SharePoint 2007 Information Architecture
Integrating taxonomy & metadata
Jeff Carr, Stephanie Lemieux Earley & Associates
Taxonomy Bootcamp November, 2009
2
SharePoint is very easy to implement badly
Typical SharePoint Projects 3
Biz Reqs Implementtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Implement Business Req’s Implement
Business Req’s Implement
Examples courtesy of Lulu Pachuau: http://www.slideshare.net/LuluP/information‐architecture‐and‐sharepoint
Where is the information architecture?!
Requirements Research
Use Cases & Personas
Site Map & Navigation
Wireframes
Taxonomy
Content Modeling/Metadata
Prototyping/Testing
The IA Process
© Earley & Associates 2009
For SharePoint
Good IA needs a system that:
Supports control & standards Has user friendly interfaces (esp. tagging) Understands relationships
Hierarchy Synonyms Associations
Manages metadata & taxonomy values
5
© Earley & Associates 2009
Before we start… some basics
Site Collections Collection of sites Primary source of main navigation
Sites Container for lists/libraries Primary source of “quick launch” navigation
Lists Libraries
List: Basic unit of storage, collection of items Library: advanced list
6
Columns & content types
Lists
Content Types
Collection of columns Associated policies, workflow, templates
Columns Individual metadata item Can reference lists or other data sources
7
8
Boundaries & Inheritance
Content types inherit from parents
Content types are specific to a site collection
More about columns
Different kinds… Date Number Free text Controlled list (a.k.a Lookup)
Etc.
9
You can also create custom column types
© Earley & Associates 2009
Content display 10
© Earley & Associates 2009
Advanced search (OOTB) 11
Full text keywords
Extended metadata properties
© Earley & Associates 2009
Navigation 12
All navigation approaches are configurable (largely) Quick launch shows “current site”
elements
Top‐level navigation shows sub sites and peers
© Earley & Associates 2009
Strengths
Easy to create new structures Navigation is largely automatic Easy to create metadata and connect to LOB systems
Many ways to consume content Office integration
Document information panel Property propagation
13
© Earley & Associates 2009
Weaknesses
Very physical architecture Content types and columns scoped to site collections
No metadata/taxonomy management No referential integrity
No hierarchical metadata …or any kind of relationships!
OOTB search reflects all limitations
14
Topics Architecture Accounting Construction Engineering Civil Mechanical Environment Finance
© Earley & Associates 2009
No hierarchy
Metadata can only be tagged and stored as flat controlled vocabulary – no hierarchy possible
Regions
• Asia Pacific • EMEA • Latin America • North America
Countries
• Cambodia • Canada • Chad • China • Columbia • Croatia
Geographic regions
• Asia Pacific • China • Japan
• Europe • France • Switzerland
Possible Possible Not Possible
15
© Earley & Associates 2009
Native thesaurus
Expansions (a.k.a synonyms) E.g. HR = Human Resources = Employee Relations
Replacements (a.k.a. use) E.g. for NTK or W2K use Windows 2000
16
<XML ID="Microsoft Search Thesaurus"> <thesaurus xmlns="x-schema:tsSchema.xml"> <expansion> <sub>human resources</sub>
<sub>hr</sub> <sub>employee relations</sub>
</expansion> </thesaurus> </XML>
<XML ID="Microsoft Search Thesaurus"> <thesaurus xmlns="x-schema:tsSchema.xml">
<replacement> <pat>NT5</pat> <pat>W2K</pat> <sub>Windows 2000</sub> </replacement>
</thesaurus> </XML> No ability to store any other types of relationships (e.g. Associative)
© Earley & Associates 2009
17
Q: I have SharePoint, but I still want good findability. What are my options?
a) Pray b) Ace OOTB IA features c) Customize d) Buy 3rd party add‐ons
Improving navigation
List views RSS feeds Pre‐constructed searches that look like navigation E.g. Content query web part with XSLT
Faceted navigation
18
© Earley & Associates 2009
Improving tagging
Automate some tagging (workflow or event handler) Location User profile
Custom tagging interface Cascading list add‐on Taxonomy management tool connector Auto‐tagging tools
19
Here’s the thing about tools…!
What’s the difference between an add‐on, a connector and a full 3rd party tool?
Connectors
Taxonomy management tool (or other) as source for metadata and search UI Smartlogic (www.smartlogic.com) Synaptica (www.synapticacentral.com/) Wordmap (www.wordmap.com) SchemaLogic (www.schemalogic.com) MetaVis (www.metavistech.com)
21
© Earley & Associates 2009
The underlying issue
You can’t change the basic data structure in SharePoint (i.e. no relationships)
$ Add‐on – mimic hierarchy, enhance UI $$ Connector – outsource structure
Or
$$$ 3rd party tool
22
© Earley & Associates 2009
Cascading list add‐on 23
http://sharepointsnippets.com/post/2009/01/Cascading-Dropdown---Configuration.aspx © Earley & Associates 2009
Tagging add‐on/tool
Add‐on Taxo. Mgt. Tool
24
E.g. from Wordmap www.kwizcom.com
Auto‐tagging 25
E.g. from SmartLogic © Earley & Associates 2009
Improving search
Managed properties/metadata mapping Relevant content near the “top” Authoritative pages/URL removal Canned (“saved”) searches Best bets Faceted search add‐on or connector
26
© Earley & Associates 2009
Add‐on: Codeplex faceted search
Free, but leverages SharePoint structure, so limited to flat lists
27
Connector: SmartLogic e.g. 28
Refine / Suggest with preferred terms and relationships
© Earley & Associates 2009
Connector: SchemaLogic e.g. 29
Model content types & metadata outside SharePoint
How much do you need? 30
MOSS OOTB
Advanced search, limited configuration Navigation based on site architecture
Basic add‐on Better UI for search or tagging Basic faceted search (no/limited hierarchy)
Connector Taxonomy‐driven faceted search BT/NT thesaurus Auto‐tagging
External search tool Fully flexible UX Deep indexing Configurable search
© Earley & Associates 2009
What to expect in 2010
Auto tagging Hierarchical metadata Centralized metadata store Metadata‐based navigation Social tagging standard for all content and sites Search faceting and ranking manipulation
(blog post on 2010 metadata management:
http://www.earley.com/blog/metadata‐and‐taxonomy‐management‐sharepoint‐2010)
31
Conclusions
Don’t skip IA process just because it’s SharePoint Master OOTB features first Keep your eye on consistency across sites, site collections through governance
Select tools based on high‐value requirements
32
© Earley & Associates 2009
Resources
Free four part series on improving search and IA www.earley.com/webinars/jumpstarts/sharepoint‐search‐and‐information‐architecture
Codeplex: www.codeplex.com WSS Demo (Metadata and Content Types)
www.wssdemo.com/Pages/metadata.aspx Shawn Shell: CMS Watch SharePoint Analyst &
Consultant (also co‐author of this session) www.consejoinc.com (blog: http://blog.consejoinc.com/) www.cmswatch.com/SharePoint/Report/
© Earley & Associates 2009
Tool list
Smartlogic (www.smartlogic.com) ‐ taxo Synaptica (www.synapticacentral.com/) ‐ taxo Wordmap (www.wordmap.com) ‐ taxo SchemaLogic (www.schemalogic.com) ‐ taxo MetaVis (www.metavistech.com) Ontolica (www.ontolica.com) ‐ search Concept Searching (www.conceptsearching.com) Cogniva (www.cogniva.ca) ‐ tagging SharePart XXL (www.sharepartxxl.com) ‐ tagging Kwizcom (www.kwizcom.com) ‐ tagging
34
© Earley & Associates 2009
SHAREPOINT INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE
Taxonomy Bootcamp 2009
Stephanie Lemieux ([email protected]) Jeff Carr ([email protected]) Earley & Associates www.earley.com
Photo credits: http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbancityarch/3921454758/
© 2009