[386] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Child of Computerspeak
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Jun 1 09:21:10 1992
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 08:16:53 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
4 Messages, 102 Lines
*-----
From: Toni Emerson <echo@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Child of Computerspeak
> Libraries should first and foremost preserve information in original
> form for as long as possible. That is, libraries are archives. If
> this means that the public won't get general access, fine.
>> The library should first and foremost be a repository of ideas and
>> knowledge, and not objects. A small number of artifacts should, for
>> historical and aesthetic purposes, be preserved in original formats,
>> but this represents a tiny portion of most collections.
It could argued that the physical object, it's "format" if you
will, contains substantial information. If this information
were modified or deleted, the information would change essentially.
A couple months ago, I was discussing the multi-media archiving of the
work of a well known Seattle photographer, Marsha Burns...with Marsha Burns.
She was quite adamant that she did not want her photographs
transferred from their original print to a videotape (any digitized
form, for that matter). Marsha claimed that only original prints of
her photographs (prints created by her) were the correct
interpretation of her artistic intent. A multi-media archive would
distort her work. She also talked about arranging for her negatives
to be destroyed after her death. Claiming that a re-printing of her work,
by another artist, would be a re-interpretation she wanted to avoid.
Granted this is an exaggerated example, but I think it should be
considered. As we move into the possible realm of transferring
information to the electronic format, are we losing information in
order to gain access?
I would like to add that I am playing the devil's advocate here. I am
a lab associate at a virtual reality lab, my Knowledge Base project
would love to archive Marsha's photos. This is how the conversation
got started in the first place, discussing the work done at Apple.
* Toni Emerson HIT Lab, University of Washington, Seattle *
*-----
From: zeeman@crc.sofkin.ca (Joe Zeeman)
Subject: Re: Child of Computerspeak
I must quarrel with only one thing Janet Swam Hill says:
> Nancy Drew readers, Rex Stout readers, Georgette Heyer readers, etc. don't
> take the books out because they are interested in information. They want
> a good read.
> [much interesting stuff omitted for brevity]
>
"Information" is not the same as "facts". In systems terms, the "good
read" that the Nancy Drew reader obtains comes about from extracting
the information content of the book. It is the plot and
characterization and words and letters and sentences and typeface and
commas and chapter headings and pictures, and even more subtle things
like the smell and feel of the paper, that is the "information" that a
fiction reader obtains. All of this, in a well constructed novel,
adds up to a "good read".
And, as a corollary, you won't get the same good read from a VDU
display of the ASCII text of the novel.
\ Joe Zeeman /
/ Software Kinetics Ltd \
| 65 Iber Road |
\ Stittsville, Ontario voice: (613) 831-0888 /
/ Canada K2S 1E7 fax: (613) 831-1836 \
*-----
From: STRAUSS@UNCA.BITNET
Subject: Re: Child of Computerspeak
Janet,
Nancy Drew readers, looking for "a good read" are most certainly
receiving "information"--whether they know it or not!
--Bob Strauss
*-----
From: <KINGH@SNYSYRV1>
Subject: Re: Child of Computerspeak
The message under the first "computerspeak," which I posted, included
quotes from several sources which highlighted, in my opinion, a tenedency
toward hyperbole in discussions of computer systems and a disregard for
the role of evaluation in assessing just how much benefit new systems bring.
One quote compared traditional with computer assisted teaching, finding that
students taught with computers did not perform as well on exams as students
taught with traditional methods (one course, one trad. class, 1 computer
assisted class). Another quote noted that brain-power not computer-power was
needed to solve a "grand challenge" in climatology -- a point often missed in
rave reviews of NREN (similar to the maxim "garbage in, garbage out").
I found it fascinating that a message that supported the need for
evaluation studies of computer based innovations led to a discussion of
print vs. electronic resources and the preservation vs. access role of libraries
Hannah King
SUNY HSC Library at Syracuse
kingh@snysyrv1
kingh@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu
