I am asking around on different mailing lists to gain some insight into the archiving habits of linguists who use lexical databases. I am specifically interested in databases created by tools like FLEx, ToolBox, Lexus, TshwaneLex, etc.
Katja and I had afternoon hot chocolate today. we talked about her work at school. She is learning about typography and letter height. Worm line, grass line, airplane line and cloud line. I showed her some of my work and some of the font things I’ve done and the font book we have here in the house.
I am looking for some examples of MARC records for journal articles, and for chapters of books. I see lots of MARC records for ISSN (whole journals). I am also looking for MARC records for proceedings or edited volumes but I am not finding journal article, chapters of edited volumes, or proceedings papers/chapters. I'm looking for the kinds of fields they use (fingerprints of the data structure). I see that this has been an acknowledged issue via MARC Discussion Paper 2003-DP01. https://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-dp01.html That discussion paper points to MARC fields which are documented here. I also see that OCLC has a page that talks about these issues in section 3.2: https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/specialcataloging.html
I also realize that these are resource types which are generally not cataloged at the library level, and hence the research question... I'm looking for ways that MARC can be used as a data storage format for these resources.
I have two categorical questions as I am working through LCSH related work part of my cataloging course in my MS-LS degree.
In the case of Gender Identity and sexual orientation based terms, there seems to be an over specification on some terms and an underspecification on contrastive terms. I would like to know if I am reading the assumptions correctly.
For example: There is a LCSH term for Flight Attendants. However, there is also a term for Gay Flight Attendants. Linguistically, this split (marked and unmarked) seems fairly common. So my questions are:
1. Am I to understand that the LCSH term "Flight Attendants" excludes "Gay Flight Attendants", or am I to assume that Flight Attendants is a super-ordinant category one sub-class of which is Gay Flight Attendants (with potentially hundreds other sub-classes left unnamed)?
2. Why were terms related to gender identity and sexual orientation not established as free-floating "modifier terms"? It seems that to be overt about gender identity and sexual orientation in a term one should have "Straight Flight Attendants" to contrast with "Gay Flight Attendants", but the gender identity and sexual orientation literature suggests that this is not a two way distinction so where are all the other terms? Are there minimum requirements for the addition of new terms (15 works or something like that, but then how does one go back and re-classify materials like this)? It seems from an entity management perspective that making Gender Identity terms free-floating allows for the fewest number of entities with the greatest amount of descriptive power. The gender identity and sexual orientation modification pattern applies equally well to the religious identity terms. Consider: "Muslim Flight Attendants".
With regard to #2 above is this the difference between a noun-noun construction and a adjective-noun construction?
As part of its security framework, the University of North Texas (UNT) is rolling out DUO. DUO is a personal device approval system for accessing university leased software-as-service offerings. From a business point of view, if the University needs to verify or limit the use of leased licenses to only registered (qualified) individuals (at the behest of the software leasing agency, or in consequence to possible greater financial liability) then the approach makes sense. Duo falls under a broad category of multi-factor authentication (MFA) tools. Some user must use two communication tools to access some knowledge or digital service. MFA is seen as a "best current practice" in the security field. However, it is, from a user's perspective, perhaps the most annoying addition to our lives. It presumes that one has not only the computer that is trying to access the service but also that the person has a cell-based mobile device, and that that device is currently connected to a larger network. It is not clear to me that DUO is not actively recording and reporting other neighboring bluetooth devices as facebook's apps have been reported to do. That is, the security leak that DUO has the potential to be is perhaps just as much as the risk to networks with single factor authentication. The exact technical nature of DUO's "verification" process are not transparent. I have been using DUO at the University of Oregon for over a year.
when they will dispose of the information submitted on the form.
A student's SSN is part of the federally protected student information and is in general a valuable piece of information to have. Requesting the SSN via a website after a student has already been admitted to the University seems like it opens the University up for a targeted attack on that particular web application. This process put the SSN in the realm of data-in-transit where previously the SSN was only data-at-rest. The clever attacker would not try to spoof DUO or access the UNT network, but rather sniff the data in transit as it is communicated for the purposes of creating an authentication system. Reporting my SSN for the process of creating a DUO account was not necessary when I made my DUO account at the University of Oregon.
When I called the UNT IT office to ask about this I was put in a hold que by an automated answering service and then the automated service terminated the call without a response from me.
I took Katja to climb South Sister. We made our attempt on September 17th. We left Eugene on the 16th and camped on OR-126. Made it to the Dee Wight observatory for sunrise.
Took a stop in Bend at the grocery store for yogurt for breakfast.
I wasn't sure if we were going to summit and down in one day or if we were going to camp around Moraine Lake and summit the next day. The camping area on T36 and the trail to Moraine Lake is slightly out of the wind but has lots of prickly grass. Not a super smooth place to camp.
We started up TR36.1, joined TR36 and marched to the top — almost. We started at about 5500 feet elevation and ended just at about 8,000 feet with a distance round trip trek of about 3.84 miles one way (7.68 miles round trip). Great work for a 7 year-old! I need to bring us gloves next time and more food and more water. Finding a backpack for her would be awesome and take some of the weight off of my shoulders. She needs shoes that tie rather than velcro shoes.
In my upgrade process I want to make sure that I am also able to use Zotero with my workflow and either use a remarkable tablet or a boox tablet. Here are some links in that direction:
https://michael.mior.ca/blog/zotero-remarkable-sync/ BOOX Note Air Set With Free Accessories