RE: Broad and flat vs hierarchical facets - beginning with introducing myself
"Roy Roebuck" <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:21:59 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.infodesign.facetedclassification |
|---|---|
| Organization | One World Information System |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello: I suggest you take a look at my faceted classification approach at http://one-world-is.com/beam. It provides a six faceted taxonomy of natural/human classes. These are location, organization, organization unit, function, process, and resource. When the six facets/classes are arrayed against each other as a "drill down" matrix, the combinations of associated classes and instances provides an ontological architecture for a generalized knowledge base. The primary design intention of this ontology, which integrates what I refer to as operation and intelligence management ontologies into a spiral life cycle, was to provide a means for whole-enterprise management and dynamic situational awareness for all participants in the enterprise value chains. It can also be used as a knowledge-base to organize and manage an organization's enterprise architecture (e.g., U.S. FEA and DoDAF/C4ISR, OpenGroup TOGAF8). Roy Roy Roebuck Ph: 703-598-2351 [email protected] one-world-is.com/beam Calendar: http://one-world-is.com/freebusy/roebuckr.htm FreeBusy: http://one-world-is.com/freebusy/roebuckr.vfb -----Original Message----- From: HALL Bill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [facetedclassification] Broad and flat vs hierarchical facets - beginning with introducing myself As someone who has recently joined this list I am seeking some information from people who have pragmatic experience implementing faceted classifications - but first an introduction and background. I am currently working in the Australian defence industry as a documentation and knowledge management systems analyst. I earned my PhD in evolutionary biology in 1973 (where systematics was a major part of my doctoral research). Throughout my academic career I had a particular bent information science, and often explained to librarians how the various computerised indexing systems worked. I am familiar with Ranganathan and a variety of other indexing schemes used in library environments. After reaching an academic dead-end around 1980 I ended up in the computer industry as a technical writer, documentation manager, documentation systems analyst and designer, and am currently working with enterprise knowledge management systems - still more or less in analysis and design roles. Since 1990 I have been working exclusively within Tenix Defence (and its predecessor companies). Tenix is a privately held company and is Australia's largest defence prime contractor. We are currently finishing the $A 6 BN fixed price ANZAC Ship Project to build 10 frigates - 8 for Australia and 2 for New Zealand. >From a theoretical point of view I am interested in the roles of data, information and knowledge management technologies as extensions to human and organizational cognition. A summary of what I have been working on is available on the Web: Hall, W.P. (2003). Working Towards Biologically Based Theories of Organization and Knowledge to Understand How Organizations Work Best. Joint Lunchtime Seminar, 08/09/03, Rutherford House, Wellington. New Zealand Knowledge Management Network and Government Information Systems Forum. [http://www.nzkm.net/assets/NZKMNetGovis(1).pdf] <http://www.nzkm.net/assets/NZKMNetGovis(1).pdf%5d> Which brings me to what I am doing at the moment. We have implemented OpenText's LiveLink application as a corporate intranet portal, where I am trying to implement a classification structure that engineers, office staff, project managers, commercial people and the like can apply to objects they place in the system (documents, people's contact details and specialities, registration and location of paper files, etc.), and that can then be used by the same people to intelligently retrieve information from the system. I'm convinced that no one dimensional classification system can cope - especially where people applying the classification metadata are not skilled records managers. Facets seem to be the way to go - and appear to be well within the capabilities of our platform to apply and search by in a user-friendly way using LiveLink's "categories" and/or the "classification" addin module. Our current prototype includes 7 independent facets - where we expect users to apply only those facets that are relevant to a particular object being classified: o Business Unit (object relating to a particular business unit), o Other Organisation (e.g., document source, party in a contract, etc.) o Project Name/ID (most of what we do relates to an internal or external project) o Project Lifecycle Phase (we are implementing a project lifecycle management methodology based on PMBoK so this should be meaningful to many of our users) o Subject Matter (e.g., type of content from a functional point of view) o Document/Object Type (in principle our system can point to a person as well as it can a document) o Discipline (e.g., legal, engineering, H/R, etc.). The intention is that all selections of identifiers in each facet either to apply an object or to search will be made from picklists (these are also easy to create and maintain). My problem is that some of the lists (e.g., projects, other organizations) may have thousands of items. My hope (yet to be fully verified) is that we can implement the classifications module such that choices can be made in a hierarchical fashion. By limiting search to the Boolean intersection of several facets - retrieval can be quite precise even where reasonably general terms are used. My questions to the list is for pragmatic experience re 1. What is the practical maximum number of items that can be included in a flat (alpha or logically sorted) picklist before users won't use it or can't find the item they are looking for? 2. In a hierarchical picklist, how many layers are considered to be practical and what is the practical maximum number of items that should be presented in a layer (assuming that the hierarchical logic allows much freedom to go flat vs deep)? Other experience-based comments based on working with systems like I have described would be welcome. Many thanks, Bill Hall Documentation Systems Analyst Head Office, Engineering Tenix Defense Williamstown, Vic. 3016 Phone: 03 9244 4820 Email:[email protected] URL: http://www.tenix.com Honorary Research Fellow Knowledge Management Lab School of Information Management & Systems Monash University Caulfield East, Vic. 3145 URL: http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/km/ ---------- Thanks for playing. _____ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/facetedclassification/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscrib e> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ---------- Thanks for playing. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/facetedclassification/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/