Search This Blog

Tuesday, 28 January 2014

Natural language processing

Hi LARKs,

I have recently written a review for ALIA's InCite magazine about Natural Language Processing (NLP). I based it on two blog posts by Swets:

S.M. Das (2013, December 3). Natural language processing (NLP) and academic literature search (Part 1) [blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.swets.com/blog/natural-language-processing-nlp-and-academic-literature-search-part-i#close

S.M. Das (2013, December 17). NLP in academic literature search (Part 2) [blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.swets.com/blog/nlp-in-academic-literature-search-part-ii#.UtyexCiZ420

If you haven't heard of NLP before, or if you have heard about it but don't know 'exactly' what it entails, I would encourage you to read the posts.  They are written in very accessible language for something fairly technical, with hyperlinks within the text taking you to similarly easy to understand articles/explanations (and some more detailed ones!).  I'll post my review here as soon as I am able (after it has been published), but I'd be interested to hear what other people think of the future of NLP and the semantic web/semantic search.

Kind regards,
Katherine


Katherine Howard is a PhD student at Queensland University of Technology

Thursday, 23 January 2014

Date for your diary



The LARK Committee met yesterday to discuss our first event this year. It’s too early to tell you everything, but we can say this – if you wish to lift your research project off the ground, network and collaborate, you need to put this date in your diary:
1 May, 6-8 pm at St.Vincent’s College, Potts Point (Sydney)

Easy to remember - May Day for a LARK Meetup.

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

ALIA group LARK



Suzana Sukovic
 
LARK is very happy to announce that we are now part of ALIA (Australian Library and Information Association). Our group page is at http://alia.org.au/groups/alia-lark

We now have the LARK Committee. The members will be introduced very soon. In the meantime, I can say that we have some nice plans up our sleeves and are ready to start putting them in place from January.

I would also like to invite you, my kind reader, to join our mailing list if you haven’t done so and, very importantly, to try your writing ideas on the blog. Any topic related to LIS research is welcome – an interesting study, insights from research, opinions about research education, and anything you think is relevant. Just send them to lark.kollektive@gmail.com.

Saturday, 23 November 2013

Virtual smell, transliterate world

By Suzana Sukovic

The smell of the latest muffin recipe from my Mufficious group is emitting from my phone screen so deliciously - you can almost bite into that picture. I’ll certainly try the recipe tonight. But I better check the minutes of our last meeting! My project group is meeting in the library in ten minutes. Today we have an older local resident chosen from our people database coming to talk with us. I am looking forward to meeting him as well as Hildur from Iceland who is joining us for the first time. Her preservation work sounds so interesting. Misha will pop in towards the end of the meeting with some fantastic wood samples he found on the ‘Almost real’ (it’s funny Misha is still called ‘librarian’ - the last time he touched a book was a year ago, he said).  Such a nice mix of languages in our group – always a good time to practise my Chinese and check the latest translation software. My Chinese is getting so much better since I can listen to Wong and look at the translation in a real conversation. I’ll stick with the voiceover for Maria. This new app promises to have Maria’s Spanish translated in the most believable English voiceover for me. I can catch up with Karen after the meeting. Maybe we can try that new Mayan chocolate drink in the library.  




Nuno de Matos calligraphy works

In this snippet of a future scenario, a multiliterate person processes a range of digital and analogue inputs as she goes through her day. Multisensory experiences, collaboration, a range of media and shifting cultural contexts are all part of everyday living. There is a growing recognition in different professional circles that people will increasingly require an ability to work in multiple contexts with a variety of media and, most importantly, in collaboration. A proliferation of literacy models in recent years arises from a need to capture the complexity of skills required in new environments. A number of LIS authors feel that a well-established and important framework of information literacy needs to explicitly include skills relevant for online collaboration and communication.

Transliteracy has become a bit of a buzz word among LIS professionals in the recent years. Alan Liu, an English Professor, initiated the idea of transliteracies at the University of California in relation to online reading (Transliteracies Project). The concept was adopted and taken into a new direction by Sue Thomas, at the time Professor of New Media at De Montfort University in Leicester. Thomas started the Production and Research in Transliteracy (PART) group in 2006. The group discussions resulted in the seminal paper Transliteracy: crossingdivides [i] a year later. In the article, the concept of transliteracy was presented as ‘a unifying perspective on what it means to be literate in the twenty–first century’ and defined as ‘the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks’ (What is transliteracy?, para 1). The behaviour is old, but it has become particularly complex and important in new media environments with collaboration as its most prominent feature. The authors consider ‘media literacy’ and the space where different experiences and formats meet and mix. In order to understand new cultural production, a transliterate analysis is needed to consider the usual ‘how’ and ‘why’ as well as
...the shift in emphasis from static monologue to dynamic dialogue suggested by participatory narratives; the practices and politics of collaboration, particularly when many geographically and linguistically spread authors collaborate simultaneously; and the existence of a “group creativity” or “intelligence”, perhaps as an emergent property of individual creativities or intelligences (Networking the book, para 6).

An ability to shift between different modes and media is central to the concept of transliteracy, which helps us see new behaviours and practices holistically. The authors see transliteracy as a work in progress and conclude the article with an invitation to join the discussions. LIS professionals have responded enthusiastically and extended the discussions in our own field. The hashtag #transliteracy is a good way to join some of the discussions on Twitter.

Metaliteracy is another closely-related concept, promoted by Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson. In their paper Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy[ii], Mackey and Jacobson discuss a need to extend the information literacy framework to explicitly address skills needed for collaborative online environments. A range of ‘literacy frameworks’ such as information, media, digital and visual literacies capture various skill sets. The authors argue
... that a comprehensive understanding of information and related competencies are central to these literacy concepts. This approach is grounded in the idea that emerging technologies are inherently different from print and require active engagement with multiple information formats through different media modalities (p.68).

Information literacy is central to the understanding of metaliteracy, which ‘provides the integral foundation for additional literacy types, recognizing social media environments as active collaborative spaces for accessing and sharing one’s findings’ (p. 70). The authors analyse some specific information skills needed for evaluation, use, creation and publication online. They acknowledge and briefly describe the concept of transliteracy, but they don’t consider the points of difference. It seems that the distinction lies in a focus rather than the content. Transliteracy and metaliteracy both arise from the realisation that current and future information environments require fluency in skills and a unifying perspective in understanding these skills.



[i] Transliteracy: Crossing divides by Sue Thomas, Chris Joseph, Jess Laccetti, Bruce Mason, Simon Mills, Simon Perril, and Kate Pullinger. First Monday, Volume 12 Number 12 - 3 December 2007
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2060/1908

[ii] Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy by Thomas P.Mackey and Trudi E.Jacobson College & Research Libraries, 72.1 (January 2011), 62-78

A version of this article appeared in InCite, Nov-Dec 2013

Friday, 8 November 2013

LARK meeting

Suzana Sukovic

Yesterday LARK had its second meeting ever. The first meeting was a year ago when the group came into existence. Yesterday we met again to touch base and discuss where we are heading. LARK isn’t and shouldn’t be a closed club, said someone in the meeting. The gathering was a case in point. There were some well-known faces for continuity and new ones for a sense of growth. The gathering was small, but there were representatives from different information sectors – school and academic librarians,
vendors and indexers - sharing research interests, concerns and wishes.
It was a most enjoyable evening, but also an opportunity to think about what next. As time passes and LARK develops, I am more and more convinced that research in the profession needs care and a helping hand to grow. On good days, like yesterday, I feel that professional LIS research is ready for a boost.




Join our mailing list and like us on Facebook

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Making a way to the place in future

By Suzana Sukovic
Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldbycycle/

Thanks to Kristina Stoney for her generous permission to reproduce her and Nicolas Arney's beautiful photos.
 
In transition (Turkey)
This week I learnt at some majestic places – NSW Art Gallery, State Library and sandstone buildings of a private college. However, the main part is happening right now as I am trying to make sense of it, writing this blog at my desk – a very modest place of learning.

The week started with the ALIA Future of the Profession summit at the State Library when we tried to work out what the future holds for us, librarians and other information professionals (see #alliafutures on Twitter). On Tuesday, it was the AIS ICT Integrators Conference where we talked about using wonderful digital tools in a meaningful way in education, which refuses to change fast enough (#aisitic). Anne Cutler, Director of Learning at Tate, topped the week with a guest lecture at the NSW Art Gallery.
 
In all these events, we talked about knowledge industries and repeated the same questions: Will we be needed in the future? Where is our place? What do we need to do and how? Professionals in ‘easy target’ industries worry about copping another round of cuts, but it isn’t the only problem. Even doctors wonder whether they’ll treat sick patients in the future, I’d read just before the summit. Democratisation of knowledge enabled by fast developments of ICT has quickly shifted our sacred grounds leaving us slightly insecure on our feet.
 
People working in the knowledge sector have lots of questions and doubts but, fortunately, they also have some (tentative) answers.  Librarians, teachers and curators believe that future knowledge will be shared, collaborative and learner/client-centered. But, where will we be with our professional knowledge, authority, special buildings and artefacts in the culture of Google, Facebook and Wikipedia? There, with people, working as facilitators, we say.
 A key to that shared vision can be described in four points.
 
Checking it out (Casablanca)
1. People, our students and clients, should be trusted to set their own learning agenda. Kristina Stoney (http://ride2learn.org/) travels around the world on her bike and engages students in challenge-based learning. Students choose their challenge and find their answers thriving in the experience, explain their teachers. 

Some community libraries have started people records describing their unique knowledge. Community members can ‘borrow’ a person to talk with them in the library.

‘We are misunderstanding what our public wants from us,’ says Anna Cutler. She wants visitors at Tate to set up their own gallery programs. Young people organised a festival at Tate gathering 20,000 participants who spent hours at the gallery.

People want to learn, to participate and share. We have to allow them to tell us how.
 
Bread tools
2. Our tools and resources are valuable and, often, unique. We need to use them in partnership with other players.

Google doesn’t know everything, but makes an information professional’s job easier, says Mark Pesce. Is this question Googleable? may be the question to filter reference enquiries. Today, a meme has come my way. The joke is about the infamous question Do you have that green book by that famous guy? But, the whole joke is a misunderstanding. The question is legitimate. Librarians have reference interview, knowledge of literature and search tools to answer questions that can’t be searched online, though Google may come handy. Students need teachers to guide them, although YouTube is often better for specifics.
 
Our greatest tools are our mind and professional knowledge.
 
3. Values. What are our values? What do we mean by them? How do implement them? - are questions at the core of a learning transformation at Tate. How do we recognise our values in practice? asks Cutler’s team.
 
Tyre inspection
4. Evidence is crucial for change. In order to answer the questions about values, the Tate team constantly gathers, analyses and shares data looking for evidence that they are on the right track and finding areas for improvement. The title of Cutler’s talk, Changing the refrain: creativity and the idea of learning, suggests a creative change of the learning refrain. But, even a creative change, needs a systematic, evidence-based practice.
 
Schools and libraries don’t talk often about evidence-based change. They tend to be more focused on assessment of what they have always done – How much has the reading improved? Are we getting good HSC scores? How many visitors do we have in library spaces and online? In schools and libraries, we rarely gather evidence to inform change. Perhaps, a lesson is in this point of difference. We should stop waiting for our institutions for instructions and start gathering evidence of a change we want to see and lead. That way, we’ll be a step closer to that future we envisage for our profession.

A good place to start is at our desk.