Standard Taxonomies - KAPS Group by chenmeixiu


									Standard Taxonomies

Tom Reamy
Knowledge Architect
KAPS Group

• Types of Taxonomies
  – Formal, Browse, Metaphor
• Standard Taxonomies
  – Evaluation and Customization
• Taxonomy in Context
  – Infrastructure and Applications
• Conclusion
                   KAPS Group

• KAPS Group Background
  – Knowledge Architecture Consultants
  – Intellectual infrastructure:
     • Content, People, Technology, Processes
  – Partners – Convera, Inxight, FAST, etc.
     • Search, CM, LMS, Categorization, Taxonomy Management
  – Taxonomies: Enterprise, Insurance, Biotech
     • Taxonomy customization
              Types of Taxonomies

• A hierarchy does not a taxonomy make
   –   Thesaurus (BT, NT, Related Terms), Controlled Vocabulary
   –   Catalog, Index, site map, Partonomy, Ontology,
   –   Classification, Semantic Network
   –   Knowledge Map, Topic Maps, Paradigm, Prototype
• Variety of taxonomies, categorization,
  classification, etc.
   – Important to know the differences, when to use which
        • Use Encyclopedia to find a zebra named Joe in Kenya
        • Use a taxonomy to find a document titled Policy X in HR
            Types of Taxonomies

• Formal Taxonomy
  – Indexing, Concepts, Is-A-Kind-Of, Search
  – Linnaeus – Taxonomy of Life
     • Central Concept of Species
  – Aristotle – foundation of taxonomy
     •   Class - Ordnance
     •   Order – Fire Control System
     •   Genus - Sights
     •   Species – Gun Sights
     •   Variety – Radar Gun Sights
        Types of Taxonomies
     Strengths and Weaknesses
• Formal Taxonomy Strengths
  – Fixed Resource - Little or no maintenance
  – Communication – share ideas, build on others
  – Infrastructure Resource
     • Controlled vocabulary and keywords
     • Indexing – conceptual relationships

• Weaknesses
  – Difficult to develop and customize
  – Don’t reflect user’s perspective
     • User’s have to adapt to language
  Types of Taxonomies
Browse Taxonomy - Yahoo
        Types of Taxonomies
     Strengths and Weaknesses
• Browse Taxonomy Strengths
  – Browse better than search
      • Context and discovery
  – Search and Browse better than either alone
      • Categorized Search – Context
• Browse Taxonomy Weaknesses
  – Mix of Organization
      • Catalogs, Alphabetical listings, Inventories
  – Vocabulary and Nomenclature Issues
  – Difficult to maintain
  – Poor granularity and little relationship between parts.
      • Web Site unit of organization
  – No foundation for standards
            Standard Taxonomies

• Browse Taxonomy
  –   No Standards, Design should reflect organization
  –   Inter and Intra organization standards
  –   Consistency
  –   User centric, based on understanding of user
       • Usability to Cognitive Science
       • Monkey, Panda, Banana
  – Easy to develop, hard to maintain
         Standard Taxonomies

• Formal Taxonomies
  – Partonomy – Geography
• Existing Standards
  – Scientific
  – Mesh, NAICS, etc.
  – Getty Art and Architecture
• No inter-taxonomy standards
• Facet Model – standard facets, custom
  selection of set of facets?
Standard Taxonomies
          Taxonomy Evaluation

• What makes a good Taxonomy?
  – Formal: Quality Metrics
     • Corpus, Coverage, Nomenclature, dependency
     • No mixed classes, noun forms, proper speciation
     • Bell Curve, balance of breath and depth

• What makes a good Standard taxonomy?
  – Authority, popularity
     • Associations
  – Formal subject matter – science
  – Limited subject matter – wine, geography
          Taxonomy Evaluation

• Good Browse Taxonomy?
  – An understandable organization of content that
    enables people to find information and which
    supports knowledge discovery.
     • Creates a context within which facts are related
     • Find, identify, describe information, relations, context

• Good Standard Browse Taxonomy?
  – Consistency – categorization & labels
  – Capture local variations – synonyms, is related
          Taxonomy in Context:
      Limits of Standard Taxonomies
• Life is messy, business content is messier
   – What is Life? is an easy question.
• No single subject matter taxonomy
   – Need ontology and facets
• No single company wide vocabulary
   – Specialist needs -- synsets
• Multiple activities and varied users
   – Off the shelf taxonomies and customization
         Taxonomy in Context
       Intellectual Infrastructure
• Knowledge Organization: Integration of Multiple
   – Structured and unstructured, tacit and explicit
   – Metadata and taxonomies, people and communities
   – Subject matter, entities, activities, multiple views
• Technology: Infrastructure and Applications
   – Enterprise Platforms: unstructured data management, CM
     with categorization, DAM, Portals, Collaboration, Text
• People and Processes
   – Infrastructure activities: taxonomies and analytics
   – Facilitation – Knowledge Transfer
    Standard Taxonomy Solutions

• Facet Model
   – Enterprise: Actors, Attributes, Events, Functions,
     Locations, Information Resources
• Complex Topics: intersection of facets, facets and
  subject matter – Post coordination
   – What users are looking for and what documents are often
     about – China and Biotech, Pharma and Farms
   – Power of fuzzy relationships
• Dynamic Classification
   – Combining both types of taxonomies

• Standard Taxonomy Approaches
  – Get a good taxonomist!
  – Automatic Taxonomy Software and SME’s not the answer
     • Unusual hierarchy, uneven granularity, node names
  – Design Ontology – set of Facets
  – Find existing taxonomy and customize
  – Browse – consistency, internal standards, map to
    taxonomy of users
  – Design infrastructure solution – taxonomy in context
     • Metadata, search, CM, DAM, etc.
     • Combine browse and formal taxonomy

To top