*Puts other nerdy hat on and timidly puts up hand*
h2g2 is a pretty accepted acronym for Hitch Hikers......
It has a degree of provenance as I understand Adams thought of it
himself.....
Now that I have revealed just HOW nerdy I am, I am off to sit in a
corner....
Interesting discussion btw and I for one thought that the RESULTs
approach was WAY ahead of it's time.... I would highly recommend the
paper Steve mentioned.
Suzanne
--
Suzanne Hardy
Information Officer/C&IT Manager
Higher Education Academy subject centre for
Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Tel: +44 191 222 5888
Fax: +44 191 222 5016
email: [log in to unmask]
web: www.ltsn-01.ac.uk
Direct line: +44 191 246 4550
A subject centre of The Higher Education Academy
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk
______________________________________
Formal appraisal of undergraduates - worth the effort?
Thursday 9th June 2005, Leeds
http://www.ltsn-01.ac.uk/show_workshop_page_public?entry_id=32
"He who speaks sows, he who listens, harvests."
Argentinean proverb
Vashti Zarach wrote:
> Hi,
> No, I haven't read the paper, and it's great that you can store resources in
> loads of places; I know this is one of the brilliant benefits to the
> hyperlinked electronic world. Surely we're allowed to praise the benfits of
> good metadata and cataloguing skills and their use for electronic resources
> without being anti computer scientists and the internet? I love the Internet!
> It's a huge vast neverending book. If we all hated all this stuff we wouldn't
> be on a jiscmail discussion list, we'd be sitting in our own local library
> writing each other letters.
> Ok maybe all our points aren't perfectly consistent, but hey, at least we're all
> bouncing around a fun discussion, and sometimes some worthy ideas come up. It's
> nice to get to join in a discussion sometimes, even if you know people far more
> well read than you will be able to show you where you're wrong. (This isn't
> meant to sound sarcastic!)
> And I'm sure we all think in many dimensions, at least until Friday afternoon by
> which time we're only capable of thinking in one.
> And I've loved Hitchikers Guide since I was about 8, and don't tend to call it
> hhgttg, it sort of sounds wrong!! But then there's enough acronyms in my job.
> Vashti
>
> Quoting Steve Richardson <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
>>heh heh... AGAIN,, I wonder if any of you have actually read the paper
>>we wrote,, or the emails I sent - one of the major positive benefits of
>>RESULTs was that you can store the same resource in as many different
>>classification systems as you like; formal, personal, community derived,
>>a special categorisation system for odd tuesdays in months with the
>>letter n in them,, it doesnt matter!!
>>
>>when are people going to stop thinking in one, two or even three
>>dimensions and realise there is an infinite number of dimensions to play
>>with?
>>
>>and surely you mean hhgttg!!!
>>
>>Kind regards
>>Steve
>>
>>Vashti Zarach wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And I'd like a copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy in my
>>
>>library...(in
>>
>>>response to Sarah's comment on Wikis and Encyclopedias).
>>>
>>>Oh, and with my librarian hat on, I also agree with George's points.
>>
>>Information
>>
>>>searching is a skill like any other, not everyone is good at sifting by
>>>eyeballing. [How do I know this: well, I'm rubbish at changing lightbulbs
>>
>>and
>>
>>>anything practical, and have to ask for help; but I happen to be experienced
>>
>>at
>>
>>>sifting by eyeball, and often get asked informally by friends who aren't to
>>>help them find resources and information - I expect most trained librarians
>>
>>get
>>
>>>this.]
>>>
>>>Without your own pocket librarian to help, metadata and subject schemes
>>
>>help
>>
>>>because they ensure that similar things are grouped together, whether
>>>physically or virtually. If you don't do this accurately, everything's
>>>scattered, which stops people finding things by association. It's like
>>
>>getting
>>
>>>a library and putting Lord of the Rings under the jewellery section. How
>>
>>will
>>
>>>any fantasy lover ever find it? Ok that was an extreme example, but it
>>>illustrates the perils of rougly categorising things.
>>>
>>>Vashti
>>>
>>>P.S. Hello Sarah
>>>
>>>Quoting Sarah Currier <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did I hear my name?
>>>>
>>>>I'm so enjoying watching this from the sidelines for a change. But I do
>>>>feel compelled to respond to George's email, poor netiquette tho this is:
>>>>
>>>>"Yeah!"
>>>>
>>>>Sarah
>>>>P.S. And for those who are following the Wikis discussion on the
>>>>VLE-Interest list, I also think Wikipedia is great, but would like my
>>>>library to stock the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>>>>
>>>>George Macgregor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>This is a fun one! A few brief comments below...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No problem. Sarah Currier informed me that people enjoy controversy on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>list! ;-) Unfortunately, I don't agree with much that you said, but
>>
>>here
>>
>>>>>are some brief(ish) comments regarding some of your comments:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It depends on your expectation of results, and tolerance for ambiguity.
>>>>>>I think most general users are quite happy to live with clashing tags,
>>>>>>ambiguous tags, and so on, as long as there are sufficient hits to sift
>>>>>>by eyeballing. I think this holds for LOs too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should users be 'quite happy' this poor precision? That's quite a
>>>>>defeatist attitude. If I conduct a search, I expect (or at least hope)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I will experience decent recall, but ultimately good precision - the aim
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>>any good information retrieval system. Naturally, Web search engines
>>
>>based
>>
>>>>>on post-coordinate indexing have been bereft of this latter concept. If
>>
>>I
>>
>>>>>want to discover material (via Google, say) written by Adam Smith, I will
>>>>>retrieve, not only information written by Adam Smith, but all information
>>>>>about the history of Adam Smith, his role in the Scottish Enlightenment,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>other information. Thus, the lack of metadata makes precise searching
>>>>>difficult. Numerous user information seeking behaviour studies have
>>
>>proven
>>
>>>>>that current users will not be content with sifting through pages of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>results
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in the vain hope of finding something relevant to their original search
>>>>>query (in fact, they often abandon their search task if their query isn't
>>>>>satisfied within the first page of results!). Given the weighty metadata
>>>>>standards used, eyeballing shouldn't be necessary for LOs or even
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>considered
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Popularity and the 'wisdom of crowds'. If 1914332 records are tagged
>>>>>>with "theology" and 1 with "theolojy", I'm going to assume the latter
>>>>>>is a typo. Also, subject are by nature pretty nebulous and paradoxical
>>>>>>concepts (see, for example, the tortuous attempts of Foucault to
>>>>>>describe the nature of "subject" in the Archaeology of Knowledge).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is tortuous, but that's why controlled vocabularies exist! A
>>>>>specialist team agonise over the best way to describe a single concept so
>>>>>that we don't have to agonise over the best way to describe an
>>
>>information
>>
>>>>>entity. 'Yes', subjects can be nebulous, but there are rules and
>>>>>conventions in controlled subject schemes (that have evolved over
>>
>>hundreds
>>
>>>>>of years) to ensure the practitioner accurately characterises the nature
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>>an information resource. If, by your own admission, subjects are
>>
>>nebulous,
>>
>>>>>how can the 'wisdom of crowds' approach possibly prevail? Answer: it
>>
>>can't.
>>
>>>>>An independent arbiter is required (i.e. the controlled subject scheme).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>least there exists elaborate rules and conventions to improve retrieval
>>>>>relevance and consistency.
>>>>>
>>>>>The approach you suggest would lead to scenarios whereby homonymy
>>
>>callously
>>
>>>>>rules the information society! Over time users wouldn't be able to find
>>>>>anything. Resources would be tagged with subject headings that are far
>>
>>too
>>
>>>>>broad to support precise retrieval (at a time when greater precision is
>>>>>sorely required). The 'taggers' wouldn't know whether their resource
>>>>>relates to 'Theology' (which would constitute a very broad heading) or
>>>>>'Religion' (which would also constitute a very broad heading about the
>>
>>same
>>
>>>>>subject). In addition, resources wouldn't necessarily be accurately
>>>>>characterised. Is the wisdom of the crowd likely to note that their
>>>>>resource meets the following (very simple) citation order?
>>>>>
>>>>>'Religion > Philosophy & theory of religion > Theodicy'
>>>>>
>>>>>Without specialist training, probably not. They would likely just tag it
>>>>>with 'Religion' or 'Theology' or 'Spirituality' or 'Theolojy' and on and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>on,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>which would unquestionably be too broad. They would also not use
>>
>>qualifiers
>>
>>>>>to assist others in determining whether a resource tagged with 'Boxers'
>>
>>is
>>
>>>>>about the sport or about dogs? Is this really adequate, or even
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>sufficient?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In the uncontrolled environment, social factors come into play. How do
>>>>>>we *really* discover academic resources today? By reputation, by
>>>>>>recommendation, by references in known works. I think the assumption
>>>>>>you're making is that the user is acting in a very isolated way, which
>>>>>>I don't think is the case. On the contrary, the folksonomy approach
>>>>>>assumes community. This may itself be a restriction upon the domains
>>>>>>where it is an effective tool, and I think is one of the research
>>>>>>topics that would be of interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In many ways, the user has never been as isolated as he/she is today.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>>>pedagogical paradigm shift to greater problem based learning and
>>>>>constructivist learning has witnessed a proliferation of students
>>
>>directing
>>
>>>>>their very own learning experience, often within elaborate ICT
>>
>>architecture
>>
>>>>>or VLEs (as well you know). Obviously, social factors are important, and
>>>>>have always been. The automatic response of most users experiencing an
>>>>>information gap is, after all, to ask a friend. The folksonomy approach
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>may
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>assume community (which is certainly desirable), but it isn't likely to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>fill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>any information gaps or get information users from A to B (unless one is
>>>>>confined to a strict community of practice where the knowledge collection
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>extremely shallow). This is, as you say, an interesting area of
>>
>>research,
>>
>>>>>but I sincerely doubt whether the entire intellectual output and
>>
>>knowledge
>>
>>>>>of the entire world could be adequately characterised or harnessed by a
>>>>>wisdom of crowds approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>An important thing to remember is that once upon a time, when all
>>>>>information assumed a physical form, practitioners assigned
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>folksonomy-style
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>terms to their resources. However, it soon became clear that the library
>>>>>was thrown into disarray and that a suitable methodology had to be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>developed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to facilitate resource discovery. The electronic environment is no
>>>>>different. It's all information, just in a different format. Many LIS
>>>>>practices have evolved over hundreds of years and were developed for good
>>>>>reason. I often feel that some of us try to 'reinvent the wheel' and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ignore
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>important lessons from the not-to-distant past, that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------
>>>>>George Macgregor,
>>>>>Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR),
>>>>>Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
>>>>>University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
>>>>>26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, UK, G1 1XH
>>>>>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4753
>>>>>web: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
>>>>>--------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: Scott Wilson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>Sent: 08 May 2005 04:36
>>>>>>To: George Macgregor
>>>>>>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Do they mean metadata?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a fun one! A few brief comments below...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6 May 2005, at 23:18, George Macgregor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One thing is certain - the days of mandated taxonomy, static systems
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>controlled vocabularies (in the strictest sense) are numbered!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is an extremely curious statement for the CETIS-METADATA list and
>>>>>>>one
>>>>>>>that I find to be erroneous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think critically evaluating our dearly-held assumption is part of
>>>>>>what we do in the SIGs. I like statements like this (and not just about
>>>>>>metadata!!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True, there are some merits to a folksonomy
>>>>>>>(esp. for browsing & serendipity) and more research should certainly be
>>>>>>>undertaken to ascertain their *relative* potential. But - and this is
>>>>>>>a big
>>>>>>>'but' - these benefits tend to reside within small pockets of practice
>>>>>>>(i.e.
>>>>>>>Del.icio.us and Flickr) and it remains difficult to envisage how such
>>>>>>>techniques can be applied out-with these contexts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These "small pockets of practice" are larger by several orders of
>>>>>>magnitude than the 'small pockets of practice' that exist with, say,
>>>>>>LOM. in the big picture of the 'net, folksonomies are the 80,
>>>>>>controlled systems are the 20. (OK, its really more like no taxon 99%,
>>>>>>folksonomy 0.9%, controlled, 0.1%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How, for instance, is such an approach expected to scale, particularly
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>those ubiquitous distributed systems involving users from more than one
>>>>>>>cultural context? (It's worth noting that even within the UK the
>>>>>>>problem of
>>>>>>>regional cultural contexts is already problematic with respect to
>>>>>>>subject
>>>>>>>retrieval). Closer to home, how is such a system to be usefully
>>>>>>>applied
>>>>>>>with the deposit of learning objects and the distributed searching of
>>>>>>>those
>>>>>>>learning object repositories?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It depends on your expectation of results, and tolerance for ambiguity.
>>>>>>I think most general users are quite happy to live with clashing tags,
>>>>>>ambiguous tags, and so on, as long as there are sufficient hits to sift
>>>>>>by eyeballing. I think this holds for LOs too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In practice, there are probably a few compelling controlled
>>>>>>vocabularies related to the 'official' areas of LOs, such as
>>>>>>relationship to quality standards and curriculum models, but for the
>>>>>>rest, folksonomy tagging is probably 'good enough'. Not perfect, not
>>>>>>completely accurate. But good enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Given the high probability of subject tagging ambiguity, the lack of
>>>>>>>synonym
>>>>>>>control, variant spellings, variant punctuation, name authority
>>>>>>>control, not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Popularity and the 'wisdom of crowds'. If 1914332 records are tagged
>>>>>>with "theology" and 1 with "theolojy", I'm going to assume the latter
>>>>>>is a typo. Also, subject are by nature pretty nebulous and paradoxical
>>>>>>concepts (see, for example, the tortuous attempts of Foucault to
>>>>>>describe the nature of "subject" in the Archaeology of Knowledge).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to mention the fact the majority of users suffer from the Belkin's
>>>>>>>infamous
>>>>>>>'Anomalies State of Knowledge' (and are therefore often incapable of
>>>>>>>formulating search queries, let alone assigning meaningful subjects
>>>>>>>descriptors), I find it highly questionable that such a "scheme" could
>>>>>>>ever
>>>>>>>be used effectively to support meaningful resource discovery and
>>>>>>>distributed
>>>>>>>searching.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And yet the vast majority of internet users somehow get by. How?
>>>>>>Reputation, word of mouth, trial and error, advertising,
>>>>>>contextualization, visual sifting, pure serendipity. The point about
>>>>>>folksonomy is that it isn't the definitive discovery mechanism; it
>>>>>>augments existing non-rigorous discovery approaches that are 'good
>>>>>>enough'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meaning can emerge, as well as be imposed; classification can be (or
>>>>>>always is?) a political act, and folksonomy can be evangelised as a
>>>>>>democratization of knowledge classification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As my old mate Foucault postulated, "knowledge is power" may be true in
>>>>>>the same sense as "might equals right".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In addition, even if all of the above could be reconciled, there
>>>>>>>are still issues pertaining to the semantic relationships and the
>>>>>>>syntactic
>>>>>>>relationships of all the terms / subject captions used by the
>>>>>>>folksonomy to
>>>>>>>describe information entities. Would these important relationships be
>>>>>>>dispensed with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The semantic relations of terms exist 'out there' as well as in formal
>>>>>>taxonomy, and can be inferred by proximity in discovery, and by
>>>>>>association to originators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How we construct meaning is by associating, dividing, and qualifying
>>>>>>categories of entities; in general I think human beings are pretty good
>>>>>>at this, even if librarians may disagree with their evaluations
>>>>>>sometimes :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Indeed, it remains to be seen how a system (underpinned by a
>>>>>>>folksonomy) could be effectively mined so as to increase IR precision,
>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>by intelligent agents. Users would simply experience high recall or no
>>>>>>>results at all. And, of course, it goes without saying that meaningful
>>>>>>>resource discovery or distributed searching would be an unviable
>>>>>>>proposition
>>>>>>>which, to my mind, is an unwelcome scenario when we should be 'thinking
>>>>>>>globally before acting locally' in the 21st century.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tags are not the only source; there is also the content - tags just
>>>>>>provide hints. I don't imagine mining tags will be very productive, but
>>>>>>its amazing what Google manages with much less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Further, the assumption that users have the necessary skills, the will
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>the infinite time required to engage with an ever expanding world of
>>>>>>>knowledge so that subject mappings (a 'pattern of relationships') can
>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>created is - to my mind - quite reductionist and reveals a common lack
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>understanding regarding the complexities of subject mappings.
>>>>>>>Numerous
>>>>>>>research projects (funded by international organisations like OCLC or
>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>the JISC) have found that creating exact match mappings between
>>>>>>>*controlled*
>>>>>>>subject headings is extremely complex, time consuming and resource
>>>>>>>intensive. So, if it remains difficult within a controlled
>>>>>>>environment to
>>>>>>>create mappings with experienced information professionals, how
>>>>>>>feasible
>>>>>>>would it be in an uncontrolled environment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the uncontrolled environment, social factors come into play. How do
>>>>>>we *really* discover academic resources today? By reputation, by
>>>>>>recommendation, by references in known works. I think the assumption
>>>>>>you're making is that the user is acting in a very isolated way, which
>>>>>>I don't think is the case. On the contrary, the folksonomy approach
>>>>>>assumes community. This may itself be a restriction upon the domains
>>>>>>where it is an effective tool, and I think is one of the research
>>>>>>topics that would be of interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think the feedback mechanisms, and support processes that shape
>>>>>>folksonomies are also interesting; perhaps in their own way an
>>>>>>'internet time' model of the gradual shaping of knowledge
>>>>>>categorisation? Could tagging perhaps be an interesting method for the
>>>>>>generation of knowledge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree with the sentiment that a taxonomy should not be 'kept'
>>>>>>>private and
>>>>>>>that 'a taxonomy should come from ourselves and our interactions with
>>>>>>>others', but current controlled vocabularies, classification schemes
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>taxonomies ARE largely derived from the people, albeit it in a more
>>>>>>>elaborate fashion. Most prominent schemes are regularly revised and
>>>>>>>such
>>>>>>>revisions entail a detailed analysis of current knowledge and
>>>>>>>literature
>>>>>>>whereby appropriate terminology and concepts are harvested and
>>>>>>>inserted. If
>>>>>>>one is fortunate enough to use a dynamic facility, such as OCLC's
>>>>>>>connexion,
>>>>>>>then one can expect revisions every minute of everyday. These
>>>>>>>revisions
>>>>>>>will be internationally consistent, will use the best vocabulary to
>>>>>>>serve
>>>>>>>the most people, and will at least support resource discovery for the
>>>>>>>21st
>>>>>>>century.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, if you have been unable to recognise my position (!), folksonomies
>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>interesting, but controlled vocabularies (in the strictest sense) will
>>>>>>>remain for many, many years! I'm certainly confident of that, even if
>>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>>Richardson isn't! ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure they're always going to be around too, the question is how
>>>>>>widely they'll be used compared with less rigorous approaches. But I'd
>>>>>>still like to thank Steve for making such a provocative statement :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>George
>>>>>>>----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>George Macgregor,
>>>>>>>Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR),
>>>>>>>Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
>>>>>>>University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
>>>>>>>26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, UK, G1 1XH
>>>>>>>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4753
>>>>>>>web: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>*******************************************
>>>>Ms. Sarah Currier
>>>>Librarian, Stòr Cùram Project
>>>>"A Storehouse of Learning Resources for Social Care"
>>>>Dept. of Social Work, University of Strathclyde
>>>>c/o: Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
>>>>Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
>>>>Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
>>>>Web: http://www.storcuram.ac.uk/
>>>>Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573 Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
>>>>E-mail: [log in to unmask] Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
>>>>Stòr Cùram is Gaelic for Storehouse of Care
>>>>*******************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Vashti Zarach,
>>>CETIS Enterprise SIG Coordinator,
>>>University of Wales Bangor.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>This mail sent through http://webmail.bangor.ac.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Vashti Zarach,
> CETIS Enterprise SIG Coordinator,
> University of Wales Bangor.
>
>
> --
> This mail sent through http://webmail.bangor.ac.uk
>
|