Looking through Ben Gincley’s annotated bibliography was an interesting peak into another discipline, and what kind of work they do. Ben discussed the field of neural engineering, which is a relatively new field in which they are trying to find ways restore lost neural functions. The initial difference I saw when comparing y annotated bibliographies is that Ben’s covers a slightly broader topic. My annotated bibliography was focused on the specific problem of detecting lead paint in Boston houses, and Ben focused more on discussing breakthroughs in ways neural engineers are helping paralyzed individuals get back to having normal lifestyles, whether that be through improving their means of communication or giving them mobility again. As a byproduct of this, my sources ended up being selected from a wider range of genres to build up to a solution to the initial problem I brought up, and Ben was able to pull mostly from scientific journals and papers to discuss his discipline.
Looking at the XML markup, Ben and I seemed to agree on in which of the “buckets” we should put different ideas we were trying to convey. We both followed the order of giving a background, summary, and then explaining the relevance to the topic we were discussing. One of the differences I see is that Ben’s XML looks much neater than mine. A clear difference is that his lines wrap around to the next line when they are too long, and end up fitting in the margins while you have to scroll to the left, past the margins, to finish reading each of my lines. It’s definitely something I’ll look into improving in future writing projects.
