Reflections before writing an article
As I am academic related, I have to produce some academic work, even though it is not at the level of a true researcher, evidently. I work full time as a librarian and as it is a one person library, I tend never to get bored at work!
So far I have written book reviews for library journals (in Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues, ASLIB The Association for Information Management) and from time to time in this blog. This year, somehow, I was away when the offer to write reviews appeared online and missed the opportunity somehow.
So I have decided to write a short article, quite practical, and related to new tasks I had to do this year.
And I think, the main new task was to rethink the classification of languages for our new website. Each language for which we have material in the library (now I'm proud to say 203...) has an online presence, indicating the library shelfmark and a collection of weblinks to help learn the language or discover more about the culture.
We used to have all languages on the website in alphabetical order (like Cambridge University Language Centre) but in our new website, a decision was taken to have a geographical classification of our languages.
I have to admit our new website is absolutely wonderful, created by Mosaic, an Oxford University based team and project, which means that all questions of accessibility are sorted by them. From a user point of view, the website is far superior to the one we had before: the search box is working properly! (before I had to go to a search engine and type the keyword + www.lang.ox.ac.uk !), the information is clear, the pictures great etc etc... In brief: it looks professional.
So we moved from that:
to this:
Better, non?
The only downside, from an editor point of view, is that it takes about 10 times more to do changes on the platform, but I suppose it is a price to pay for having a secure and legally coded website.
So yes, I had to rethink the classification of languages. Everything was pre-prepared for me, which was great, so:
Then I was offered the following:
Frankly at first I was tempted to put UK/England/London and then add, alphabetically, all the languages of the world there, because surely, at the exception of indigenous and endangered languages, most of the 203 languages in my library, are spoken in London, the new Babel of the world.
But no, the point of this new website, was to have a "less is more" approach, so I had to behave, and that's when the intelectual puzzles started. Very briefly, in a few words:
So as you can see quite a few interesting puzzles were arising from the contruction of this new website. And of course, I created the following three subsections:
I still don't know where I wish to have it published. Will that be in "Information Professional" CILIP's own magazine?
Will that be in the periodical Catalogue and Index, from CILIP Cataloguing and Indexing Group?
I am not sure yet. I have started some broad searches on LISA and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, the two main librarianship databases we have here in Oxford. As usual when you do a first search/browse, you get more ideas! And another was to see the physical classification of languages in libraries.
As we belong to the AULC (Association of University Language Centre) I thought I ought to create an online questionnaire. It is, of course, too early in the process, and I am not sure even, at that stage, that I am going to write about this subject. But I was thinking, as I am likely to be sending a questionnaire anyway for the classification of online resources for languages, I thought I might as well ask about the library classifications each language centre uses (should they have a library that is).
So here was my first attempt (with some red for stuff needing to be changed):
Add questions regarding whether readers actually like the classification on offer and whether the librarians/resources managers as well.
I sent the questionnaires to two people at work, and very quickly, was told by one of them, the Communication Officer that Oxford University uses Bos online survey tool for questionnaires as it is compliant with all UK data protection laws.
(moral of the story: it's always good to share your surveys before you send them, that saves me, in that particular case, from doing something illegal here. Pfew!)
So far I have written book reviews for library journals (in Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues, ASLIB The Association for Information Management) and from time to time in this blog. This year, somehow, I was away when the offer to write reviews appeared online and missed the opportunity somehow.
So I have decided to write a short article, quite practical, and related to new tasks I had to do this year.
And I think, the main new task was to rethink the classification of languages for our new website. Each language for which we have material in the library (now I'm proud to say 203...) has an online presence, indicating the library shelfmark and a collection of weblinks to help learn the language or discover more about the culture.
We used to have all languages on the website in alphabetical order (like Cambridge University Language Centre) but in our new website, a decision was taken to have a geographical classification of our languages.
I have to admit our new website is absolutely wonderful, created by Mosaic, an Oxford University based team and project, which means that all questions of accessibility are sorted by them. From a user point of view, the website is far superior to the one we had before: the search box is working properly! (before I had to go to a search engine and type the keyword + www.lang.ox.ac.uk !), the information is clear, the pictures great etc etc... In brief: it looks professional.
So we moved from that:
to this:
Better, non?
The only downside, from an editor point of view, is that it takes about 10 times more to do changes on the platform, but I suppose it is a price to pay for having a secure and legally coded website.
So yes, I had to rethink the classification of languages. Everything was pre-prepared for me, which was great, so:
- I had an alphabetically classification of the languages we teach here
- with the addition of other important languages (I use the word important here as these languages have a lot of language links on offer and the physical collection is also quite substantial).
Then I was offered the following:
 |
| The new Language Centre website, November 2017 |
Frankly at first I was tempted to put UK/England/London and then add, alphabetically, all the languages of the world there, because surely, at the exception of indigenous and endangered languages, most of the 203 languages in my library, are spoken in London, the new Babel of the world.
But no, the point of this new website, was to have a "less is more" approach, so I had to behave, and that's when the intelectual puzzles started. Very briefly, in a few words:
- Is it the history of the language, ie where it comes from, or where the language is spoken today? Pashto for example, do you place it in "Other Middle Eastern Languages" as it belongs to the Easter Iranian family, or do you place it in "Other Asian Languages"?
- And speaking about actual geography, what is Europe? What is Asia? For example, if you had to place Russian, would you classify the language in Europe or in Asia?
- Where to place Esperanto, a contructed language? Europe, where it was created? But surely, being a constructed language, it ought to have its own place. (as well as Enochian, the language of Angels, yes... I had a query about that on facebook, and other extra-terrestrial oddities). Are middle-earth languages from Europe then? As Tolkien lived here in Oxford. Clearly it does not make sense.
- What about languages spoken by people who were displaced? Stalin, after all, displaced millions. It is estimated by wikipedia that the population transfered in the Soviet Union amounted to 6 millions. Amongst many others... do you place Crimean Tatar in Europe or in Asia?
- What about creoles and pidgins? Where to classify them? In the country where they are spoken now? In the country where they partly come from? Or the language page? For example put all English, French, Portuguese based creoles in the English, French, Portuguese page? So Cajun (based from French) could be in Other American Languages, or in the French page?
- And speaking of French page (or English, or any languages we teach here), is that also the place where we put sign languages ? So French sign language in the French webpage, Russian sign language in Russian?
So as you can see quite a few interesting puzzles were arising from the contruction of this new website. And of course, I created the following three subsections:
I still don't know where I wish to have it published. Will that be in "Information Professional" CILIP's own magazine?
Will that be in the periodical Catalogue and Index, from CILIP Cataloguing and Indexing Group?
I am not sure yet. I have started some broad searches on LISA and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, the two main librarianship databases we have here in Oxford. As usual when you do a first search/browse, you get more ideas! And another was to see the physical classification of languages in libraries.
As we belong to the AULC (Association of University Language Centre) I thought I ought to create an online questionnaire. It is, of course, too early in the process, and I am not sure even, at that stage, that I am going to write about this subject. But I was thinking, as I am likely to be sending a questionnaire anyway for the classification of online resources for languages, I thought I might as well ask about the library classifications each language centre uses (should they have a library that is).
So here was my first attempt (with some red for stuff needing to be changed):
1. Is your Language Centre library (or resource centre, learning zone) separated from the University collections?
Yes
No
Comments
2. If yes (your library is separated) what is the classification?
In-house style closed to ISO code (ie FRE or FR for French)
Other in-house classification (details in box below please)
Dewey
Library of Congress
Other classifications or specification of other in-house classification make sure it is possible to select two options. Wording could be improved.
3. If no (your library is incorporated in a bigger library) what is the classification?
Dewey
Library of Congress
In-house ADD A BOX?
Other common classification system(please specify)
4. How many languages do you have on offer as links list on your website? (rewrite)
Number:
5. Is this different from the actual, physical, number of resources for each language? (do I need that question) Not a relevant question, remove.
Yes
No
Comments
6. In your website, how are your languages on offer classified?
Alphabetically
Geographically
Language Families
Library classifications (Dewey, LC, others) (please give details in box below)
Other Linguistics classifications (please give details in box below)
Other (please describe in box below)
Comments Add the option of classification by classes levels or names
Add questions regarding whether readers actually like the classification on offer and whether the librarians/resources managers as well.
I sent the questionnaires to two people at work, and very quickly, was told by one of them, the Communication Officer that Oxford University uses Bos online survey tool for questionnaires as it is compliant with all UK data protection laws.
(moral of the story: it's always good to share your surveys before you send them, that saves me, in that particular case, from doing something illegal here. Pfew!)
Comments
Post a Comment