OpenURL is a great innovation and has great power to improve electronic access. It allows library users to retrieve full-text articles seamlessly from any databases as long as their desired articles reside in any one of the library’s licensed databases. It can also display a set of other web services available to users, such as links to library catalog for holding and location info, interlibrary loan applications, etc --depending on how hosting institutions configure their link resolver. OpenURL technology will surely continue to transform how libraries manage electronic materials access and how library users use library resource to conduct research. Here is what I have done for week 10 training.
1. I searched on Google Scholar and found an article “Fingerprints of Global Warming on Wild Animals and Plants”.
2. I entered the information from my Google Scholar citation in the Citation Finder form. The Citation Finder then returns the same search result as that from the Google Scholar. When I changed one piece of info, I was still able to get the citation for this article. But it was inaccurate with the wrong metadata elements—with whatever I had altered, such as vol. issue, page, etc. I’m still confused about this. I noticed that people posted different search results on their blog. What is the cause of this great variation?
3. The following is the citation and the OpenURL in the text box. I don’t quite understand all the acronyms and parameters. But I can see that each citation element is embedded in the OpenURL. It has 3 components: the base URL of CSUF’s link resolver, an identifier for sfxit.com:citation as the OpenURL source (“origin-description”), and the article citation metadata (“object-description”).
"Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants." Nature 421.6918 (2003):57.
http://sfx.calstate.edu:9003/fullerton?ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_tim=2009-5-06T16%3A46%3A54PDT&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsfxit.com%3Acitation&rft.atitle=Fingerprints%20of%20global%20warming%20on%20wild%20animals%20and%20plants&rft.date=2003&rft.genre=article&rft.issn=0028-0836&rft.issue=6918&rft.jtitle=nature&rft.spage=57&rft.volume=421&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Aarticle&sfx.title_search=exact&url_ctx_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Week 9: Wiki Wiki
As a content management system and a simple-to-use collaborative tool, wiki can be utilized in compiling and maintaining an up-to-date handbook, manual, guide in workplaces so that people know how to solve the most common problems and find Q&A. A library-based, or project-based wiki can be a great communication channel and knowledge base, such as Library Success Wiki and Verde Wiki. A wiki manual for SER Section could be very helpful for us to share knowledge and information in our day-to-day work.
But the same features that make wiki great also present a dark side. While a workplace wiki can be controlled by appointing an “editor-in-chief”, managing a large public wiki could be a challenge. Once content is out of control, quality problems would occur, such as wrong information, hacked entries, marketing entries, etc. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, but I use it only for quick reference. For important research, I’ll try to obtain info somewhere else.
But the same features that make wiki great also present a dark side. While a workplace wiki can be controlled by appointing an “editor-in-chief”, managing a large public wiki could be a challenge. Once content is out of control, quality problems would occur, such as wrong information, hacked entries, marketing entries, etc. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, but I use it only for quick reference. For important research, I’ll try to obtain info somewhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)