It turns out that I did not fare as well last week as I'd originally thought. Upon reviewing my blog, I realize that I did not post the URL for my article. So for any and all that are interested, here it is. My sincerest apologies.
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/05contents.html
Monday, October 22, 2007
Anger!!
I'm not sure if it's just me...but I seem to be unable to post any comments about other people's reviews. I have attempted on 3 different blogs...but keep getting a message that my request cannot be completed. Has anybody else had this problem? Does anybody know to solve it? I promise you all I am reading your reviews and attempting to post but it would appear that the computer gods are conspiring against me. Hopefully you'll hear from me soon.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Relief
Well...I appear to have survived my first week of many assignments. (Knock on wood) So here it is. My critical analysis, posted for all to enjoy.
Weig, Eric., Terry, Kopana & Kathryn Lybarger. Large Scale Digitization of Oral
History: A Case Study. D-Lib Magazine, 13(5/6).
In this article, the authors present a project carried out at the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky Libraries (Weig, Terry & Lybarger, 2007). The purpose of the project was twofold: first to “establish a digital preservation methodology and work flow for analog-to-digital conversion and archiving of audio oral histories currently residing on magnetic cassette” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2) and second “to develop an interface for serving the digitized oral histories on the Web” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2). The aim of the article was to provide a procedural guide, describing the steps involved in the project. The authors also sought to encourage others with such collections to make similar attempts. It was a very well written article that would be immensely valuable to any information professional interested in an endeavour such as this one.
In reading the article, it became clear that the authors’ intended audience was information professionals interested in converting material housed on cassettes to a digital format. More specifically they directed this paper to those “with a large target collection and limited funding” (Weig et al., 2007, p.1). Because this article summarizes a case study of a project carried out by the authors themselves, it reads much like a lab report. The information contained within was organized logically so as to provide a straightforward description of the methodology employed.
The authors began by explaining why the decision was made to undertake an analog-to-digital conversion of their oral history collection. They were concerned “with magnetic tape as a preservation medium…magnetic cassette tape in particular may remain stable for as little as ten years” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). They went on to discuss the materials and methods used, providing justification as to why certain choices were made. For example, when deciding which production system to use, anticipation of further expansion in the future involving other formats such as vinyl discs and video was taken into consideration (Weig et al., 2007). The production system chosen was able to “handle a number of necessary machines for this” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 4).
Although the authors were reasonably thorough in their descriptions, I did note a few problems in this section. Firstly, the authors seemed to assume a great deal of prior knowledge about audio reformatting and recording terms and equipment. I feel that some of the terms used needed further clarification or explanation. There were a few short forms or acronyms used that were also not adequately defined. A brief discussion about the software used, referred to a switch from Adobe Audition to ProTools being necessary, but no explanation as to why was provided. The authors stated that they “lost a great deal of functionality with the DigiDesign by taking this route and eventually returned to ProTools” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 5). The loss of functionality was not defined or discussed at all. Nor were the advantages and disadvantages of each system explained. This is information that would be very important for others intending to commence a project such as this, and I feel that this is a significant omission.
The description of the procedure was extremely detailed, providing a wealth of knowledge that would allow for easy reproduction of such a project. The authors discussed the difficulties faced in their attempts to create Web files for user access, and provided tips as to how to make this process easier. As the authors discovered, “more than just the digital audio files were needed. Metadata was necessary to describe the interviews and provide access points for users to perform searches” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 6).
It is important in articles such as these not to simply describe the successes, but also to provide information about challenges faced so that future projects don’t involve reinventing the wheel. The authors were quite aware of this in suggesting that although metadata is integral it was not in their budget and was “really only economically feasible for small specialized or partial collections” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 7).
Due to the fact that the information provided in this article was fact rather than opinion, and described first hand, it is quite authoritative. It also appears to have been well researched. In examining the works cited, it is clear that the authors referred to numerous sources that discussed sound recording and digitizing (Weig et al., 2007).
What is interesting about this article is that it was written before the project was actually completed. The project was started in September of 2005 and was meant to last 2 years. This article, though published in 2007 was written approximately 14 months into the project, so although results to date were discussed, no final results were available (Weig et al., 2007). At the time that the article was written, “staff and student workers [had] diligently transcribed, in first draft form, nearly half of the collection” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 1).
Cost analysis was only available for the first 14 months as well. During the discussion of cost analysis of the project, there arose a bit of confusion. At the beginning of the article, the authors stated the cost at $5,000 stating that “the project funding, which came from the Nunn Center’s budget, covered 40 hours per week for students dedicated to the project and provided $5,000 to build an analog-to-digital conversion workstation” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). However later in the paper, the costs associated with the first 13 months were broken down and the authors revealed that the total cost for personnel and storage was $32,168.72 (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12). There is obviously a large discrepancy between these numbers. I could find no information in the article to explain this discrepancy or where additional funding was acquired. I am unsure whether the cost quoted at the beginning is as such due to the fact that it is what the Nunn Center was able to provide, or whether there was an assumption that this is actually what the reformatting would cost. This issue is further confused in the conclusion as the authors state that “cost has been kept to a minimum” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12).
This, I feel is a serious blunder on the part of the authors, as it would be difficult for a future endeavour to be planned and undertaken if there is no clear information about the true costs associated.
In conclusion, though I do feel the confusion surrounding the cost analysis is a major issue, the rest of the problems associated with the article are quite minor. In general it is an extremely well written and well intentioned article. The authors make an effort to not only describe their process in reformatting their oral histories, but also to provide further suggestions to others about how to save time and trouble. I feel that this article would be extremely useful for any information professional thinking about undertaking a project such as the one described in the article.
Weig, Eric., Terry, Kopana & Kathryn Lybarger. Large Scale Digitization of Oral
History: A Case Study. D-Lib Magazine, 13(5/6).
In this article, the authors present a project carried out at the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky Libraries (Weig, Terry & Lybarger, 2007). The purpose of the project was twofold: first to “establish a digital preservation methodology and work flow for analog-to-digital conversion and archiving of audio oral histories currently residing on magnetic cassette” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2) and second “to develop an interface for serving the digitized oral histories on the Web” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2). The aim of the article was to provide a procedural guide, describing the steps involved in the project. The authors also sought to encourage others with such collections to make similar attempts. It was a very well written article that would be immensely valuable to any information professional interested in an endeavour such as this one.
In reading the article, it became clear that the authors’ intended audience was information professionals interested in converting material housed on cassettes to a digital format. More specifically they directed this paper to those “with a large target collection and limited funding” (Weig et al., 2007, p.1). Because this article summarizes a case study of a project carried out by the authors themselves, it reads much like a lab report. The information contained within was organized logically so as to provide a straightforward description of the methodology employed.
The authors began by explaining why the decision was made to undertake an analog-to-digital conversion of their oral history collection. They were concerned “with magnetic tape as a preservation medium…magnetic cassette tape in particular may remain stable for as little as ten years” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). They went on to discuss the materials and methods used, providing justification as to why certain choices were made. For example, when deciding which production system to use, anticipation of further expansion in the future involving other formats such as vinyl discs and video was taken into consideration (Weig et al., 2007). The production system chosen was able to “handle a number of necessary machines for this” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 4).
Although the authors were reasonably thorough in their descriptions, I did note a few problems in this section. Firstly, the authors seemed to assume a great deal of prior knowledge about audio reformatting and recording terms and equipment. I feel that some of the terms used needed further clarification or explanation. There were a few short forms or acronyms used that were also not adequately defined. A brief discussion about the software used, referred to a switch from Adobe Audition to ProTools being necessary, but no explanation as to why was provided. The authors stated that they “lost a great deal of functionality with the DigiDesign by taking this route and eventually returned to ProTools” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 5). The loss of functionality was not defined or discussed at all. Nor were the advantages and disadvantages of each system explained. This is information that would be very important for others intending to commence a project such as this, and I feel that this is a significant omission.
The description of the procedure was extremely detailed, providing a wealth of knowledge that would allow for easy reproduction of such a project. The authors discussed the difficulties faced in their attempts to create Web files for user access, and provided tips as to how to make this process easier. As the authors discovered, “more than just the digital audio files were needed. Metadata was necessary to describe the interviews and provide access points for users to perform searches” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 6).
It is important in articles such as these not to simply describe the successes, but also to provide information about challenges faced so that future projects don’t involve reinventing the wheel. The authors were quite aware of this in suggesting that although metadata is integral it was not in their budget and was “really only economically feasible for small specialized or partial collections” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 7).
Due to the fact that the information provided in this article was fact rather than opinion, and described first hand, it is quite authoritative. It also appears to have been well researched. In examining the works cited, it is clear that the authors referred to numerous sources that discussed sound recording and digitizing (Weig et al., 2007).
What is interesting about this article is that it was written before the project was actually completed. The project was started in September of 2005 and was meant to last 2 years. This article, though published in 2007 was written approximately 14 months into the project, so although results to date were discussed, no final results were available (Weig et al., 2007). At the time that the article was written, “staff and student workers [had] diligently transcribed, in first draft form, nearly half of the collection” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 1).
Cost analysis was only available for the first 14 months as well. During the discussion of cost analysis of the project, there arose a bit of confusion. At the beginning of the article, the authors stated the cost at $5,000 stating that “the project funding, which came from the Nunn Center’s budget, covered 40 hours per week for students dedicated to the project and provided $5,000 to build an analog-to-digital conversion workstation” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). However later in the paper, the costs associated with the first 13 months were broken down and the authors revealed that the total cost for personnel and storage was $32,168.72 (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12). There is obviously a large discrepancy between these numbers. I could find no information in the article to explain this discrepancy or where additional funding was acquired. I am unsure whether the cost quoted at the beginning is as such due to the fact that it is what the Nunn Center was able to provide, or whether there was an assumption that this is actually what the reformatting would cost. This issue is further confused in the conclusion as the authors state that “cost has been kept to a minimum” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12).
This, I feel is a serious blunder on the part of the authors, as it would be difficult for a future endeavour to be planned and undertaken if there is no clear information about the true costs associated.
In conclusion, though I do feel the confusion surrounding the cost analysis is a major issue, the rest of the problems associated with the article are quite minor. In general it is an extremely well written and well intentioned article. The authors make an effort to not only describe their process in reformatting their oral histories, but also to provide further suggestions to others about how to save time and trouble. I feel that this article would be extremely useful for any information professional thinking about undertaking a project such as the one described in the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)