88 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2022
    1. "PDF is where documents go to die. Once something is in PDF, it's like a roach motel for data."

      —Chris Pratley, Microsoft Office's general manager (in TechRadar, 2012)

      obvious bias here on part of Pratley...

      Oddly, even if this were true, I'm not seeing patterns in the wild by which Microsoft products are helping to dramatically accelerate the distribution and easy ability to re-use data within documents. Perhaps its happening within companies or organizations to some extent, but it's not happening within the broader commons of the internet.


      If .pdfs are where information goes to die, then perhaps tools like Hypothes.is are meant to help resurrect that information?

    1. History and Foundations of Information Science

      This series of books focuses on the historical approach or theoretical approach to information science and seeks a broader interpretation of what we consider as information (i.e., information is in the eye of the beholder, be it sets of data, scholarly publications, works of art, material objects, or DNA samples), and an emphasis upon how people access and interact with this information.

      https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/series/history-and-foundations-information-science

    1. OCLC began automated catalog card production in 1971, when the shared cataloging system first went online. Cardproduction increased to its peak in 1985, when OCLC printed 131 million. At peak production, OCLC routinelyshipped 8 tons of cards each week, or some 4,000 packages. Card production steadily decreased since then asmore and more libraries began replacing their printed cards with electronic catalogs. OCLC has printed more than1.9 billion catalog cards since 1971.
  2. Jun 2022
    1. Encyclopedia of Library and Information ScienceVolume 29 - Stanford University Libraries to System AnalysisBy Allen Kent, Harold Lancour, Jay E. Daily

      Contains significant section on SYNTOL.

  3. May 2022
    1. The biggest mistake—and one I’ve made myself—is linking with categories. In other words, it’s adding links like we would with tags. When we link this way we’re more focused on grouping rather than connecting. As a result, we have notes that contain many connections with little to no relevance. Additionally, we add clutter to our links which makes it difficult to find useful links when adding links. That being said, there are times when we might want to group some things. In these cases, use tags or folders.

      Most people born since the advent of the filing cabinet and the computer have spent a lifetime using a hierarchical folder-based mental model for their knowledge. For greater value and efficiency one needs to get away from this model and move toward linking individual ideas together in ways that they can more easily be re-used.

      To accomplish this many people use an index-based method that uses topical or subject headings which can be useful. However after even a few years of utilizing a generic tag (science for example) it may become overwhelmed and generally useless in a broad search. Even switching to narrower sub-headings (physics, biology, chemistry) may show the same effect. As a result one will increasingly need to spend time and effort to maintain and work at this sort of taxonomical system.

      The better option is to directly link related ideas to each other. Each atomic idea will have a much more limited set of links to other ideas which will create a much more valuable set of interlinks for later use. Limiting your links at this level will be incredibly more useful over time.

      One of the biggest benefits of the physical system used by Niklas Luhmann was that each card was required to be placed next to at least one card in a branching tree of knowledge (or a whole new branch had to be created.) Though he often noted links to other atomic ideas there was at least a minimum link of one on every idea in the system.

      For those who have difficulty deciding where to place a new idea within their system, it can certainly be helpful to add a few broad keywords of the type one might put into an index. This may help you in linking your individual ideas as you can do a search of one or more of your keywords to narrow down the existing ones within your collection. This may help you link your new idea to one or more of those already in your system. This method may be even more useful and helpful for those who are starting out and have fewer than 500-1000 notes in their system and have even less to link their new atomic ideas to.

      For those who have graphical systems, it may be helpful to look for one or two individual "tags" in a graph structure to visually see the number of first degree notes that link to them as a means of creating links between atomic ideas.

      To have a better idea of a hierarchy of value within these ideas, it may help to have some names and delineate this hierarchy of potential links. Perhaps we might borrow some well ideas from library and information science to guide us? There's a system in library science that uses a hierarchical set up using the phrases: "broader terms", "narrower terms", "related terms", and "used for" (think alias or also known as) for cataloging books and related materials.

      We might try using tags or index-like links in each of these levels to become more specific, but let's append "connected atomic ideas" to the bottom of the list.

      Here's an example:

      • broader terms (BT): [[physics]]
      • narrower terms (NT): [[mechanics]], [[dynamics]]
      • related terms (RT): [[acceleration]], [[velocity]]
      • used for (UF) or aliases:
      • connected atomic ideas: [[force = mass * acceleration]], [[$$v^2=v_0^2​+2aΔx$$]]

      Chances are that within a particular text, one's notes may connect and interrelate to each other quite easily, but it's important to also link those ideas to other ideas that are already in your pre-existing body of knowledge.


      See also: Thesaurus for Graphic Materials I: Subject Terms (TGM I) https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tgm1/ic.html

  4. Apr 2022
    1. The book was reviewed in all major magazines and newspapers, sparking what historian Ronald Kline has termed a “cybernetics craze,” becoming “a staple of science fiction and a fad among artists, musicians, and intellectuals in the 1950s and 1960s.”

      This same sort of craze also happened with Claude Shannon's The Mathematical Theory of Information which helped to bolster Weiner's take.

  5. Feb 2022
  6. Jan 2022
    1. https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2022-01-14/a-spanish-data-scientists-strategy-to-win-99-of-the-time-at-wordle.html

      Story of a scientist trying to optimize for solutions of Wordle.

      Nothing brilliant here. Depressing that the story creates a mythology around algorithms as the solution rather than delving in a bit into the math and science of information theory to explain why this solution is the correct one.

      Desperately missing from the discussion are second and third order words that would make useful guesses to further reduce the solution space for actual readers.

  7. Dec 2021
  8. Nov 2021
  9. Oct 2021
  10. Sep 2021
  11. Aug 2021
  12. Jun 2021
  13. May 2021
  14. Apr 2021
  15. Mar 2021
    1. The question, 'What is library and information science?' does not elicit responses of the same internal conceptual coherence as similar inquiries as to the nature of other fields, e.g., 'What is chemistry?', 'What is economics?', 'What is medicine?' Each of those fields, though broad in scope, has clear ties to basic concerns of their field. [...] Neither LIS theory nor practice is perceived to be monolithic nor unified by a common literature or set of professional skills. Occasionally, LIS scholars (many of whom do not self-identify as members of an interreading LIS community, or prefer names other than LIS), attempt, but are unable, to find core concepts in common
    2. Some believe that computing and internetworking concepts and skills underlie virtually every important aspect of LIS, indeed see LIS as a sub-field of computer science!
    1. Documentation science gradually developed into the broader field of information science.
    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 5). In 4 days: SciBeh workshop ‘Building an online information environment for policy relevant science’ Join us! Topics: Crisis open science, interfacing to policy, online discourse, tools for research curation talks, panels, hackathons https://t.co/SPeD5BVgj3… I https://t.co/kQClhpHKx5 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1324286406764744704

  16. Feb 2021
  17. Dec 2020
  18. Oct 2020
  19. Sep 2020
  20. Aug 2020
  21. Jul 2020
  22. Jun 2020
  23. May 2020
  24. Apr 2020
    1. Dorison, C., Lerner, J. S., Heller, B. H., Rothman, A., Kawachi, I. I., Wang, K., … Coles, N. A. (2020, April 16). A global test of message framing on behavioural intentions, policy support, information seeking, and experienced anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sevkf

  25. Nov 2019
    1. Science sorely needs best practices in visual communication as well as in information design, a mature field with quantitative methods.

      Visual communication has scientifically proven grounds; it is not just some obscur magic from an artistic genius

  26. Apr 2019
  27. Mar 2019
    1. This link is for the Association of Information Science and Technology. While many of the resources are available only to those who are association members, there are a great many resources to be found via this site. Among the items available are their newsletter and their journal articles. As the title suggests, there is a technology focus, and also a focus on scientific findings that can guide instructional designers in the presentation and display of visual and textual information, often but not exclusively online. Instructional designers are specifically addressed via the content of this site. A student membership is available. Rating 5/5

  28. Jun 2016
    1. If the RRID is well-formed, and if the lookup found the right record, a human validator tags it a valid RRID — one that can now be associated mechanically with occurrences of the same resource in other contexts. If the RRID is not well-formed, or if the lookup fails to find the right record, a human validator tags the annotation as an exception and can discuss with others how to handle it. If an RRID is just missing, the validator notes that with another kind of exception tag.

      Sounds a lot like the way reference managers work. In many cases, people keep the invalid or badly-formed results.

  29. Nov 2015
    1. Les représentants de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) annoncèrent leur objectif de ramener le délai de traitement des documents à six semaines en moyenne

      C’était long, en 2002! Où en est la BnF, aujourd’hui? D’une certaine façon, ce résumé semble prédire la venue des données, la fédération des catalogues, etc. Pourtant, il semble demeurer de nombreux obstacles, malgré tout ce temps. Et si on pouvait annoter le Web directement?