I'll try to keep this blog short. I was browsing some other blogs in the LM/LIS 5433 class and someone had blogged about the phenomenon that if a blog is too long no one will finish it.
This blog is a blast from the past because it highlights some feelings on last week's readings, specifically the Greenberg article. I thought his idea on how to go about building a structure for metadata schemes was interesting, but did anyone else feel that he was being intentionally vague and apologetic?
Its just a pet peeve with me. I like it when people take a hard position on academic issues. His entire closing statement in that article felt wishy-washy, and left me feeling like i had wasted my time with the read. I wanted hard guidance on how to deal with the burgeoning number of meta-data schemes, and he didn't deliver.
Next posting: Feelings on this week's reads! I'll try to be more positive!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Always an interesting read here, Mr. Brennan! But most academic writing is "wishy-washy" in the very way you describe, so I can't fault Jane Greenberg for that. If she believed there was "one right answer" for metadata schemas, I 'm sure she'd have said so:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/manifesto/right_answer.shtml
By the way, no reason to pull your punches about the readings. The feedback is very useful! :)
Post a Comment