Tag: metadata

20 years ago today, final post

Posted by on in Information Management
20 Year anniversary blog series

This blog is the final post of a series of reminiscences and predictions on all things information management, to celebrate 20 years of Metataxis.

So much has changed in the last twenty years – cloud services, data privacy, mobile devices, Microsoft 365’s pre-eminence. So much remains the same – folders, metadata, difficult to use systems. And finally, what transcends all this – the information itself. We’ll always need to manage it – somehow.

20 years ago today, part 10: AI driven records and information management

Posted by on in Artificial Intelligence, Information Architecture
20 Year anniversary blog series (10)

This blog is a continuation of a series of reminiscences and predictions on all things
information management, to celebrate 20 years of Metataxis.

AI tools and techniques will drive usage of RM, KM and IM, but strategies and designs will be needed to get the most out of AI. Information managers and information architects will still be needed, and arguably be even more crucial (will any organisation understand AI systems well enough to make them work well?).

20 years ago today, part 1: Will the Semantic Web ever be mainstream?

Posted by on in Company, Information Architecture, Information Governance, Linked Data, Semantic Web

This post is the first in a weekly series of reminiscences and predictions on all things information management, to celebrate 20 years of Metataxis.

The internet was a big thing in 2002 (we were in the tail of the dot-com boom). Many of us knew that this wasn’t going to change. We were already post Web 1.0, and there was much talk of Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and beyond. “Semantic Web” and “Linked Data” were leading-edge concepts. What happened to this promise? I think semantic web turned out to be harder to do than expected, and the market smaller than expected. However, today’s modern tools and modern mindsets mean that the promise of the Semantic Web is almost here. 

What has been your experience watching the evolution of the  Semantic Web and Linked Data since 2002? 

Get stuck in! A six part series on big bucket retention. Part one.

Posted by on in Information Governance, Information Management, Retention Management, Retention SchedulesLeave a comment

Part One

Like it or lump it. Classification for big bucket retention.

Splitters and lumpers

Two people look up at the sky and see a plane.

The first person points up and says: “Look it’s a jet plane”.
The second person responds: “Well actually it’s Boeing 737-900ER”.

Both are correct, but the first person is someone who defines things in broad categories, a lumper.  The second person is a splitter, someone who defines things in smaller categories. Referring to people as splitters and lumpers is common in biological sciences, particularly evolutionary science where classification of species depends on the importance placed on minor differences between individual animals. In the fossil record this has led to some traps for splitters who have created numerous hominid classifications where we might be looking at differences in size, age, gender, health within a single species. Whereas lumpers are criticised for accepting too many variations and therefore lumping different species within one category as in the case of Homo habilis.

Classification for records management

This kind of problem in classification is not just the preserve of the sciences. It is something most records managers must consider when devising a retention schedule. Especially if they are aiming for “big bucket retention” for their schedule. On the face of it you might think that big bucket retention would lend itself well to those who are better at lumping categories of records together. But creating meaningful large categories requires a good understanding of the details that dictate which small differences are significant and which ones are not.

Learning to be lumpers

Records management as a profession tends to attract people who like detail. You’d think this means our work requires us to be splitters. But the nature of our work increasingly requires us to be lumpers, as the scale of records management means we cannot practically apply retention rules and business classifications at such a granular level. This does mean that we as a profession have a tendency to  create schedules that are more complex. The very ambition of having a simple, big bucket schedule in our complex working environment is a bold one.

Compromise between simplicity and complexity

In the end it’s a constant process of compromise between the need for simplification and the need to ensure more complex records management requirements are accommodated.

Lumping records into “big buckets” does not mean we ignore the detail. In fact the detail must be understood to help us determine which records can be classed separately, and which can be safely lumped together.

This all sounds very challenging to do correctly, especially once you start to involve stakeholder who always make things complicated!  To provide some advice I’ve reflected on the years of experience writing and implementing retention schedules and I hope you find these posts a much more practical approach to the real world issues you will encounter while creating or re-creating your retention schedule. 

Of course if you have any questions about practical retention management please use the contact form on the right or email us info@metataxis.com.

Metadata, taxonomies and retrieval – an ISKO event

Posted by on in Information Architecture, Information Management, Knowledge Management, Metadata, Ontology, Taxonomy

On Friday April 5th I was lucky enough to attend the ISKO event Metadata, taxonomies and retrieval, which was held at City, University of London after the ISKO AGM. After introductions by ISKO chair David Haynes, 4 very different speakers covered a range of topics, all around the theme of metadata, taxonomies and retrieval.

Getaneh Alemu opened with a detailed look at how he and the library team at Solent University have improved discovery across the library catalogue, using his four main principles of quality metadata. Building on his PhD work, Getaneh outlined the four overarching metatdata principles for successful search: metadata enriching, linking, openness and filtering. Using these principles as guides, he has been able to analyse user search patterns and inform more efficient cataloguing practices at Solent.

Next we heard from Cancer Research UK’s Taxonomy Manager, Thomas Alexander. Thomas has led the development of a system-agnostic single taxonomy at Cancer Research UK, creating a common language across the whole organisation. This single taxonomy is shared across their external website, internal SharePoint site, and IT helpdesk services. While this common vocabulary has made finding information easier across the organisation, it required several stages of user testing and validation, and is slightly restricted by SharePoint functionality in some cases. Thomas hopes that having the solid taxonomy established will be a great place to start any future ontology projects he has in mind.

After a refreshment break, Niké Brown presented around taxonomy challenges in digital publishing. Niké has many years’ experience in this field, and even remembers her former company launching their first ever CD-Rom, a format and content challenge that helped launch her particular interest in this topic. We were taken through several examples of different approaches to digital publishing taxonomies, and the challenges faced by each. Several points were raised linking to the previous presentations, around the pros and cons of one large, all-encompassing taxonomy vs. multiple smaller, specialist taxonomies, and the importance of proper metadata enrichment.

The final speaker was Eugene Morozov, who talked about W3C Semantic Web standards and discoverability of regulatory rulebooks. Eugene went over some of the pros and cons of Model-Driven Machine Executable Regulation (MDMER), and the benefits this developing field could have in the future. Building on the 5-star Open Data rating scheme, Eugene provided examples of various regulations and rated them accordingly, including an axis of granularity and an axis of semantic richness to provide a fuller picture.

The audience was then invited to ask questions of the 4 speakers in a panel discussion, addressing the questions Metadata and Taxonomies: best hidden behind the scenes, or fully exposed to users? All speakers had different experiences of both these approaches, and all ultimately agreed it depended on context. There was a consensus around the importance of having enough information for users to be able to narrow down their search, help with ambiguous search terms find related terms etc, without providing an overwhelmingly large full taxonomy. Some interesting points were then raised around AI and machine learning, as well as voice search and how taxonomies will apply and be available for voice search results. All panellists believed the most important thing regardless of the approach adopted is having high quality taxonomies in place.

Overall it was a thoroughly interesting afternoon, with some great speakers and thought-provoking questions. I look forward to the next ISKO event! https://www.iskouk.org/events