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.
Some days I just don't like Endnote any more. In the past I have used a combination of Endnote and Papers2. A few years ago I wrote a review of Endnote X4 for Mac and I thought that I would go back and take a look at what I thought about that review and the new version of Endnote 8.
Keep in mind that I have over 8,500 references in my Endnote file. My biggest complaints are:
It is slow.
There still is no keyboard short cut for importing a reference.
The "detect duplicates" script does not allow one to exit successfully prior to completing all the items in your detected duplicate list. (Which for some might be very long, and cause the script to crash!)
There is no mechanism in the collections area to browse by Journal or Book series.
When looking at a reference, there is no clear way to determine if it is in one of several collections (including in the check for duplicate script).
There does not seem to be an export style for exporting to bibJSON. (I might be creating one soon).
No auto suggest for missing citation metadata.
for me, Endnote, when importing citations which contain a relative link to a PDF on my machine, does not actually import the PDF to an endnote managed folder. I want all my PDFs in one place. And if they are not in the Endnote managed folder I want a visual indication that they are outside the Endnote data folder.
These are my observations as I try and work with Endnote (and have over the last few months). For me, Papers2 (I haven't bought Papers3) nailed the interaction around PDF management and citation management, from a User Experience perspective. Papers2 just didn't have the custom Fields necessary for me.
I wanted to use SIL's CharisSIL font but it is not available via Google Fonts as a web font (but other SIL fonts are: Andika, Gentium Basic, and Gentium Book Basic). So I had to use SIL's down-loadable version and host it locally.
FontSquirrel is really a great way to look at the base characters in a font. But it does not show renditions of glyphs comprised of bases and combining diacritics.
I have recently been reading the blog of Martin Fenner and came upon the article Personal names around the world Martin Fenner. 14 August 2011. Personal names around the world. PLoS Blog Network. http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2011/08/14/personal-names-around-the-world . [Accessed: 16 September 2011]. [Link] . His post is in fact a reflection on a W3C paper on Personal Names around the WorldSeveral other reflections are here: http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Personal_names (same title). This is apparently coming out of the i18n effort and is an effort to help authors and database designers make informed decisions about names on the web.
I read Martin’s post with some interest because in Language Documentation getting someone’s name as a source or for informed consent is very important (from a U.S. context). Working in a archive dealing with language materials, I see lot of names. One of the interesting situations which came to me from an Ecuadorian context was different from what I have seen in the w3.org paper or in the w3.org discussion. The naming convention went like this:
The elder was known by the younger’s name plus a relationship.
My suspicion is that it is a taboo to name the dead. So to avoid possibly naming the dead, the younger was referenced and the the relationship was invoked. This affected me in the archive as I am supposed to note who the speaker is on the recordings. In lue of the speakers name, I have the young son’s first name, who is well known in the community, and is in his 30’s or so, and I have the relationship. So in English this might sound like John’s mother. Now what am I supposed to put in the metadata record for the audio recordings I am cataloging? I do not have a name but I do have a relationship to a known (to the community) person.
I inquired with a literacy consultant who has worked in Ecuador with indigenous people for some years, she informed me that in one context she was working in everyone knew what family line they were from and all the names were derived from that family line by position. It was of such that to call someone by there name was an insult.
It sort of reminds me of this sketch by Fry and Laurie.