methods of determining tenure, hooding, and so on would have to change significantly before a "share and share alike" system will really become tenable.