Controlled Vocabulary Workshop March 26-27, 2011

1. Controlled Vocabulary Workshop March 26-27, 2011

2. Finalize VOCAB “Terms of Reference” Define use cases for the keyword database and its development Develop procedures for capturing and managing keyword taxonomies DONE: Identify suitable existing database structures or software for managing the controlled vocabulary and adopt or modify them to meet the use cases Objectives

3. Agenda

4. AGENDA

5. Tematres web-based thesaurus tool installed • Taxonomys implemented • Habitats/Ecosystems • Substances • Processes • Organisms • Terms classified (things, materials, activities/processes, properties, etc.) • A few terms recommended for removal Status

6. 416 terms are part of the polytaxonomy • Includes some new higher-level terms • 264 terms remain to be linked • Synonyms are listed, but not yet added • A production server has been established for the controlled vocabulary • Ability to create instances for individual sites • Eda has worked a lot on import/export issues STATUS

7. Straw Man List • Vocabulary use for searching and browsing – Eda, Don, Corrina • Putting the vocabulary into LTER documents – Kristin, Margaret, John • List Management – decision processes • Focus first on WHO DOES WHAT (not how) • May be a diagram/flow chart showing actors, actions and results • Once the first step is accomplished then consider: • How it might be accomplished technically • What resources would be required • Who should be responsible for the implementation Use Case Working Groups

8. Working Group Notes

9. JP’s use case • Draft EML document • Use Duane’s HIVE tool to suggest probable words • check off ones you want, • returns • EML snippet to screen, for cut and paste into doc. • Or Revised EML document with keywords added • Or XML document with keywords (in keywordset node, including thesaurus) to be used with web service client (allowing additions to relation databases etc.) Putting words in Documents

10. Populate Drupal web site with polytaxonomy Within Drupal Metadata Editor - Browse – drop down list of levels, or search to find terms Select term you want and it is automatically added to backend database that is used by the module that creates EML Kristin’s Use case

11. Browse or search keywords and check off desired terms As things are checked off, generates internal list that is archived at a particular URL Web service provides XML snippet that can go into EML Margaret’s Use Case

12. E.g., publications, projects etc. • May not have EML representations • Browse or search to locate potential terms • Return • Simple list for inclusion (cut and paste) into publications etc. • EML snippet as part of an XML document for use with a web service client to interface with desired systems • Note: this could also use HIVE search tool instead of raw browse Using for non-datasets

13. Need a best practices guide that addresses use of the controlled vocabulary • Goal – assure that LTER data is discoverable • Examples: • Use the most specific terms you can • Specify how many or what categories of terms should be included where applicable - examples • Specifing a desirable number of terms • E.g., At least one term from at least X of the LTER taxonomys • Should have at least one core area Best Practices

14. Run document through congruency checker It says how many keywords and taxonomys are represented in an EML document Allows checking for conformance with best practices Rating documents

15. Principles • want to hit “sweet spot” for number of keywords • Enough to make reasonable search and browsing possible • Not so specific that only data from a particular site or dataset would be returned from a search • Could be words used widely at a single site • Want to avoid words that are too esoteric • The list should be modified periodically to capture additional words as they become widely used in the network • Each site should be able to propose new preferred terms, in suitable forms that are widely used in datasets from the site. A proposal should include justification, including information on related terms used at other LTER sites and where the term might be placed into the taxonomies • Sites can propose also non-preferred terms linked to existing preferred terms • Sites should be able to maintain independent, site-specific controlled vocabularies Working Group - managing vocabulary

16. The proposed terms should be suitable for inclusion (e.g., not locations or specific taxonomic identifiers) Proposed terms should not be redundant with existing term(s) already in the vocabulary Terms and their proposed places in taxonomys should conform in form with NISO Z39.19 2005 and successor documents (e.g., sections 6.5.1, 8.3) Criteria for Accepting or Rejecting proposed Preferred TermS

17. The proposed terms should be suitable for inclusion (e.g., not locations or specific taxonomic identifiers) The proposed terms must be sufficiently close synonyms to the preferred term to which they will be linked Criteria for Acceptance of proposed non-preferred terms

18. Terms will never be altered, but they can be demoted to non-preferred status Terms can only be removed if they are not currently in use by datasets Removals or alterations of terms are expected to be rare Criteria for removing or altering Preferred terms

19. These have large subjective elements. Other resources should be frequently consulted when making changes Sites or individuals can propose and justify changes that will be evaluated relative to NISO Z39.19 Changing location of terms in taxonomies or thesauri

20. VOCAB committee may do research to identify terms that should be added based on use in site-specific vocabularies, use in datasets and other sources of information. • VOCAB committee receives and evaluates proposed changes • Based on criteria make changes to development version of the controlled vocabulary database • The Controlled Vocabulary may make immediate changes in the current official version to correct gross errors • New versions will be issued by VOCAB from time-to-time, and a request for endorsement will be forwarded to IMEXEC Process

21. Objective • Engage SC members – sell on idea – develop some advocates • Process followed: Objectives - Rules for taxonomys • Get guidance on specific issues • The Controlled vocabulary • Need for related terms? • Are there things missing? – core areas? • Are there things that should be removed? • Are there things that are out of place? • Specifc areas of concern • Use Cases • Feedback on proposed uses • Priorities for getting implemented • Tasks before workshop • Add definitions for all words to the taxonomy • Prioritize ones that are difficult • Get way to display entire vocab. • Improve diagram for content • Send SC members link to Tematres – have them do test searches Science Council Workshop

22. Introduction – 1 hour • Around the room introductions • why we need controlled vocabulary • steps taken so far • Background – procedures for creating controlled vocabularies • Meeting objectives • How to use Controlled Vocabulary – 1 hour • Question for SC members • What are your experiences with finding LTER data • What would most help you find data in the future? • Discussion of data discovery use cases Agenda

23. Tour of Controlled Vocabulary – 1 hour • General Introduction • Breakout groups (pair SC member with IM) to look at areas of specific interest • Feedback to entire group on things in the controlled vocabulary that need improvement – 1 hour • Discussion of specific issues • Core areas as top level hierarchy • now integrated elsewhere • Management of the vocabulary – role of researchers • Discussion of next steps • How do we engage larger LTER community? • How much, and what sort of engagement is needed SC Agenda