Unit 2: Computer Basics, Digitization Reading Notes and Comments

Wikipedia. "Hardware"

  There seem to have been very few changes to the overall structure of the computer, sure things have improved in terms of smaller and faster, but the physical components appear to be unchanged almost since inception. So, there's the calculator brain (CPU), a holding tank for current operations (RAM), its central nervous system (the buses), and a reptile back brain (BIOS) running crucial but largely uncontrolled operations like power (the heart) or firmware. If anything has changed, it is the computer's tool wielding devices (optical drives), though how much change has happened beyond memory size and speed, I'm not sure. Therefore, in these terms the computer almost appears lifelike at least until we consider that unlike anything in life it must have some type of user in order to do anything. In order to interface with the hardware the user makes use of special organs called input devices, which have changed or evolved slightly over time - e.g. the addition of a mouse and then a few specialized keyboard keys not present on the typewriter from which it was adapted.

Wikipedia. "Software"

  The mental functions, or the stuff that makes the machine think; these include its etiquette and protocols. When you anthropomorphize the computer it is no wonder that several philosophers at the dawn of the PC age (maybe now too?) have attempted to show how very machine-like people are, and whereas they have a valid point, have we not created the machine in our own image?

  Software is where things get tricky. The hardware is designed to operate without error (ideally), but once the thought process is introduced in the form of software things can start to go off track and we see bugs, or wrong orders, being issued.

  A couple issues with this Wikipedia entry. How is the "the history of computer software [...] most often traced back to the first software bug in 1946." What does that even mean? Also confusing is the statement that, "it is hard to imagine today that people once felt that software was worthless without a machine." I think I get that the author is driving at the fact people once thought that computers have to be a bundled hardware/software package and that pieces of software on its own would be worthless. However, the way it currently reads begs the question, "isn't it?"

Stuart D. Lee. "Digitization: Is It Worth It?"

• "Not to mention the money." I almost wish he would mention the funding that has cropped up since digitization was deemed a valid method of preservation. It would make the article longer of course, but the issue of ‘if there is money out there to do it people will flock towards it’ seems like a large piece of the story here.
• Lee suggests that digital imaging is "the most common form of digitization we all encounter," and perhaps it was generally true in 2001 (maybe it’s still true in libraries?), but I would argue that Lee has overlooked private efforts at digitization. Bootleggers and the commercial industry have both been heavily engaged in digitization from the start, and they have focused not on imaging, but on video and audio. If libraries fell behind on this front, there were always private individuals to pick up the slack.
• Is the only real benefit to digitization the access it creates?
• One thing I feel Lee overlooks in his cost effectiveness/access discussion is that if an item is photocopied 19+ times then its longevity may have become compromised. Therefore, add on to the copy cost the cost of conservation to this high use item.
• On the issue of collection development versus digitization, it is true that having access to journal databases is a wonderful thing. In the long-term however, what do libraries gain from these subscriptions? A digitized rare manuscript's costs are finite, but the yearly cost of database subscription is never ending and if it should ever become beyond an institution's means to finance it they have nothing in the form of collection to show for it. All those journals suddenly vanish while that scanned rare book can be used well over a year and potentially indefinitely.

 Doreen Carvajal. "European libraries face problems in digitalizing." New York Times

• "The basic problem is that there isn't enough money to digitize everything we want to." I hope this statement was not meant to be a revelation to anyone because if it was, then welcome to the real world.
• I guess I fail to see the confusion or problem in the article. Were European efforts in digitization attempting to be completely independent of private finances while trying to compete with the massive resources of a company like Google? Are they surprised that limited government funding just is not enough? Or are European libraries in 2007 just coming to the realization that if a private for profit group gives you money that they are expecting to receive something in return? The concern, as I understand it, is that there exists a danger that Google will crush world culture by digitizing only U.S.-centric materials. Does Google then have a cultural agenda? It does not seem like it since they appear to be reaching out to Europe and their digitization efforts.

Charles Smith. "A Few Thoughts on the Google Books Library Project." EDUCAUSE Quarterly. 2008.

•  Is the issue really that books will become obsolete and not that a private for-profit company is digitizing them?
• "Remember being taken to the library at the beginning of the school year to learn how to access its resources." Most libraries still run these seminars and they continue to be as, or more, relevant now than they ever were. It's true that in order to fine tune your research abilities you will need to a) research and b) get individualized help, those seminars exposing the user to a library’s resources are still crucial regardless of experience level.
• I'm not sure I agree with Smith's conclusions. It has been my experience that if a researcher actually wants/needs something that they will go to great lengths to get it. If something is digitized then use it, but does it not being digitized preclude use? Perhaps, but only if there is another book or article nearly identical that has been digitized. Certainly, people are lazy and gravitate towards the easiest possible way, but I still have not seen this generation unable to do or think anything that is not Internet accessible. Is this a real concern? If something is not online does it no longer exist? I hope not, because for all the bits available there is still only a fraction of the useful information on the web in the overall scheme of things.