Guidelines and Principles for Guidelines and Principles for Developing Search and Browse Developing Search and Browse Vocabularies Vocabularies May 31, 2003 May 31, 2003 Rice University Rice University Houston, TX Houston, TX Amy J. Warner, PhD Amy J. Warner, PhD [email protected]
26
Embed
Guidelines and Principles for Developing Search and Browse Vocabularies May 31, 2003 Rice University Houston, TX Amy J. Warner, PhD [email protected].
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Guidelines and Principles for Guidelines and Principles for Developing Search and Browse Developing Search and Browse
Identify broader and narrower terms.Taxonomies / Hierarchies
Identify related terms.Thesauri
11
Purposes of Standard
Base choices on ‘best practice’. Base choices on known principles. Foster interoperability.
12
Current NISO Thesaurus Standard
Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual thesauri: Z39.19-1993.
Not a technical standard, but a set of guidelines. Emphasizes search thesauri. Emphasizes postcoordinate retrieval. Used mainly for abstracting and indexing
services. Does not put the standard in context.
13
Why Revise
Not revised since 1993. Number of downloads high, reflecting interest. Does not take the web environment into account.
– Navigation schemes are controlled vocabularies too.– Is out of date in terms of computing technology in general:
• Software for managing thesauri has advanced.
• Software for leveraging thesauri though an interface has advanced.
Currently little attention paid to user testing.
14
Term forms
Currently– Emphasizes rigid rules for grammatical form.– Emphasizes short phrases as terms.
Suggested revision– Loosen rules on grammatical form.– Allow for longer, more complex phrases.
Rationale– Software can perform automatic stemming.– Navigation schemes are more precoordinate.
15
Semantic Relationships
Current standard– Only accounts for explicit equivalence relationships.– Hierarchical relationship only allowed for genus-species
relationship, with a few exceptions.– Associative relationship only allowed across categories.
Proposed revision– Provide guidelines for choosing unambiguous labels.– Provide guidelines for loose, browse categories.
Rationale– Labeling schemes and pick lists often do not account for
explicit synonymy relationships.– Hierarchical navigation schemes need to be less rigid.
16
Browse Categories
17
Usability Testing
Current standard– Discusses users but does not include guidelines for testing
with users. Proposed revision
– Provide guidelines for open card sort testing of high level categories.
– Provide guidelines for closed card sorting of term groups under high level categories.
Rationale– User testing important consideration for choose terms and
term relationships.
18
Display
Current standard– Emphasizes print copies of thesauri.– Screen display section oriented toward display of
print copy. Proposed revision
– Oriented more toward displays of vocabularies that only exist in digital format.
Rationale– Most web vocabularies do not have print
counterparts.
19
Interoperability
Current standard– Does not address issues associated with
interoperability Proposed revision
– Will address major issues and problems associated with interoperability, including multiple languages
Rationale– Being able to share information within and among
organizations
20
Construction and Maintenance
Current standard– Emphasizes maintenance problems in print vocabularies.– Discusses software that manages stand-alone vocabularies.
Proposed revision– Advance standards for changing, adding, deleting terms
automatically.– Provide guidance for software that is connected to
information retrieval systems. Rationale
– Software has advanced significantly.
21
Process for Revising Standard
Appoint editor. Appoint advisory group. Draft revision. Discuss drafts with advisory group. Vote on final draft by NISO board.
22
Editor & Advisory Group
Amy Warner, lexonomy.com Vivian Bliss, Microsoft Carol Brent, ProQuest John Dickert, U.S. DoD Lynn El-Hoshy, Library of Congress Emily Fayen, SDC liaison Patricia Harpring, Getty Stephen Hearn, American Library Association Sabine Kuhn, American Chemical Society/Chemical Abstracts Pat Kuhr, H.W. Wilson Diane McKerlie, Design Strategy Peter Morville, Semantic Studios Stuart Nelson, National Library of Medicine Diane Vizine-Goetz, OCLC Marcia Lei Zeng, Special Libraries Association
23
Progress to Date
Agreement on scope of revision. Agreement that guidelines should be placed in context. Agreement that guidelines should be educational as well
as prescribing best practice. Agreement that guidelines should be forward looking in
terms of new technologies. Agreement to write guidelines for elements and features
that all vocabularies have in common, then consider their differences.
Survey conducted to determine use of standard, other standards, software.
24
Other Players
Communication with editor of British Standard. Communication and work with W3C to address
issues of implementation of controlled vocabularies.
25
Relationship with Semantic Web and OWL
Semantic Web is an ontological framework. Both terms in the ontology and the relationships between
them are standardized using OWL (Web Ontology Language).
Both the terms and the relationships are ‘deep’ semantically.
This is a structure into which ‘shallower’ terms provided by using Z39.19 could be inserted.
This would enhance interoperability because although we would not have complete agreement on vocabularies, we would have agreement on an effective structure for exchanging them.