For this entry I took a look at Sam Wagner’s project where she went into addressing how in America we do not take care of older buildings and how we can find ways to take better care of them. I saw that from a discipline standpoint there were variation to how she approached and I approached project 1. For one since her discipline is civil engineering she was bring up more building oriented setting whereas I was going in depth with mechanical based approach. For her problem statement there was a lot more first person and a good deal of background that she brought to the issue where I approached it from third person and went more technically into the issue.
Looking at the XML source I found that there were a lot of commonalities between mine and Sam’s writing. I found that we both used general summary in each of our annotated bibliographies. I also found that our summary and relevance sections were usually larger than the background. Some of differences were that she used MLA for citations where I used APA. She used multiple different summaries more than I did.
Looking at Sam’s project now I would probably have included more application/relevance material into my annotated bibliographies. What I mean by that is that I would have included more examples and applications that I could have given the reader on how to improve the problem. Obviously from viewing this project I have different way of viewing this project and developing an annotated bibliography, what I noticed is that schema is more of a guideline than a principal because looking back I feel like my annotations may have been a bit constrained and may seem a little rigid and clunky.
