Questions for 22 Feb.

Brookshear

Rating: 4

1)  Are lossless systems always the best way to go? If not, when should lossy systems take precedence? What conditions need to exist in order for the lost information to be acceptable?

2) Perhaps I misunderstood something, but isn’t the “commit point” the end of a process? Instead of saying a process has reached the commit point why do we not simply say a process is complete?

3) What are the advantages and disadvantages to indexed filing and hash systems? How can we determine which one works more efficiently in a given situation? Is one always better than the other? Is on usually better than the other?

DT Larose

Rating: 4

1)  Larose says that data mining cannot run itself and there is a need for human supervision over any data mining project. Will this always be the case? Computers are getting smarter all the time right? So will they ever reach the point where they can perform data mining tasks on their own?

2) One of the fallacies related to data mining put forth in the reading is that data mining quickly pay for itself most, if not all, of the time. Is there any way to predict when this will occur?

3) For case study #4 there was no real deployment stage. Does there need to be deployment for a data mining project to have value? Which of the other stages might be skipped over any how would that affect the value of data mining?

Wayner

Rating: 3

1)  How do you balance the need for greater compression with the need for stability? On pg 20 of chapter two we read that variable length coding can really compress a file a lot, but it is also very fragile. Maybe we can give up some of the space compressed if we get a little more stability. But give up too much compression and we have to ask ourselves if the compression is worth it in the first place. What is the balance?

Questions for Feb 15

Bates

Rating: 2

1)  If I were to perform a study where I examined how various people perceive the concept of a chair, would my perception of the results fall under the Information 2 definition since I’m assigning a pattern to other people’s perception? Or would I need to develop an additional definition since I’m now making a pattern of the patterns generated by others?

2)  Isn’t the phrase “given meaning” redundant in Bates’ definition of knowledge? The definition is “Information given meaning and integrated with other contents of understanding.” Bates explains that the word ‘Information’ here refers to her definition of “Information 2,” which is “some pattern of organization of matter and energy that has been given meaning by a living being.” So, an extended definition of knowledge could be made by substituting in the definition of information 2 where the word ‘information’ occurs in the definition of knowledge. This results in the following definition of knowledge: Some pattern of organization of matter and energy that has been given meaning by a living being given meaning and integrated with other contents of understanding. The second “given meaning” seems redundant. Wouldn’t it make more sense for Bates’ definition of knowledge to simply be “Information integrated with other contents of understanding?”

3)    Bates says that information does not exist on its own plane of existence but in the physical realm. Yet information is not matter or energy, it is the pattern of matter and/or energy. Given this, how does Bates feel about information-as-thing? Would she classify the pattern mentioned in her definition as an object or thing?

Buckland

Rating: 3

1)  Buckland says that words like ‘document’ and ‘documentation’ shouldn’t be limited to refer only to texts but should be much broader in scope. What is the advantage of broadening these terms in the fashion? If we were to have ‘document’ and ‘documentation’ be limited to texts, but add new vocabulary to refer to objects that perform similar functions but have different compositions (like artifacts, or antelopes) would the extra vocabulary be too cumbersome? Or would it allow us to easily qualify and categorize information-giving objects?

2)  Some of the documentalists hold that in order to be classified as a document an object must have a certain intent. It could be intended as evidence or intended as communication but the intent must be there. How do these documentalists determine intent? Is it the intent of the creator they have in mind? Or perhaps the intent of the user? If I create a clay bowl with no intent of communication or evidence – I just want a bowl – but 100 years later that bowl is in a museum, is that a document? How about if I paint my history on the bowl intending to communicate, but 100 years later nobody cares about my object and it is hidden away in a closet somewhere – is that a document?

3)  Buckland touches lightly on the implications the word ‘document’ has on digital objects. Which of the documentalists’ views would best translate to a digital environment? What adaptations, if any, would need to be made to their definition of a document in order for the transition to digital to function? 

Harper et al.

Rating: 3

1)  According to Harper et al. when Microsoft was contemplating WinFS as a possible new OS one of the reasons this didn’t happen was because legacy systems often had little or no metadata. The authors go on to suggest that one of the big ways forward is to rethink the role of metadata. What are some ways that implementation of this concept – rethinking the role of metadata – could avoid the same problem faced by WinFS?

2)  They end with phrases like “Much more needs to be done” and “Whatever future work does need undertaking – and there is [sic] obviously plenty of opportunities here.” Why don’t they elaborate on the direction future research should take? I know this isn’t a lit review, but to leave it by saying there is much to do but I can’t list any of it feels empty. So I guess my question is: What else is there to do? How best can we proceed with developing a new abstraction and a new grammar of action?

3)  They talk about the need for people to have the right to delete or own their digital works, or to manage copies being made – and I agree. But should the creator of a work be allowed to do anything they like with their work and not have any consequences to their rights? If I build a sculpture in downtown Austin, then later decide I want to “delete” my sculpture, should I be able to demand that anyone who snapped a photo (create a copy) of it erase the picture?  The creator of a work has the choice to post that work on social media, and by making that choice they are electing to give up certain rights tied to the work (most, if not all, social media sites include language for this in their terms of use). What motivation does Facebook have of saying “Sure, we’ll disseminate your content to the entire world for you for free! You go ahead and keep all rights tied to that content.”? Would a record label or book publisher make that kind of offer? No! So why should social media be different?

Questions for Feb. 8

Eppler and Mengis questions

Rating: 4

1) Does Information technology cause more problems than it solves? It seems to cause a lot of information overload, but there are also obvious benefits to using, say, email. Do these benefits outweigh the drawbacks? How does the implementation of countermeasures to fight information overload affect the issue?

2)Are the publication timeline figures useful for future research? They are only partial pictures of what is being written since they don’t contain “all the articles per field and show all the references to other overload articles” (337). How can the reader be sure that Eppler and Mengis are not missing out on a larger number of relavant articles that would change the conclusions one might reach by consulting the figures?

3)When it comes to symptoms Eppler and Mengis are really only concerned with how the symptom affects decision accuracy, decision time, and general performance. Why might they have focused on these issues and for whom are these the “correct” issues on which to focus? What groups might be interested in other symptoms like cognitive stress or low job satisfaction?

Attwood et al. questions

Rating:5

1)Looking at figure 12, isn’t it possible that by linking all of the existing information together you increase information overload instead of decrease it? The page on the right looks so busy that it would be hard to concentrate on the text. And besides making it more difficult to read you are opening the door to scads of other online sources. Sure you have access to all kinds of related articles and databases, but if there are too many of those it will be all too easy to drown in a sea of digital content.  How can we create something that forms the types of interconnections Attwood talks about without falling into the trap of feeding our readers a drink from the fire hose?

2) Many groups have already begun creating their own standards or ontologies to deal with the issues raised in this article. If we could get all interested parties to agree that universal standards are needed how do we determine which system is best? I think about the layout of our keyboards today – they aren’t even close to being the most efficient layout, but back when competing typewriter companies were hawking different keyboard configurations QWERTY somehow won out. How can this be prevented for online standards?

3) Eppler and Mengis talk about causes, symptoms, and countermeasures for information overload and how the three are related. Attwood’s article deals with countermeasures needed to combat information overload. How would Eppler and Mengis view these countermeasures? How would they say the countermeasures proposed by Attwood affect the causes of information overload?

Paul and Baron questions

Rating:2

1)The new era of writing technology discussed in the article is compared to the importance of the emergence of the printing press. The printing press allowed the renaissance and the reformation – what cultural revolutions are facilitated by the digital age? Do these revolutions overall have a more positive or negative effect on our civilization?

2)Obviously, when large amounts of information (such as millions of emails) are involved in litigation there must be some way to sift through it to find relavant information. If we turn to statistical sampling, however, the problem arises that important evidence may be missed. Should this happen and that evidence comes to light after the court proceedings have concluded how do we deal with the resulting dilemma? There could have been evidence not included in the case that would have changed the outcome.

3)Would products like those described in the Attwood article be of benefit here? What legal issues would be raised if we were to create a technology that would link all emails generated by the White House relating to the same topic?

Questions for Feb. 1

Buckland questions

Rating: 4

1) Buckland claims that whether a document, data, object, or event is informational is dependent upon the cirucumstances surrounding the document, data, object, or event. But lacking any context don’t objects, documents, etc still provide information about themselves? Would we be better off saying that whether a document, data, etc. is usefully informational is situational?

2) If we accept that information-as-thing is a Tangible Entity as in Buckland’s figure 1 then how do we classify information that comes from intangible sources? For example, when we feel emotion we receive information. But apprehension or glee or faith or whatever - these are not tangible objects or documents.

3) Are all information-as-thing items information by consensus? For example, is a phone book only informative because people agree that it is?

Capurro and Hjorland questions

Rating:3

1) Capurro and Hjorland suggest that rather than focusing on defining the term “information” it would be more beneficial for the IS field to look at the meaning of words like “signs,” “texts,” and “knowledge” (p. 350). If we accept this view shouldn’t we change the name of the field to Knowledge Science? Or Textual Science? How can we claim to be part of Information Science without bothering to define information?

2) Capurro cites himself for a work he did evaluating information's meaning throughout history. How does studying a word’s history or etymology help us understand its meaning today? Why does it matter how Virgil, or Plato, or Augustine used the word information? What do these writings tell us about the word’s meaning in our modern culture?

3) Capurro and Hjorland talk a lot about looking at various definitions of information from multiple fields. What are some of the differences between information in the arts & humanities and information in the sciences? Does the definition from one group more closely relate to information as we see it in the iSchool than the other? Do we combine these disparate definitions or maintain them as separate entities that are dealt with independent of each other?