Search, Browse, and Faceted Navigation Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Taxonomy Development in an Enterprise Context Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Advertisements

Taxonomy Development An Infrastructure Model Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Top Tips Enterprise Content Management Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Ken Varnum Copyright © 2001 Ford Motor Company Information Architecture at Ford Motor Company Ken Varnum Head, Web Development Group Library.
Metadata Strategies Alternatives for creating value from metadata Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services.
Improving Navigation and Findability Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Buy, Build, Automate: Why you should Buy Your Taxonomy Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Cyborg Categorization The Basics Tom Reamy Knowledge Architect Intranet Consultant.
Semantic Infrastructure for KM 2.0 A new approach to folksonomies and other knowledge representations Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge.
Enterprise Information Architecture A Platform for Integrating Your Organization’s Information and Knowledge Activities Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect.
Faceted Navigation: Search and Browse Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Knowledge Architecture in the Enterprise 2.0 Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Semantic Infrastructure for Taxonomy 2.0 A new approach to folksonomies and other knowledge representations Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group.
Taxonomy Development Case Studies
Innovation in Search? Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Model of Taxonomy Development Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Knowledge Architecture Process & Case Studies Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Semantic Infrastructure Workshop Development Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Semantic Infrastructure Workshop Development Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Taxonomy Boot Camp Panel Text Analytics Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Automatic Facets: Faceted Navigation and Entity Extraction Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services.
Beyond Sentiment Mining Social Media A Panel Discussion of Trends and Ideas Marie Wallace, IBM Marcello Pellacani, Expert System Fabio Lazzarini, CRIBIS.
Enterprise Semantic Infrastructure Workshop Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Accelerate Business Success With CRM CRM Interoperability.
Facets and Faceted Navigation Development Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Expanding Enterprise Roles for Librarians Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Text Analytics Workshop Development Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Unstructured Content Management Taxonomic Publishing Models Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services.
Selecting Taxonomy Software Who, Why, How Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Taxonomy and Knowledge Organization Taxonomy in Context Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Knowledge Maps An Intellectual Infrastructure for KM Tom Reamy Knowledge Architect Intranet Consultant.
Cyborg Categorization Salvation for Search? Tom Reamy Information Architect Charles Schwab © 2001 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., member NYSE/SIPC. All rights.
Building a Foundation for Info Apps Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Program Chair – Text Analytics World Knowledge Architecture Professional.
Enterprise Search/ Text Analytics Evaluation Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Text Analytics And Text Mining Best of Text and Data
Essentials of Knowledge Architecture Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
SemTech Text Analytics Evaluation Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Taxonomies and Faceted Navigation Getting the Best of Both
Multimedia Specification Design and Production 2013 / Semester 2 / week 7 Lecturer: Dr. Nikos Gazepidis * Notes by Dr Trevor Baker.
Mashup Mindset Moving Mashups to Next Level Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Integrating an Enterprise Taxonomy with Local Variations Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Program Chair – Text Analytics World Knowledge.
Evolving a Portal Complexity Theory & Intranets Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Text Analytics Workshop Applications Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Content Categorization Tools Taxonomies & Technologies for Infrastructure Solutions Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture.
Text Analytics Summit Text Analytics Evaluation Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Text Analytics Software Choosing the Right Fit Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Text Analytics World October 20.
Nobody’s Unpredictable Ipsos Portals. © 2009 Ipsos Agenda 2 Knowledge Manager Archway Summary Portal Definition & Benefits.
Faceted Navigation Design Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Metadata and Taxonomies The Best of Both Worlds Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Integrating an Enterprise Taxonomy with Local Variations Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Taxonomy Boot Camp.
Enterprise Semantic Infrastructure Workshop Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Faceted Navigation An Alternative to Search and Browse Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Folksonomy Folktales Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Selecting Taxonomy Software Who, Why, How Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Evolving Folksonomies Complexity Theory & Folksonomies Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Text Analytics Workshop Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
WEB 2.0 PATTERNS Carolina Marin. Content  Introduction  The Participation-Collaboration Pattern  The Collaborative Tagging Pattern.
Advanced Semantics and Search Beyond Tag Clouds and Taxonomies Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services.
Text Analytics for Search Applications Workshop Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Text Analytics A Tool for Taxonomy Development Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Program Chair – Text Analytics World Knowledge Architecture.
Text Analytics Workshop Applications Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Achieving Semantic Interoperability at the World Bank Designing the Information Architecture and Programmatically Processing Information Denise Bedford.
Knowledge Retrieval Taxonomies & Auto-Categorization Tom Reamy Knowledge Architect Intranet Consultant.
Faceted Navigation: Best of Browse and Search Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Microsoft Virtual Academy Jamie McAllister | SharePoint MVP & Solution Architect Rob Latino | Program Manager in Office 365 Support.
Taxonomy and Text Analytics Case Studies Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Semantic Web Technologies Readings discussion Research presentations Projects & Papers discussions.
Taxonomy Development An Infrastructure Model Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services
Federated & Meta Search
Semantic Wikis Visual Knowledge, Inc. Ontologizing the Ontolog Forum
Presentation transcript:

Search, Browse, and Faceted Navigation Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services

2 Agenda  Introduction  Essentials of Facets / Faceted Navigation  Facets in Government / Enterprise – Differences – Basic Design of Search / Browse / Facets  Case Studies – Tale of Two Taxonomies  Search / Browse / Facets – Web 2.0 & Future Trends

3 KAPS Group: General  Knowledge Architecture Professional Services  Virtual Company: Network of consultants –  Partners – FAST/Convera, Inxight, SchemaLogic, etc.  Consulting, Strategy, Knowledge architecture audit  Taxonomies: Enterprise, Marketing, Insurance, etc.  Services: – Taxonomy development, consulting, customization – Technology Consulting – Search, CMS, Portals, etc. – Metadata standards and implementation – Knowledge Management: Collaboration, Expertise, e-learning – Applied Theory – Faceted taxonomies, complexity theory, natural categories

4 History of Facets  S. R. Ranganathan – 1960’s (Taxonomies – Aristotle) – Issue of Compound Subjects – The Universe consists of PMEST Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, Time  Classification Research Group- 1950’s, 1970’s – Facet analysis as basis for all bibliographic classifications – Based on Ranganathan, simplified – Principles: Division – a facet must represent only one characteristic Mutual Exclusivity – More flexible, less doctrinaire  Classification Theory to Web Implementation – An Idea waiting for a technology - Multiple Filters / dimensions

5 Essentials of Facets  Facets are not categories – Entities or concepts belong to a category – Entities have facets  Facets are metadata - properties or attributes – Entities or concepts fit into one or more categories – All entities have all facets – defined by set of values  Facets are orthogonal – mutually exclusive – dimensions – An event is not a person is not a document is not a place.  Facets – variety – of units, of structure – Numerical range (price), Location – big to small – Alphabetical, Hierarchical - taxonomic

6 Essentials of Faceted Navigation  Not a Yahoo-style Browse – Computer Stores under Computers and Internet – One value per facet per entity  Faceted Navigation – Facets are filters, multidimensional – Browse within a facet, filter by multiple facets  Facets are applied at search time – post-coordination, not pre- coordination [Advanced Search]  Faceted Navigation is an active interface – dynamic combination of search and browse

7 Faceted Navigation: Advantages  More intuitive – easy to guess what is behind each door Simplicity of internal organization 20 questions – we know and use  Dynamic selection of categories Allow multiple perspectives/ no universal set needed Ability to Handle Compound Subjects  Trick Users into “using” Advanced Search wine where color = red, price = x-y, etc. Click on color red, click on price x-y, etc.  Systematic Advantages: – Need fewer Elements – 4 facets of 10 nodes = 10,000 node taxonomy

8 Faceted Navigation: Disadvantages  Lack of Standards for Faceted Classifications Every project is unique customization  Difficulty of expressing complex relationships Simplicity of internal organization  Loss of Browse Context Difficult to grasp scope and relationships  Essential Limit of Faceted Navigation – Limited Domain Applicability – type and size – Cost of tagging  Trade off between simplicity (power and ease of understanding) and complexity (real world)

9

10

11

12

13 Government & Enterprise Environment  Agency Content – different world than eCommerce – More Content, more kinds, more unstructured – Not a catalog to start – less metadata and structured content – Complexity -- not just content but variety of users and activities  Agency – Question of Balance / strategy – More facets = more findability (up to a point) – Fewer facets = lower cost to tag documents  Facet structures are more complex than in eCommerce – Multiple structures, more subject like  Need to start with major research (KA Audit) – Content, users, business activities, information technologies

14 Knowledge Architecture Audit: Knowledge Map Project Foundation Contextual Interviews Information Interviews App/Content Catalog User SurveyKnowledge Map Meetings, work groups Overview High Level: Process Community Info behaviors of Business processes Technology and content All 4 dimensions Meetings, work groups General Outline Broad Context Deep Details Complete Picture New Foundation

15 Facets, Search, Browse Enterprise Design Issues - General  How many Facets do you need? – “Can’t we start with just 1 or 2 facets and see how it works?”  Balance of metadata overhead, findability, personalization – Distributed model reduces cost – enables more facets – ECM – publishing process, policy – Distributed taggers – users, user communities (2.0), KM-Library – Auto Populate – Organization, Location – Software – entity extraction, summarization, auto-categorization  Rule of Thumb: – Small catalog of homogenous items 3-4 – Enterprise content – 4-8

16 Enterprise Environment – Case Studies  A Tale of Two Taxonomies – It was the best of times, it was the worst of times  Basic Approach – Initial meetings – project planning – High level K map – content, people, technology – Contextual and Information Interviews – Content Analysis – Draft Taxonomy – validation interviews, refine – Integration and Governance Plans

17 Enterprise Environment – Case One – Taxonomy, 7 facets  Taxonomy of Subjects / Disciplines: – Science > Marine Science > Marine microbiology > Marine toxins  Facets: – Organization > Division > Group – Clients > Federal > EPA – Instruments > Environmental Testing > Ocean Analysis > Vehicle – Facilities > Division > Location > Building X – Methods > Social > Population Study – Materials > Compounds > Chemicals – Content Type – Knowledge Asset > Proposals

18 Enterprise Environment – Case One – Taxonomy, 7 facets  Project Owner – KM department – included RM, business process  Involvement of library - critical  Realistic budget, flexible project plan  Successful interviews – build on context – Overall information strategy – where taxonomy fits  Good Draft taxonomy and extended refinement – Software, process, team – train library staff – Good selection and number of facets  Final plans and hand off to client

19 Enterprise Environment – Case Two – Taxonomy, 4 facets  Taxonomy of Subjects / Disciplines: – Geology > Petrology  Facets: – Organization > Division > Group – Process > Drill a Well > File Test Plan – Assets > Platforms > Platform A – Content Type > Communication > Presentations

20 Enterprise Environment – Case Two – Taxonomy, 4 facets  Location – not KM – tied to RM and software Solution looking for the right problem No Library or Training involvement  Value of taxonomy understood, but not the complexity and scope – Under budget, under staffed – Not enough research – and wrong people  Not enough facets – Wrong set of facets – business not information – Ill-defined facets – too complex internal structure  Wrong kind of project management Special needs of a taxonomy project

21 Facets and 2.0  “It’s MySpace meets YouTube meets Wikipedia meets Google – on steroids.”  “It’s ignorance meets egotism meets bad taste meets mob rule – on steroids.” – The Cult of the Amateur – Andrew Keen  Revolution and Evolution – Doesn’t anyone do evolution (Web 1.2 anyone?)  Wikipedia – users can do it all - NOT – With the help of 2,000 trusted editors and software, combating the passionate conviction and impact of money  Wisdom of Crowds – Good for guessing jelly beans, not useful tags

22 Folksonomies – Good and Bad  Advantages – Simple, Lower cost of categorization – Can respond quickly to changes, User’s own terms – Better than no tags at all (Not really) – Getting people excited about metadata!  Disadvantages – They don’t work very well for finding – No structure, no conceptual relationships – Quality and Popularity are very different – Issues of scale – popular tags already showing a million hits – Errors – misspellings, single words or bad compounds, single use or idiosyncratic use  Social mechanism – opposite of wisdom of crowds – Tyranny of the majority – Del.icio.us – Design – 1 Mil (computer design)

23 Facets and 2.0 – Evolving answers Technology  Integrated Evolving Solution: Technology, People, Semantics // with Feedback with consequences  Enterprise Content Management – Place to add metadata – of all kinds, not just keywords – Policy support – important, part of job performance – Add tag clouds to input page – More sophisticated displays Tag clouds mapped to community map Tag clusters, taxonomy location  Semantic Software – Inxight, Teragram, etc. – Suggest terms based on text, on tag clouds  Enterprise Search – Search – Browse – Facets

24 Facets and 2.0 – Evolving answers People  New Relationship of Center and Crowd – Not top down or bottom up – More sophisticated support, more freedom, more suggestions, more user input – - New roles – for users (taggers, part of variety of communities – both distributed and central) – New roles for central – create feedback system, tweak the evolution of the system, Develop initial candidates  Communities of Practice – apply to tagging, ranking – Community Maps – formal and informal – Map tags to communities – more useful suggestions – Use tags to uncover communities

25 Facets and 2.0 – Evolving answers Semantics  Start and end with a formal taxonomy / Ontology – Findability vastly superior – Communication with others – share tags – Take advantage of conceptual relationships  Tagging experience – folksonomies plus – Users can type any word – system looks it up – plurals, synonyms, preferred terms, spelling variations – Software suggestions – based on content of bookmark, document and on popular user tags Cognitively simpler task than own value, complex hierarchy – New terms flagged and routed to central team  Feedback with consequences – Rank quality of tags, quality of taggers

26 Facets: Future Trends  Facets and Facts / Ontologies – Types of relationships: People have friends, family, bosses and employees, jobs – Implications of those relationships – doctor has patients, salesman has customers – Facets are a foundation for precise rules and relationships Define important types of relationships for each facet dimension.  Advanced Applications – Text and Data Mining, Alerts – Combining Subject Matter and Topical Facets – Map Topics and Facets Quality control for drilling new well in region X – Rules – Contains any of type x entity or facet (products), plus complex conceptual content, plus certain values within a facet (buying activity), then send alert

27 Conclusions: Facets not Folksonomies  Facets are an important addition to Search / Browse  Facets require adding lots of meta data – and that is a good thing  Facets require that you understand your users – and that is a good thing  Facets support the range of Government users – dynamic personalization – multiple interests, multiple info behaviors  An integrated search-browse-facet user interface provides simple complexity – supports both quick answers to specific questions and deep research exploration  You want a revolution? Integrate 2.0 with meaning (3.0) – Dynamic dimensions – User and semantics

Questions? Tom Reamy KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services