HILT II: Towards Interoperable Subject Descriptions

1. HILT II: Towards Interoperable Subject Descriptions Report to the JISC Terminologies Workshop, February 2004. Dennis Nicholson: Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University

2. Overview • Aims • Overview of the Problem • Outcomes • Server Design Summary • Function; Elements; Coverage; Use • Other Points to Note; Costs • Two Alternatives

3. Aims • Build pilot terminologies service for JISC Information Environment, aiming to: • Provide a practical experimental focus within which to investigate and establish subject terminology service requirements for the JISC I.E • Make recommendations as regards a possible future service

4. Overview of the Problem • JISC & other services JISC users need: • Different schemes in use • Different versions of the same scheme • Different approaches to amending and extending schemes • Schemes, variations vary in ability to reflect terminologies used by users when searching • Users need to: • Identify services appropriate to their search • Identify relevant items either by using correct term for scheme used or by some other method

5. Outcomes • Development project to build a working terminologies server with specific features • Consensus, Collaboration seen as vital, so: • Dialogue with key national and international players • Mapping between schemes, rather than preference for a single scheme (HILT I) • The need for a facility to allow others to include their own (self-provisioned) mappings • The existence of other terminology servers

6. Server Function • To: • Improve accurate, consistent description by staff • Improve accurate, informed searching by users • Map between schemes via DDC spine • Map user terms to DDC, collections, other schemes • Ultimately: improve retrieval from legacy metadata • Monitor, learn from user terminology sets

7. Server Elements • Wordmap; three elements: • Database (Oracle) of terminology mappings • User front end that interacts with database according to staff specifications and user input and feedback • Drag and drop, multi-user interface to support sophisticated staff interaction with database for creation and maintenance of maps, inter-service co-ordination and training

8. Server Schemes • DDC spine; captions; relative index; standard subdivisions • LCSH to DDC mapping • UNESCO to DDC mapping • UK terms registry (mapped to DDC) • MeSH, Regional, AAT options • Pilot more limited – UNESCO, MeSH illustrative, no AAT

9. The Server in Action • User enters subject term • Term matched to terminology set and mapped to DDC • Options and disambiguation • DDC number truncated and mapped to collections database to identify appropriate collections • Information on scheme used; advice; sample retrieval • Demonstration

10. Other Points; Costs • User Interface Facilities and Further Research • Machine to Machine (M2M) Facilities and Interactivity Issues • ‘Limited granularity mapping’ • Information Environment Services Registry (IESR) Issues • Costs over 5 years

11. Two Alternatives • A single scheme? (but…) • Automatic Categorisation Matrix? • Auto-categorising service for every scheme • Staff auto index and classify resources but correct intellectually; both are recorded; collection and item identifier also recorded • User queries or seed documents also auto-categorised against each scheme; mapped to items using either auto or intellectual categorisation; user disambiguates at item level

12. Thoughts • Automatic Categorisation Matrix • If it worked, it would remove the need for expensive mapping process • Interim project that investigates this approach worth considering first? • Speculative – needs researched • One possible breakout session topic • Mapping may be the only way • Doing nothing not an option

13. Further Information • Website: http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ • e-mail: • d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk • Ali.shiri@strath.ac.uk • emma.mcculloch@strath.ac.uk