JasonMorrison.net

Note: this was a project for a graduate course in Knowledge Organization Systems

Metadata schema for radiological terrorism research (MSRTR)

Terrorism research is a complex field dealing with a number of entities, each with their own metadata requirements. This document is an introduction to the kinds of schema that will be necessary for proper cataloging, identification, and retrieval in the radiological terrorism subfield. Schema for radioactive material sources and radiological terrorism responses are presented below, followed by sample records and a crosswalk between the two scheme and the Dublin Core. Schema were made as simple as possible (8 and 6 main fields, with several qualifiers, respectively) in order to make application quick, easy and consistent.

Fields are described in the following format:

(more…)

Domain

The ontology was created from the Radiological Terrorism Research Thesaurus, specifically constrained to the portions under the term “material sources” and “consequence management” (now called response). Other classes not found in these areas, but referenced by fields in these areas, are included, but not developed—this includes Organization, Event, Expertise, Person, and Material and their subclasses.

Background

Terrorism is an incredibly important issue, and agencies within the US and worldwide need to meet the challenge of compiling and organizing research in a number of fields in order to counter this very real threat. In addition, agencies have been criticized in the past for not sharing information, or maintaining knowledge organization systems (KOS) which are incompatible with each other. Work is often duplicated, and often vital information will be unavailable to some agencies even though it has already been archived by others.

Clearly, there is a need for a large-scale KOS that can be used to organize information efficiently and correctly, allow for complex analysis of information, and allow for easy knowledge sharing between agencies. The most flexible and powerful KOS, and therefore the most appropriate, is an ontology. Classes, subclasses and relationships are developed and then appropriate fields are created for each. This allows for faceted search and display, automated search, hierarchical organization of information, and interoperability with other systems.

Users

This is just a sample of the larger, more complete ontology. The complete ontology would be useful for virtually any person or agency dealing with anti-terrorism, counterterrorism, intelligence or consequence management. The ontology will allow risk assessment officers, for example, to see a list of every high-level material source in the United States and Canada and their coordinates. Medical first responders could use it to catalog and retrieve proper treatments for specific bioterrorism agents. And if widely-adopted, it would greatly reduce the barriers to efficient knowledge-sharing. If the Department of Energy we to license a new Uranium mine in Montana, the information would be immediate available to risk-assessment officers, instead of requiring time for the paperwork to make its way over to the Department of Homeland Security.

View and navigate the ontology

Changes in this Edition

A number of changes have been made in this revision. Changes to scope notes, terms, and related terms are highlighted throughout this document. These changes should clarify the precise meaning and use. Sturctural changes to broader and narrower term relationships are explained below.

One of the major structural changes is the removal of “radiological terrorism” as a root word for the entire thesaurus. Putting everything under one term was not my initial idea, but the use of the hierarchical display for both input and output lead me to think that was the preferred structure. I have removed “combating radiological terrorism,” “environmental effects,” “radiation protection,” “radioactive isotopes,” “radioactive material sources,” and “radiological injuries” from under “radiological terrorism.”

Still, I think “radiological terrorism goals,” “radiological terrorism scenarios,” and “radiological terrorism requirements” are necessary parts of “radiological terrorism,” so I have kept the first two in the hierarchy and added the third. This leads to multiple inheritance for “radiological terrorism requirements,” which is both a necessary part of “radiological terrorism” and “intelligence.”

Introduction

The CTRS Radiological Terrorism Thesaurus contains descriptive terms used throughout radiological terrorism literature. The terms, their relationships, and their use were culled from several documents, including:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_warfare
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_weapon
• http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/PHTN/webcast/radiation-04/default.asp
• http://www1.va.gov/emshg/
• http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/
• http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/24658.htm

The thesaurus is presented in three forms: first, an alphabetical display of all included terms, including scope notes, preferred terms and synonyms, broader, narrower and related terms, and any scope notes; second, a hierarchical display of preferred terms only; and third, a rotated display of all terms.

Several relationships may be defined for any term in the thesaurus. Scope Notes (SN) are more detailed descriptions of a term’s use when necessary. A preferred term (USE) is a synonym for the term that has been selected for most uses—non-preferred terms do not show up in the hierarchical view. A non-preferred term (UF) is a synonym that may be found in the literature but is not used in the hierarchy. Broader terms (BT) are terms that represent more general classes of the current term. Narrower terms (NT) represent more specific instances or parts of the current term. Finally, related terms (RT) are related to the current term but not in any of the ways already noted.

View the Thesaurus [pdf]

Note: this was a project for a graduate course in Knowledge Organization Systems

Introduction

The goal of this project is to create a Knowledge Organization System (KOS) for a Greeting Card Company Studio archive so that designers are able to find source artwork and previous designs. This is no small task–Greeting Card Company has been in operation for nearly 100 years and has at least partial archives from the entire period, and today the company employs hundreds of designers and produces thousands of products. There is no question that without an inclusive, accurate, and easy-to-use archive, designers are unable to build on each others ideas and a great deal of work is being duplicated. Also, intellectual property needs to be properly managed and licensed artwork needs to be tracked and protected from accidental misuse.

Currently, all archives are stored in protective containers in the Studio, shelved by year. In addition a vast number of digital files have been compiled on the Studio’s serves and CD and tape backups. This project does not address the physical process of collection and digitization, but instead offers a road map to how items will be classified as they are entered into the system. This KOS also provides a framework for the database and the ultimate user interface.

Below is an analysis of the users and groups, followed by a description of the overall structure of the KOS. After that is a description of each facet, followed by pick lists, synonym rings, and taxonomies for each where applicable.

Users

In this analysis three distinct user groups were identified: Archivists, Designers, and Management/Administration. Archivists include the companies current information professionals as well as the interns and temp workers who will be doing the digitization and data entry under their supervision. The KOS has been set up under the assumption that most data entry personnel will be able to properly classify perhaps 80 to 90 percent of all items within each facet, forwarding the rest to more skilled information professionals. The professionals include skilled librarians, art historians, and other researchers who should be adequately prepared to train data entry personnel and classify more difficult items.

The designer group includes artists and graphic designers of varying skill and experience. Nearly all, however, have completed at least a two-year program and the majority have completed a four-year college degree. Taxonomies were developed with this level of expertise in mind. Designers were surveyed and a wide range of thinking about art objects and designs were found. The facets below were designed to cover virtually every way in which a designer might want to look for a piece.

Management and administration also have specific needs. It is for them primarily that the Designer entity described below as well as most facets dealing with licensing and sales have been created.

Organization

The archive needs to be broken down into four different logical entities: Art Elements (such as clip art, photographs, sculptures, etc.), Products (such as individual greeting cards, e-cards, etc.), Digital Files, and Designers. Each entity will have a number of associated facets which roughly correspond to the fields in the database and will allow multiple methods of search and organization.

The entity relationships will be defined in the database so that searches will cascade upward. For example, some searching for art elements will be able to find those done by a specific AG department, because Art Elements are related to products which are related to Designers, who have the Department/Team facet. All of this is relatively simple to do with SQL and can be hidden in the interface to make searching easier.

Each facet has an associated type, whether that be a simple constraint on an open text field, a pick list, or a taxonomy. Where lists and taxonomies have been developed the list’s page number is noted as well.

View the KOS, including the entities and their facets, pick lists, and taxonomies [pdf]

Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries:

Beyond Traditional Authority Files

(G Hodge - 2000)

One thing I liked was this definition:

“A KOS serves as a bridge between the user’s information need and the material in the collection. With it, the user should be able to identify an object of interest without prior knowledge of its existence.”

I like the notion that a KOS helps users find resources they’re not even aware of. I think that’s an important goal.

An impression I get from a lot of LIS people is a mild disdain for the web. Obviously the web is in many ways unstructured and can be difficult to use in ways that library systems are not. At one point the article states that “Someone recently compared the Web with a large room filled with books that were scattered all over the floor.”

The description above is an example of the kind of lame metaphors this disdain fosters. If the web is a large room filled with books, it is the largest room that has ever existed; the vast majority of books are available virtually for free; and although they are scattered all over the floor, thousands of people will freely provide you with maps to find books on certain subjects, and everyone is provided with magical binoculars that let them see deep inside books and find a single phrase.

I’m not saying that bringing better standards to the web any devising better KOSs to organize web resources is bad, just that it seems like many LIS people take the existence of the web for granted.

One thing mentioned throughout this article is the high cost of indexing and cataloging or merging different cataloging schemes together. I think the costs may be exaggerated in some ways. For example, if you wish to catalog web resources for educators and for medical professionals, two groups that probably have different terminology for similar concepts, you don’t need to pay thousands of grad students to index everything under one, then the other scheme. Instead develop a mapping system that translates between the two types of terminology. The mapping system would be a big project and have to be very robust, but once it’s built it can run behind the scenes when anyone does any kind of searching. The article mentions cases where this has been done (with MESH terms, for example) but insists that it is a high-cost venture.

Similarly, what’s wrong with using the users of the indexing system as the workforce? Logs of search terms and phrases and how they are used together can be analyzed. Users can be tracked to see which titles or abstracts they click on when searching for certain terms, how long they spend at that resources, etc. Users can even be asked to rate resources and search results. If you are in the market for a hard drive or digital camera, I recommend you go to bizrate.com, pricegrabber.com, or any of a dozen services that allow users to rate both products and merchants, making it easy to find a good LCD monitor at a reputable dealer despite the massive anonymity of the Internet and the ease of creating fly-by-night stores or selling junk merchandise online. Something similar could be done to winnow out junk information and organize information resources.