Competency E
E. design, query and evaluate information retrieval systems
Introduction
In today’s world, there are so many different types of information retrieval systems that it can become overwhelming. However, knowing how the systems are designed, searched, and evaluated can soften the anxiety. The following paragraphs will show that I am able to build, search, and judge different information retrieval systems
As written, I understand this competency to mean that I can in some ways design an information retrieval system such as a basic database using a product like DBTextwords, or programs such as Excel or Access. The important thing to know about designing a database is who is going to use it. Haycock and Sheldon (2008) write that designing an information retrieval system requires much more than just the overall design (p. 114). I also understand this competency to mean that I can do any sort of searching in any system. I need to know how to not only do searches but do them in an efficient manner. I need to be able to understand and be knowledgeable in search techniques such as Boolean. Tying this all together, I understand this competency to mean that I can evaluate different information retrieval systems, their design, and how they put together search results, as well as, how accurate is the information that is produced.
Since I am becoming an information professional in such a digital age, I define this competency to not only mean that I can design, search, and evaluate traditional information retrieval systems such as library catalogs and databases, but web 2.0 search tools as well like search engines and wikis. While I do not have the computer knowledge to build complicated retrieval systems, I understand the concepts behind them and why they are designed. Knowing this is valuable later on down in the process when I evaluate the system.
Being able to design, search, and evaluate information retrieval systems is important because they are everywhere in the profession. From using a search engine like Google to being able to use a catalog like OCLC CatExpress, using information retrieval systems are a large part of this profession’s sources. Therefore, it is imperative to understand how they work (design and query) and how well they work (evaluate). One of the biggest parts of this competency is the evaluation of information retrieval systems. It is important to be able to evaluate it based not only what information was given (was it relevant and correct?) but how the information was given (was there a page rank?). As Haycock and Sheldon (2008) write, “relevance is found in the same location as beauty—in the eye of the beholder” (p. 123). Consequently, any information professional should be able to evaluate an information retrieval system as well as the information that is gleamed from it, is extremely important to the information profession.
Going into this competency, as I mentioned, I may not have the strongest background in designing information retrieval systems. Therefore, I feel more strongly that I be knowledgeable and confident in being able to search in these systems and evaluate both the system itself and the information that I retrieve from it. “An item retrieved from an information system is relevant if the user believes that it helps to meet his or her information needs” (Rubin, 2004, p. 48). This evaluation of the system and what it gives is important. If I am competent in what competency E says I should be, then I am able to provide information that the users and patrons need and want. Demonstrating knowledge and understanding of competency E will provide me as an information professional the ability to provide quality service to my patrons.
The past years have brought a wealth of new experiences into my life in relation to information retrieval systems. As an undergraduate I gained knowledge and understanding of how many different databases worked and which ones proved the most useful for the topics I worked on, such as JSTOR. While at SJSU, I have learned about several other databases as well as how to design my own in LIBR 202. I have also learned about which databases are useful in an archival setting through LIBR 256. I have had other archival and museum work in information retrieval systems such as working with PastPerfect cataloging historic clothing, as well as through my work in an archive. These works include working with such systems such as the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials from the Library of Congress or The Getty Research Institute’s thesaurus of Geographic Names. All these different tools and training have allowed me to be competent in designing, searching, and evaluating information retrieval systems.
The following paragraphs will produce evidence to show that I have knowledge and competency in information retrieval systems. These pieces include three projects from LIBR 202 and a digital curation assignment that allow me to create my down database of items for preservation and storage.
Evidence
The first piece of evidence that I am providing for the designing part of competency E is the description of a database that I designed, searched, and evaluated for LIBR 202. In this collection I used my childhood collection of stuffed animals. I came up with thirteen characteristics that were both common and uncommon to the collection, meaning that many of the items had characteristics similar to each other as well as unique characteristics. I then came up with thirteen rules for the collection. Each rule had a qualifier that explained how to search the database (put into DBtextworks). Some of the items only had small rules such as a number value, while others, such as clothing were open ended. Designing, executing, and explaining were probably the hardest part of LIBR 202 as I have never before designed a database. However, with the combined reading assignments and patience, I did it. While this database is small, by coming up with my own ideas for a collection, the attributes that should be included, and the rules for searching the database, it demonstrates my understanding how databases are designed as well as executed. I know I have a feel for how and why certain things are both included in databases and why certain things may not be. By using different rules for searching, I have a better understanding how searching works for many different systems and the competency to interpret results.
The second piece of evidence that I am providing for the querying part of competency E is a search write up that I did for LIBR 202 on searching my database. In this assignment I had to search my database using 20 different searches. These also had to include Boolean searches. Knowing how to use Boolean searching is an important part of the nuances of competency E, as well as the profession. Boolean searching is important for information retrieval because it allows a user to narrow “the search and obtaining more precise access to large bodies of knowledge in a much shorter period of time” (Rubin, 2004, p. 85).
The third piece of evidence that I am providing for the evaluation section of competency E is an evaluation of my database that I designed for LIBR 202. For this assignment I had to decide what the patrons would want to use my database for, as well as what questions that would the users would want to ask if they were using it. Finally, I had to list out what the database would do. All these things relate to what Haycock and Sheldon (2008) say the key to evaluation is: retrieving information the way the patron wants and leave out what they do not (p. 123).
The final piece of evidence that I supplying for knowledge and understanding of competency E is a database I created for LIBR 259 Preservation. For this assignment we had to take twelve objects of different technologies such as Word documents, sound files, and video files. We had to describe many different fields such as storage size, how it was created, and when we got it. We also had to do regular backups and describe how we did it and what happened to the file. I am submitting this database because it was designed (after the original fields) by me, it can be searched, and it was evaluated by me. This type of work is important for archives because it can be used to create preservation schedules, searchable by file type.
Conclusion
My evidence and experiences that I have provided here prove that I have the knowledge and understanding of how to design, search, and evaluate information retrieval systems. The understanding of these things is vastly important in the library, archives, and information professions. Knowing how to do these things will allow me to serve my patrons more and be beneficial to the institution that I work for.
References
Haycock, K. and B. Sheldon. (2008). The portable MLIS: insights from the experts. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Rubin, R. E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Introduction
In today’s world, there are so many different types of information retrieval systems that it can become overwhelming. However, knowing how the systems are designed, searched, and evaluated can soften the anxiety. The following paragraphs will show that I am able to build, search, and judge different information retrieval systems
As written, I understand this competency to mean that I can in some ways design an information retrieval system such as a basic database using a product like DBTextwords, or programs such as Excel or Access. The important thing to know about designing a database is who is going to use it. Haycock and Sheldon (2008) write that designing an information retrieval system requires much more than just the overall design (p. 114). I also understand this competency to mean that I can do any sort of searching in any system. I need to know how to not only do searches but do them in an efficient manner. I need to be able to understand and be knowledgeable in search techniques such as Boolean. Tying this all together, I understand this competency to mean that I can evaluate different information retrieval systems, their design, and how they put together search results, as well as, how accurate is the information that is produced.
Since I am becoming an information professional in such a digital age, I define this competency to not only mean that I can design, search, and evaluate traditional information retrieval systems such as library catalogs and databases, but web 2.0 search tools as well like search engines and wikis. While I do not have the computer knowledge to build complicated retrieval systems, I understand the concepts behind them and why they are designed. Knowing this is valuable later on down in the process when I evaluate the system.
Being able to design, search, and evaluate information retrieval systems is important because they are everywhere in the profession. From using a search engine like Google to being able to use a catalog like OCLC CatExpress, using information retrieval systems are a large part of this profession’s sources. Therefore, it is imperative to understand how they work (design and query) and how well they work (evaluate). One of the biggest parts of this competency is the evaluation of information retrieval systems. It is important to be able to evaluate it based not only what information was given (was it relevant and correct?) but how the information was given (was there a page rank?). As Haycock and Sheldon (2008) write, “relevance is found in the same location as beauty—in the eye of the beholder” (p. 123). Consequently, any information professional should be able to evaluate an information retrieval system as well as the information that is gleamed from it, is extremely important to the information profession.
Going into this competency, as I mentioned, I may not have the strongest background in designing information retrieval systems. Therefore, I feel more strongly that I be knowledgeable and confident in being able to search in these systems and evaluate both the system itself and the information that I retrieve from it. “An item retrieved from an information system is relevant if the user believes that it helps to meet his or her information needs” (Rubin, 2004, p. 48). This evaluation of the system and what it gives is important. If I am competent in what competency E says I should be, then I am able to provide information that the users and patrons need and want. Demonstrating knowledge and understanding of competency E will provide me as an information professional the ability to provide quality service to my patrons.
The past years have brought a wealth of new experiences into my life in relation to information retrieval systems. As an undergraduate I gained knowledge and understanding of how many different databases worked and which ones proved the most useful for the topics I worked on, such as JSTOR. While at SJSU, I have learned about several other databases as well as how to design my own in LIBR 202. I have also learned about which databases are useful in an archival setting through LIBR 256. I have had other archival and museum work in information retrieval systems such as working with PastPerfect cataloging historic clothing, as well as through my work in an archive. These works include working with such systems such as the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials from the Library of Congress or The Getty Research Institute’s thesaurus of Geographic Names. All these different tools and training have allowed me to be competent in designing, searching, and evaluating information retrieval systems.
The following paragraphs will produce evidence to show that I have knowledge and competency in information retrieval systems. These pieces include three projects from LIBR 202 and a digital curation assignment that allow me to create my down database of items for preservation and storage.
Evidence
The first piece of evidence that I am providing for the designing part of competency E is the description of a database that I designed, searched, and evaluated for LIBR 202. In this collection I used my childhood collection of stuffed animals. I came up with thirteen characteristics that were both common and uncommon to the collection, meaning that many of the items had characteristics similar to each other as well as unique characteristics. I then came up with thirteen rules for the collection. Each rule had a qualifier that explained how to search the database (put into DBtextworks). Some of the items only had small rules such as a number value, while others, such as clothing were open ended. Designing, executing, and explaining were probably the hardest part of LIBR 202 as I have never before designed a database. However, with the combined reading assignments and patience, I did it. While this database is small, by coming up with my own ideas for a collection, the attributes that should be included, and the rules for searching the database, it demonstrates my understanding how databases are designed as well as executed. I know I have a feel for how and why certain things are both included in databases and why certain things may not be. By using different rules for searching, I have a better understanding how searching works for many different systems and the competency to interpret results.
The second piece of evidence that I am providing for the querying part of competency E is a search write up that I did for LIBR 202 on searching my database. In this assignment I had to search my database using 20 different searches. These also had to include Boolean searches. Knowing how to use Boolean searching is an important part of the nuances of competency E, as well as the profession. Boolean searching is important for information retrieval because it allows a user to narrow “the search and obtaining more precise access to large bodies of knowledge in a much shorter period of time” (Rubin, 2004, p. 85).
The third piece of evidence that I am providing for the evaluation section of competency E is an evaluation of my database that I designed for LIBR 202. For this assignment I had to decide what the patrons would want to use my database for, as well as what questions that would the users would want to ask if they were using it. Finally, I had to list out what the database would do. All these things relate to what Haycock and Sheldon (2008) say the key to evaluation is: retrieving information the way the patron wants and leave out what they do not (p. 123).
The final piece of evidence that I supplying for knowledge and understanding of competency E is a database I created for LIBR 259 Preservation. For this assignment we had to take twelve objects of different technologies such as Word documents, sound files, and video files. We had to describe many different fields such as storage size, how it was created, and when we got it. We also had to do regular backups and describe how we did it and what happened to the file. I am submitting this database because it was designed (after the original fields) by me, it can be searched, and it was evaluated by me. This type of work is important for archives because it can be used to create preservation schedules, searchable by file type.
Conclusion
My evidence and experiences that I have provided here prove that I have the knowledge and understanding of how to design, search, and evaluate information retrieval systems. The understanding of these things is vastly important in the library, archives, and information professions. Knowing how to do these things will allow me to serve my patrons more and be beneficial to the institution that I work for.
References
Haycock, K. and B. Sheldon. (2008). The portable MLIS: insights from the experts. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Rubin, R. E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
burch_collection_explanation_202.docx | |
File Size: | 22 kb |
File Type: | docx |
burch_database_evaluation_202.docx | |
File Size: | 13 kb |
File Type: | docx |
burch_database_search_for_202.docx | |
File Size: | 31 kb |
File Type: | docx |
libr-259_curation.xls | |
File Size: | 155 kb |
File Type: | xls |