Hey everybody in LS 566! I uploaded the handout I created for my CDWA presentation tonight to Google drive. Check it out here: https://drive.google.com/a/crimson.ua.edu/file/d/0B97dM9tY7btyZnNJcHpnQmZfQTA/view?usp=sharing
Please let me know if the link doesn’t work! Also, I apologize for the length. As you will see the major info is all on the first page but then I wanted to include a list of the core categories as well as a couple of full record examples which take up several pages… cue eye roll : )
As I’m inputting player names I came across this image from the 1975 Alabama vs Clemson game in which the Tide’s QB was sacked (boo / roll tide!)
Clemson #86 is clearly visible however this number is not listed on the 1975 team roster. There are a bunch of names though that don’t have numbers assigned. Has anyone come across this kind of situation yet and can offer a suggestion as to how to match the correct name?
Also, is anyone looking beyond just the images at play-by-play information to determine correct subject terms and descriptions? If so, how? Is it possible to figure out which play an image is from based off of any of the metadata that’s already embedded in the image? Is this overkill for the sake of this exercise (aka “do your best”)? For example, with this image above and it’s related counterpart, just by looking at it, how do I know if it’s a “pass rush” or a “blitz” or both? Also, can this even be considered a sack or is the QB going down intentionally to avoid getting hit (or does someone have his legs from behind and I just can’t see it here)?
Any and all suggestions welcome!
Man, there was something about this dreary Monday morning towards the end of the semester, I was really in need of a laugh. Thankfully, I discovered that because of all the recent blogging and tweeting I’ve been doing about the “Relation” Dublin Core metadata element, I am now being followed by some company called “Relationship Tips” : )
Gee, do you think they can give me advice on my indexing guidelines? Talk about a metadata fail! Somebody needs to get their algorithm checked!
Also, a really interesting and related story about social media algorithms went out on the Library Link of the Day email list today. It’s totally worth a read if you didn’t see it! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/23/what-you-dont-know-about-internet-algorithms-is-hurting-you-and-you-probably-dont-know-very-much/
Alright, here I am indexing my first image for the project and I already need your help (gulp), specifically as it relates to the Subject element. Christy’s Subject element guidelines are very straightforward and the simple vocab list of terms she created for us to use is super handy. However in the image that I pasted above, it sort of seems to me like the only subject you can give it is simply “Run” (or “Rush”?), which isn’t in the list. Chances are that Alabama #33 who is rushing with the ball is about to get tackled momentarily, but “Tackle” does not seem like an accurate option for this image.
As far as the other possible terms go, could Alabama have been blitzed on this play? Maybe? Is #33 under double coverage? Again, possibly? Was this a completed forward pass and not a run play? It sort of looks like #33 is emerging from the line of scrimmage as if the QB immediately handed the ball off to him, but I wasn’t there, so I really don’t know. There are more possibilities from the list, but it feels like all of them would need more context before being able to select any with certainty. The only subject term I feel like I would be able to safely use here is just “Run.” What does everybody else think? Any of you having similar issues?
OK so I made a few further revisions to the Relation element guideline which you can check out on the project wiki http://indexing-football-images-ls566-spring2015.wikispaces.com/Relation+Element.
One big change is that the label is going to have to stay “Relation” and can’t be customized quite as much as I hoped. None of the 10 or so DC refinement options for Relation (IsPartOf, IsVersionOf, etc.) really gel with our context, so generic “Relation” it will remain. As I see it now, rather than simply inputting the Unique Identifier for each related image, we will also have to include a statement that explains the “same play sequence as” relationship (which I’ve created for you in the guidelines). Let me know if you see things differently. Also, I’m not sure whether or not it is handy or necessary to have all the related Unique Identifiers link to their respective Omeka image records within the metadata. Dr. MacCall, do you have thoughts about that “Digital Object Linker” plugin I mentioned in an earlier post? If we don’t use the plugin should we still link the Identifiers with the “Use HTML” check box? Is this even a good idea?
So I am trying to plan out the remaining blogging I need to do for LS 566 in these last couple weeks of school. I have this vague memory of Dr. MacCall saying way back in the beginning that we needed to shoot for 3 posts per week for a total of “39 posts” for the semester. Is 39 the number that we are indeed shooting for here or am I misremembering this? I feel a little cheap drafting an entire new blog post just for this one question, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. Can anybody clarify? Thanks!
I enjoyed this week’s readings about learning objects. I had not yet encountered these before, and poking around the MERLOT “referitory” took me down a couple of rabbit holes that I got lost in for at least 30 minutes. One of these was a decibel frequency hearing test and the other a Portuguese children’s lesson on Vasco da Gama’s India expedition. MERLOT alone contains links to over 60,000 learning objects. I noticed that since a basic principle of learning objects is that they can be reusable over time, many of the linked objects were created over a decade ago but usually had a quite recent “date modified” date. Even still, one of the links I clicked on pulled up a “file not found” error. Who knows how many others in the repository have also succumbed to rot. It seems like these learning objects could be really great resources for educators and librarians. I’m wondering though how much people really know about these and use them or if their appeal was just a temporary fad.