HILT Workshop: Report and Conclusions

Tuesday 19 June
Glasgow Caledonian University,
Cowcaddens Road, GLASGOW,
10am-4pm

Workshop documentation:

Introduction

In accordance with Deliverable 10 of the original proposal, HILT organised a major workshop "to include breakout sessions on key issues identified" by the project. HILT brought together a balanced and representative set of 50 delegates from archives, libraries, museums, online information services. Many organisations were represented (see delegates list above for full list).

The aim of the Workshop was to attempt to reach consensus on a range of possible solutions proposed by HILT and devised in accordance with the HILT Project Management Group and Steering Group. The outcome was a clear consensus in favour of a pilot mapping service as described below under Conclusion.

Workshop Outline
The day was split into two distinct areas. The morning session consisted of a number presentations given by stakeholders, partners and consultants on the different perspectives of the various communities to the issues HILT is addressing, together with others on mapping, thesaurus interface issues, and, with the future in mind, the semantic web. The afternoon session comprised a breakout session followed by reporting and discussion.

Breakout Session
Four pre-designed Breakout Groups, balanced to ensure a fair representation of each community, were given the task of reaching a consensus on a number of issues outlined in the document HILT Workshop Breakout Sessions: Discussion Issues (and notes).

The groups were:

1. Given this introductory information:

The HILT stakeholder survey charted a range of variant practices in respect of the subject description of resources across online services offered by the UK library, archive, museum, and electronic information communities. Although there is no hard empirical evidence one way or another, there is a strong likelihood that this is disadvantaging users, undermining the value of cross-searching and browsing facilities, and wasting public money by 'hiding' relevant resources. As a consequence it could be argued that the situation is worsening, and becoming more expensive to remedy, with every resource catalogued utilising these variant schemes and practices.

2. Asked to follow these instructions:

A number of possible responses to the situation are outlined below, grouped into 'option sets'. In your breakout session, please attempt to reach the best consensus possible on each of the questions in the 'issues' box. To make the best use of your time please approach questions 1, 2, and 4 by taking an initial show of hands on each then focusing discussions on the most popular views before taking a final show of hands. On issue 3, ask for suggestions and take a show of hands on each. Record whether or not consensus is complete and, where it is not, indicate why and log the other preferences expressed.

3. Asked to deal with these issues:

1. Which of the option sets outlined below [OS1-5] should HILT recommend as offering the best basis of a preferred response to the situation described in paragraph 1 above?
2. Which option within your preferred option set should HILT recommend as the preferred response to the situation described in paragraph 1 above?
3. Are there options from the other option sets that should be considered in addition to this?
4. Which option set would you choose as a 'second best' alternative to your preferred set?Please add additional comments if you wish and give reasons for your choices if you can.

[OS1] Do nothing:
1. Artificial Intelligence will solve it in time
2. Big business - Microsoft or similar - will solve it
3. Its not really that important
4. No solution is necessary
5. The problem cannot be solved

[OS2] Set up a human process intended to lead to a solution in time:
1. Set up a Terminologies Agency, perhaps based on National Libraries/mda/NCA
2. Set up an inter-domain, inter-sectoral Task Force to move the communities towards a solution
3. Set up a Terminologies Agency and a Task Force

[Note: A description of what is meant by a "UK Terminologies Agency" can be found at the end of this report]

[OS3] Adopt a base-level, gradual approach, with an eye on future developments:
1. Adopt a single scheme such as DDC and apply to all collection level descriptions in the UK
2. Gradually create inter-service and inter-community terminology 'cross-walks' eventually building up to a partial but adequately broad solution
3. Aim to solve the problem for electronic services only, perhaps via the semantic web vision
4. Provide more flexible retrieval facilities for users
5. One or more of these four together (please specify)

[OS4] Adopt a single scheme:
1. Adopt: LCSH/UNESCO/DDC/UDC/AAT/Another scheme (say which)/A New Scheme in addition to the existing scheme used by any given service [Please specify which scheme]
2. Adopt: LCSH/UNESCO/DDC/UDC/AAT/Another scheme (say which)/A New Scheme instead of the existing scheme used by any given service [Please specify which scheme]
3. Adopt a single scheme: without retroconversion of legacy metadata/with retroconversion funded by the host organisation/with retroconversion funded centrally [Specify which]

[OS5] Mapping service alternatives:
1. Set up a mapping service, ideally with international participation and support, and gradually build towards a complete mapping of LCSH, UNESCO, UDC, and AAT to a DDC backbone. Include local adaptations and extensions from major services such as the National Libraries. Use the international service with the mapping of UK adaptations and extensions as a model for other countries. Determine and implement the best international funding and maintenance model.
2. Set up a 2 year mapping service pilot to measure costs against benefits of both a full scale service and all of the various alternative responses detailed on this page.

[Note: A description of what is meant by a mapping service can be found at the end of this report]

Top

The outcomes of this process were as follows:

Summary of Breakout Session Outcomes

1. Which of the option sets outlined below [OS1-5] should HILT recommend as offering the best basis of a preferred response to the situation described in paragraph 1 above?

All Breakout Groups agreed that Option Set 5 - the mapping service - was the preferred option set. In groups A and D this was a unanimous decision. Group B charted that 8/9 members favoured it and Group C answered that it was chosen by 'a majority'.

Comments noted include:

  • There is a "need to define terms of reference, scope and working definitions" and that it should include the "task force." (Group A)
  • That options "from other sets were also seen as useful - perhaps in conjunction." (Group B)
  • Concern expressed that it may not be possible "fuzziness of matching may mean only a very high-level mapping is achievable" and that more information is required on user needs and costs to justify the costs involved in operating a mapping service. Suggest a cost/benefit evaluation. (Group C)
  • "Seen as inseparable from OS 2" - Terminologies Agency/ Task Force. (Group D)

2. Which option within your preferred option set should HILT recommend as the preferred response to the situation described in paragraph 1 above?

Option 5.2 - a 2 year mapping service - was chosen by all of the four groups as the preferred option within option set 5. Results from the groups were 8/11, 7/9 and unanimous (2 groups). Group C was unanimously in favour of combining option 5.2 with the option of establishing a task force to look at user needs, the costs of rolling out and sustaining a mapping agency, and the cost-benefit analysis of a sustainable solution. See the answer to Q4.

3.Are there options from the other option sets that should be considered in addition to this?

There was a mixed response to this issue. All groups chose a range of options spanning OS 2 and OS 3. Options from OS 1 and OS 4 were not considered.

4.Which option set would you choose as a 'second best' alternative to your preferred set?

Many of the groups saw Option Sets 5 and 2 as inextricably linked on which basis Group D chose another option set - OS 3 as did Group B. Group A chose OS 2 and Group C felt that only "OS 5:2 and OS 2:2 offered the best way forward."

Conclusion

There was clear consensus that the best way forward for HILT was a pilot mapping service as described in option 5.2 combined with a terminologies task force or agency enabling community involvement and control at a practical level. The pilot service should:

  • Have a strong user focus
  • Aim to determine reliable data on costs
  • Include costs against benefits at various service and mapping levels as a key deliverable
  • Look to involve major international players in funding and management
  • Look at how best to integrate semantic web and artificial intelligence developments
  • Aim for a quick implementation (NOF projects a concern)
  • Involve a broad range of target services
  • Use existing machine-readable mappings wherever possible
  • Be closely linked to a cross-sectoral and cross-domain task force at a practical level
  • Use contexts, relationhips, clustering etc
  • Look at user terminologies as against DDC as the central spine to which other schemes were to be mapped
  • Define things like 'mapping', 'task force', 'terminologies agency' more closely

[Return to introductory paragraph]

A pilot mapping service (see outline description below) was preferred because a mapping service was the best - an possibly the only - basis of a consensus between the stakeholder communities and also solved a greater part of the problem more quickly than any other option, and because a pilot would allow us to put it in place quickly but also allow us to collect more information on costs against benefits and a range of other issues (e.g. costs, user needs, user terminology as 'spine' or DDC, how best to incorporate semantic web and artificial intelligence developments, design, and so on) before making a long-term commitment.

It was also clear from discussion in the plenary session at the end that:

  • Everyone agreed there was a problem;
  • No one thought that it was acceptable to do nothing (OS 1);
  • No one had any enthusiasm for the adoption of one or other existing schemes as an option, or even a fall back option (OS 4). Even DDC, regarded by HILT as the most likely scheme on which there might be a consensus was not seen as a way forward in this respect (although it was seen as a key part of a mapping service).

    • [Return to introductory paragraph]

[End of Main Workshop Report]

Definitions:

1. Description of a 'mapping service'

An online service - probably based on an existing commercial approach such as Wordmap or Semio. This would map key schemes like LCSH, UNESCO, DDC, UDC, AAT and (perhaps) user and regional terminologies and local adaptations of standard schemes , perhaps using one of them (DDC?) as the central spine of the approach. Users would be able to input the term or terms that describe their problem using the terminology that is most meaningful to them, specify their query more closely if necessary by specifying a context (e.g. lotus, the flower, or lotus, the software, or lotus, the position), then obtain a list of equivalent or near-equivalent terms with which to then cross-search or cross-browse the various services. For an example of this type of service see http://www.wordmap.com/ and try typing in 'lotus' then choosing the last context option (starts science > biology). You will see the additional terms. The software will let you control the nature of the search sent using the Boolean operator OR, so synonym A OR synonym B OR synonym C would be one search possibility. Work would be required to interface such a system to many services - in Z39.50 services in particular - but CAIRNS work interfacing web-based Z39.50 clients with an sql-compliant collection descriptions database suggests that this would not be a significant problem.

Top

2. Description of a "UK Terminologies Agency"

A UK Terminologies Agency, possibly entailing regional sub-agencies (e.g. in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland), would act as an over-arching body covering archives, libraries, museums and electronic services. It would be dedicated to:

  • Co-ordinating and integrating research efforts on terminological issues;
  • Advising the community on best practice and affordable, practical solutions;
  • Pushing the use and adherence to standards in the communities;
  • Co-ordinating and maintaining a mapping service if appropriate;
  • Establishing communication channels to minimise variation when schemes are adapted or extended;
  • Discussing these issues with international counterparts, ensuring that outcomes in the UK are compatible with international developments and agreements (and vice versa).

If the semantic web becomes more prominent, the UK Agency could become part of an international group of Ontologies Interoperability Agencies. Progress on these issues, both in the UK and in the world generally, would be greatly enhanced by bringing all major groups working on terminologies together.

This model has the potential to be adapted to achieve control and standardisation within individual sectors e.g. within archives, within libraries etc.

Top

 


© HILT: High-Level Thesaurus