I was looking up some resources for making a violin in my area. Violinorum says there are three, one in salem and two in portland. I want to make three violins.
Paul is writing Timothy. I interpreted text as theoretical. Paul lays out some classes (groups) and some ways to define those classes. However, what if these abstract ways are really an abstract (depersonalized) way of describing a specific situation. Then when Timothy receives the letter the advice is specific, it is actionable, and clear.
From time to time, I read about the advancement of pythons in the Florida Everglades. Pythons are an introduced species without a predator in this context. This is deemed to be bad for biodiversity in the region. It is also predicted that the population will continue to expand north. One thing I haven’t read about is the use of traps based on pheromone attraction. It seems that such traps could work for snakes of a specific gender.
Various approaches to metadata quality assessment divide the assessment criteria into sections. For example accuracy,consistency, and completeness. However, one should ask if a quantitative approach to metadata quality assessment is better than a qualitative approach. Some may point out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and therefore not in direct competition with each other. However, I wonder if this is true. For example, if one has limited reading time does one benefit more from reading the percentage of errors relative to another error type or does one learn more by reading about the assumed noncompliance or disharmony across metadata records?
The second point in suggesting that a qualitative description of metadata quality might be better that a quantitative description is related to root causes — presumably the purposes of the investigation in the first place.
It seems to me that a quantitative approach makes the data the discussion and ignores the methods by which the data got into the observed format. For example, what were the human factors under which the metadata was produced? What was the workflow? What was the target metadata scheme at the time the records were created? What was the management implemented checking process, i.e. what were they checking for, or their metrics for success?
A qualitative analysis can show where the current process meets the management considerations. Essentially this is problem-solution fit analysis, where metadata quality is a trailing performance indicator for business processes. However, it gets interesting here because the prevailing thought is that metadata is also the way that a customers are serviced through the organization. That is, it is like a loss-leader product in that it is a product to get a customer to the main product.
Purely quantitative analysis simply announces that issues exist within a relative order. It doesn’t seek to explain the short comings using a contextual analysis.
Some years ago, scholars were debating the definition of collection. In an archival sense, and the more traditional sense, a collection refers to a direct or accumulating set of resources. In a library sense a collection may wax and wane depending on the Curation of the collection. So what is a digital collection? Especially in an aggregator of metadata?
To this question I have given some thought. The DCMIType “collection” is ambiguous on this point. Aggregations seem not to be the same as “collection” in that they are continuously updating, and may be different for different viewers! However, essentially this is the same definition that is used in libraries.
After about a year and a half of thinking about this traveling point how to do it I think I have a solution. Aggregations such as those through OAI or RSS, are not collections at all. Rather, aggregations are a view through a dynamic access point. RDA and IFLA – LRM are two models that use the concept of access points. Aggregations, in this sense of access point, our temporary applications of an access point to a resource. In RDA and IFLA – LRM these access points are hard coded on the record. This need not be the case all the time in an information retrieval system. Information retrial system can have there own coded access points independent of the data they are operation on. In this way the information retrieval system might mitigate the possible limits in the information structure of the information being retrieved. It validates the autonomy of the information retrieval system from the information.
This sort of solution preserves the definition of collection bringing sanity to the concept of collection.
As a kid I remember getting many fillings. Also remember distinct visits to the dentist where my brother screamed. It seemed cavities were a part of life.
When I was in the 5th grade I lived on a dairy farm. More importantly our back yard was a courtyard which was a covered liquid drain pool for faeces and urine. We had five kids in the family at that time but our rate of acquiring ear infections, streptococcus, bronchitis, and sinus infections was, as I recall, high. It might have been the environment, but it was also true that we passed the illnesses from child to child.
One day that same brother who screamed years earlier at the dentist, piped up and said: we keep getting sick because we share toothpaste. Even if we have separate toothbrushes, sharing toothpaste is a common point of contact. After that our parents bought us each our own toothpaste and we did see some lower rates of illness.
Separate toothpaste sources is more than a flavor choice in my family. We don’t drink after each other and we do try not to use the same toothpaste source to reduce the number of vectors available for spreading illnesses across our family.
When in was in Highschool one of my classmates’s dad was a pediatric dentist. He told me that one way to think about carries was as a communicable disease. Since it was caused by a bacteria, it could spread. This has also helped the thinking in our house.
This year we are celebrating 10 child-years with no dental carries! We have a 7 year old and a 3 year old. I brush their teeth 3-4 times a week, with other supplemental brushing on their own. I use the oral-b brush in the photo because it has reduced my gum inflammation due to over brushing with manual brushes.
The dental hygiene collection.
These factors, along with a high yogurt, no-high fructose corn syrup, no-candy, no-soda diet has so-far pushed us into a more healthy oral hygiene situation for my kids than for me when I was a kid.
