FIS 1311 - Project Profile Assignment

Project Profile Assignment

To contextualize the material in this course, it is useful to see what librarians and information specialists are up to in the field. This assignment asks you to:

Choose a project from a list provided below (or to submit one of your own choosing from elsewhere for approval by the instructor). Note: The word "project" is used here loosely. It can refer to an organization, initiative or other collective entity or endeavour. In only a few cases are these commercial in nature.
Investigate the project's Website. Locate and familiarize yourself with any other information available about the project online (you are also welcome to contact someone involved in the project by email to ask more specific questions)
Write up a short (1000 words) report on the project. This report should not only summarize the purpose of the project (in your own words), but should try to contextualize the project in terms of other information you have located on the Web or obtained otherwise. (e.g. What is the current focus or area(s) of emphasis for the project? What is its relationship to any sponsoring organization(s)? Has it changed/expanded its focus recently?)
Post your write-up on the project to your blog; also, submit your write-up to: norm_friesen@sfu.ca
Read the project profiles that have been posted on others' blogs. Post comments to at least two others projects/comments. Your postings can ask questions about the project that might be raised for you, can draw connections between projects that you have learned about, or can build on other posts.
Respond to any comments or questions that you receive on your profile.

List of projects:

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: http://www.dublincore.org
PURL: Persistent Uniform Resource Locator - http://purl.oclc.org/
Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/
IMS Global: http://www.imsglobal.org
Access copyright: http://www.accesscopyright.ca/
The Inclusive Learning Exchange: http://barrierfree.ca/tile/
CARL Institutional Repository Project: http://www.uottawa.ca/library/carl/projects/ir/
W3C: http://www.w3.org
Semantic Web: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
flickr: http://www.flickr.com/
del.icio.us: http://www.del.icio.us
WordNet: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
Blogger.com: http://www.blogger.com/home
Text Encoding Initiative: http://www.tei-c.org/
Open Archives Forum: http://www.oaforum.org/index.php
Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN): http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/About_Chin/index.html
DSpace: http://www.dspace.org/
Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/
Encoded Archival Description (EAD): http://www.loc.gov/ead/
GeoConnections http://geodiscover.cgdi.ca/gdp/index.jsp?language=en
Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/tgn/
Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus: http://en.thesaurus.gc.ca/intro_e.html
Metadata Encoding and Transmission (METS): http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/
Z39.50: http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/
UKOLN: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
The Digital Object Identifier System: http://www.doi.org/
EPrints.org: http://www.eprints.org/
Citebase: http://www.citebase.org
PLONE: http://plone.org/
SAKAI: http://www.sakaiproject.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://www.eff.org/
CiteUlike: http://www.citeulike.org/
Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL): http://www.carl-abrc.ca/new/new-e.html
MERLOT: http://www.merlot.org/Home.po
WIFI Alliance: http://www.wi-fi.org/OpenSection/index.asp
ISO: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage
Coalition for Networked Information: http://www.cni.org/
World Intellectual Property Organization: http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en
Friend of a Friend (FOAF) http://www.foaf-project.org/
Motion Picture Experts Group MPEG http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/
Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL): http://www.carl-abrc.ca/
Technorati: http://www.technorati.com
Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/
Linux Online: http://www.linux.org/
Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org/
IM Portal: http://www.informationmanagement.gc.ca/index_e.asp?catid=

Write your paper in APA format. For instructions on this, see: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_apa.html

	Information Seeking/Selecting and Evaluating	Analysis	Synthesis	Documentation	Product/Process
A+ to A 14-15 / 15	Student(s) gathered information from a variety of quality sources, Sources are relevant and balanced readings relating to the thesis or problem.	Student(s) carefully analyzed the information collected and drew appropriate and inventive conclusions supported by evidence. Voice of the student writer is evident.	Student(s) developed appropriate structure for communicating content, incorporating variety of quality sources. Information is logically and creatively organized with smooth transitions.	Student(s) documented all sources. Sources are properly cited, both in-text/in-product and on Works-Cited/Works-Consulted pages/slides. Documentation is error-free.	Student(s) effectively and creatively used appropriate communication tools to convey their conclusions and demonstrated thorough, effective research techniques. Product displays creativity and originality.
A- to B+ 11-13 / 15 _____	Student(s) gathered information from a variety of relevant sources.	Student (s) product shows good effort was made in analyzing the evidence collected	Student(s) logically organized the product and made good connections among ideas	Student(s) documented sources with some care, Sources are cited, both in-text/in-product and on Works-Cited/Works-Consulted pages/slides. Few errors noted.	Student(s) effectively communicated the results of research to the audience.
B to B- 12-14/ 20	Student(s) gathered information from a limited range of sources and displayed minimal effort in selecting quality resources.	Student(s) conclusions could be supported by stronger evidence. Level of analysis could have been deeper.	Student(s) could have put greater effort into organizing the product	Student(s) need to use greater care in documenting sources. Documentation was poorly constructed or absent.	Student(s) need to work on communicating more effectively
FZ 12/20 or less	Student(s) gathered information that lacked relevance, quality, depth and balance.	Student(s) conclusions simply involved restating information. Conclusions were not supported by evidence.	Student(s) work is not logically or effectively structured.	Student(s) clearly plagiarized materials.	Student(s) showed little evidence of thoughtful research. Product does not effectively communicate research findings.