Dominique Burns e-Portfolio

Introduction

Information retrieval is defined as a “Device interposed between a potential end-user of an information collection and the information collection itself” (Rubin, 2010, p. 282). Information retrieval is an important function of librarianship. Librarians are required to retrieve and sort through information as part of the search process for their patrons. Morville (2005) writes, “In physical environments, size, shape, color, and location set objects apart. In the digital realm we rely heavily on words. Words as labels. Words as links. Keywords” (p. 4). Often in today’s digital world librarians perform searches through different platforms, such as databases or online websites. Librarians have to be familiar with different online search methods, such as the use of keywords, metadata, Boolean operators, and natural languages. As well, they must sort through varying results of information in order to determine what is relevant.

 

Today there is an influx of digital resources available to libraries and their patrons for information retrieval. These digital and technological resources must be relevant in order to meet the information needs of their users. Retrieval systems must be designed with the user in mind. 21st century information professionals must also be able to understand how these systems work. This is why it is important for those searching for information and those creating information retrieval systems to understand the concepts of database design, querying, and evaluation.

 

Database Design

The process of database design includes several steps, such as goals of the database, user information needs, and the database’s visual appearance.  Researchers and professionals will first identify “Product or service that will be or could be instantiated in the world to solve a problem” (Weedman, 2010, p. 1494). According to Svenonius (2000) there are five key principles of database design. The five principles are the following.

 

1. Principle of User Convenience: Decisions taken in the making of descriptions should be made with the user in mind. A subprinciple is the Principle of Common usage. Normalized vocabulary used in descriptions should accord with that of the majority of users

2. Principle of representation: Descriptions should be based on the way information describes itself. A subprinciple is the Principle of Accuracy. Descriptions should faithfully portray the entity described.

3. Principle of Sufficiency and Necessity: Descriptions should be sufficient to achieve stated objectives and should not include elements not required for this purpose. A subprinciple is the Principle of Significance. Descriptions should include only those elements that are bibliographically significant.

4. Principle of Standardization: Descriptions should be standardized, to the extent and level possible.

5. Principle of integration: Descriptions for all types of materials should be based on a common set of rules, to the extent possible (Svenonius, 2000, p. 68).

 

One example of database design is the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database. The database provides users with information about safe skin care products. Their goal is “To protect human health and the environment” and provide “Practical solutions to protect yourself and your family from everyday exposures to chemicals” (EWG Skin Deep, n.d.). The organization identified a need for more information on safe skin care products and created a database as a solution. This database is a prime example of Svenonius (2000) five principles to database design.

 

Query

Librarians today have a multitude of search engines available for finding and retrieving information. They can use databases, Internet search engines, and even social media when it comes to seeking out answers. In order to find the information one needs in these varying information retrieval systems, librarians must understand what to search. This means understanding what to query. A query is composed of keywords that represent appropriate and relevant attributes to the information wanted (Meadow, Boyce, Kraft & Barry, 2006, p. 9). When performing a query in an information retrieval system librarians will need to know where to search and how to search. In order to narrow or expand a search librarians will use keywords, metadata, Boolean operators, and natural languages. Librarians then have to search through results and evaluate the relevance of the information found. Often the information first retrieved acts as a hint for librarians or the individual searching. They are able to then use the information initially retrieved to formulate another more relevant search query.

 

Evaluate

When an individual makes a search query, it is up to the information retrieval system to successfully evaluate those keywords in order to provide relevant results. Meadow, Boyce, Kraft and Barry (2006) write “A well-designed, complete information system should have some procedures for recognizing errors and for handling them when they do occur” (p. 66).  A good information retrieval system should be able to evaluate similarities between keywords, descriptiveness, ambiguity, numbers, and different character names (Meadow, Boyce, Kraft & Barry, 2006, pp. 66-75). It is important for librarians and information professionals to understand how information retrieval systems evaluate queries when producing search results.

 

Librarians are also tasked with knowing how to successfully evaluate search results on their own. This includes using precision and recall to evaluate search results (Meadow, Boyce, Kraft & Barry, 2006). Precision is how many items retrieved are relevant compared to total retrieved (Meadow, Boyce, Kraft & Barry, 2006). While recall is the number of relevant items retrieved compared to number of items in the database (Meadow, Boyce, Kraft & Barry, 2006). Using these two methods to evaluate the information retrieved can help determine the relevance of the information. Being able to evaluate relevance of the information retrieved will also help dictate the usefulness of the information retrieval system they are using. If more results are irrelevant it will be a sign to try other search methods or search engines. 

 

Evidence

The following evidence includes MLIS coursework that I have completed during my time at San Jose State University.

 

1. INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Group Project 1: Alpha Prototype

2. INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Group Project 2: Bibliographic Database Design

3. INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Group Project 3: Hierarchical Design of Site Maps

4. INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Relevance Discussion Posts

5. INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Term Paper Information Retrieval

6. INFO 210 Reference and Information Services: Mini-activities 1-10

 

INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Group Project 1: Alpha Prototype

 

Evidence:

• Group Project 1: Alpha Prototype

 

This group assignment required us to design a data structure for a database of records for non-traditional objects in a collection. As a group we created and manipulated database files, wrote a statement of purpose for our user group, beta tested the database, evaluated the design, and used WebDataPro to create the database (INFO 202 One Sheet, 2015). We met several times through Blackboard Collaborate to design, construct, beta-test, and evaluate the database. The database we created contained a collection of kid shows meant for users who fall under the category of parent.

 

INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Group Project 2: Bibliographic Database Design

 

Evidence:

• Group Project 2: Bibliographic Database Design

 

As a group we designed a small controlled vocabulary list and created a database with scholarly articles as records. Our fields included descriptive information (author, title, source publication, year) and subject access (post-coordinate controlled vocabulary terms) (INFO 202 One Sheet, 2015). We used natural language and controlled vocabulary for searching the database. We evaluated the database and our results as part of the project.

 

INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Group Project 3: Hierarchical Design of Site Maps

 

Evidence:

• Group Project 3: Hierarchical Design of Site Maps

 

For this assignment we re-designed an organization’s website and developed a report of recommendations for re-designing the site’s structure, organization, and labeling (INFO 202 One Sheet, 2015). We re-designed the Eugene Public Library for this project. We created two versions of a site map, one of the site as it is and one showing our recommendations for improving navigation and information retrieval (INFO 202 One Sheet, 2015).

 

INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Relevance Discussion Posts

 

Evidence:

• Relevance Discussion Posts

 

This discussion post was on the topic of relevance in relation to information retrieval. Using class readings and additional scholarly articles I answered the question “Do you think average people's notion of relevance would differ from scholars'?” I also participated in the discussion feed by responding to my classmate’s posts; which discussed and answered the following questions related to information retrieval relevance.

 

1. What does "relevance" mean to *you*?

2. With push/pulling, filtering, mobile, and geo-awareness information technologies today, is "relevance" still relevant?

3. What is the driving force behind the evolutionary understanding/definition of relevance?

4. Is it possible to quantitatively measure relevance? If yes, how? If not, why?

5. Where/when is relevance an individual's subjective experience? And where/when is it a democratic/statistic notion?

 

INFO 202 Information Retrieval System Design: Term Paper Information Retrieval

 

Evidence:

• Term Paper Information Retrieval

 

This assignment was to write a scholarly term paper on a chosen topic related to information retrieval technologies.  This paper included a literature review, history, progress, issues, and problems, and in-depth analysis on my chosen topic of federated searching systems in schools. This paper included a brief and succinct history of IR systems in schools and a discussion on the digital resources used in school libraries today.  I discussed query concepts related to metadata, Bollean operators, and natural languages. As well, I examined a highly popular digital resource used in schools called Follett One Search.

 

INFO 210 Reference and Information Services: Mini-activities 1-10

 

Evidence:

• Mini-activity 1: Mining for In-Depth Resources

• Mini-activity 2 & 3: Search Strategies

• Mini-activity 4: Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, Etc.

• Mini-activity 5 & 6: Finding Facts

• Mini-activity 7: Law, Health, and Business

• Mini-activity 8 & 9: Biographical Information, Government Publications, and Web 2.0

• Mini-activity 10: Reader’s Advisory and Sources, Children and Young Adults, and Science

 

Each week I completed an information quest as part of a mini-activity related to reference services. I practiced search strategies and examined different types of resources for finding and retrieving information. Each week was related to a topic and I was required to search databases and different information retrieval systems to find answers. I then evaluated the information retrieved. The learning outcome of these mini-activities was to “Use basic reference tools and searching techniques to answer a wide range of questions” (INFO 210 One Sheet, 2016).

 

Conclusion

A primary responsibility of librarians is the ability to retrieve information through a multitude of ways. In order to successfully do this, librarians must understand how to design databases, create search queries, and evaluate the information retrieved. My coursework above reflects a strong understanding of these concepts. I now understand how databases operate from both a technical aspect and user point of view.  My coursework has given me in-depth experiences creating and designing information retrieval systems and successfully searching different types of information retrieval systems.   

 

References

Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep. (n.d.). Cosmetics database. Retrieved from

    http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/site/about.php

 

Meadow, T. C., Boyce, B.R., Kraft, D.H., & Barry, C. (2006). Text information retrieval systems. United Kingdom:    

    Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

 

Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

 

Rubin, R.E. (2010). Foundations of library and information science. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

 

Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 

Weedman, J. (2010). Design science in the information sciences. Encyclopedia of Library and Information  

    Sciences, 1493-1506.

    doi: 10.1081/E-ELIS3-120043534