Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:Taxonomy & Sharepoint

Expand Messages
  • Segal, Dan
    Matt: In response to your inquiry: I d be interested in hearing the thoughts & reflections of TaxoCop members on what they feel Sharepoint does well from a
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 29 7:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      Matt:

       

      In response to your inquiry:

       

      “I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts & reflections of TaxoCop members on what they feel Sharepoint does well from a taxonomy perspective (as well as what could be improved).”

       

      What SharePoint does well:   SharePoint provides a common environment and a common process for creating, storing, and managing heterogeneous content (documents, wikis, blogs, lists, images, etc.).   From a taxonomy perspective, this model is very powerful in that the same tagging vocabulary and the same tagging mechanisms can be applied across a range of content types, all residing within the same system.  Opportunities for maintaining uniformity and consistency are greatly improved over previous models, which may have involved, for example, integrating content from stand-alone systems (for example, content management systems, file shares, collaboration tools, etc.) and/or harmonizing multiple, stand-alone taxonomies and processes.

       

      What could be improved:  Tagging vocabularies in out-of-the-box SharePoint are limited to flat lists of terms.  In order to apply a robust taxonomy that includes hierarchical, equivalent, and associative term relationships, one must enhance SharePoint either through custom programming or through the use of third-party add-ons.  SharePoint could be improved through the incorporation of taxonomy support into native capabilities.

       

      I presented a workshop at SLA 2009 that covers some of these topics in greater detail.  The slides are publicly available at:

       

      http://www.solutions.dowjones.com/sla/#techzonesessions

       

      Regards,

       

      Dan Segal

      Taxonomy Delivery Manager

      Dow Jones Client Solutions

      PO Box 300 Princeton, NJ 08543

      Phone: 609.627.2159

      Email: dan.segal@...

      solutions.dowjones.com

       

       

    • Carol Hert
      Hi Dan, Could you clarify your statement about using the tagging voc across content types--my understanding is that with SP out-of-the-box functionality in
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 29 11:47 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Dan,
        Could you clarify your statement about using the tagging voc across content types--my understanding is that with SP out-of-the-box functionality in content types and site columns, that reusing the tagging voc in different content types would only be true if the same site column (which has the tagging voc)  exists in those content types (and that those content types would all have to exist on the same site or site collection.)  Thanks in advance!
         
        I agree with your other "what could be improved" comments- and also with the general notion that enabling an easy connection between tagging vocs and content is key (if you can get people to actually input the metadata).
         
        Carol Hert,
        SchemaLogic, Inc



        From: "Segal, Dan" <dan.segal@...>
        To: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:38:15 AM
        Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re:Taxonomy & Sharepoint

         

        Matt:

         

        In response to your inquiry:

         

        “I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts & reflections of TaxoCop members on what they feel Sharepoint does well from a taxonomy perspective (as well as what could be improved).”

         

        What SharePoint does well:   SharePoint provides a common environment and a common process for creating, storing, and managing heterogeneous content (documents, wikis, blogs, lists, images, etc.).   From a taxonomy perspective, this model is very powerful in that the same tagging vocabulary and the same tagging mechanisms can be applied across a range of content types, all residing within the same system.  Opportunities for maintaining uniformity and consistency are greatly improved over previous models, which may have involved, for example, integrating content from stand-alone systems (for example, content management systems, file shares, collaboration tools, etc.) and/or harmonizing multiple, stand-alone taxonomies and processes.

         

        What could be improved:  Tagging vocabularies in out-of-the-box SharePoint are limited to flat lists of terms.  In order to apply a robust taxonomy that includes hierarchical, equivalent, and associative term relationships, one must enhance SharePoint either through custom programming or through the use of third-party add-ons.  SharePoint could be improved through the incorporation of taxonomy support into native capabilities.

         

        I presented a workshop at SLA 2009 that covers some of these topics in greater detail.  The slides are publicly available at:

         

        http://www.solution s.dowjones. com/sla/# techzonesessions

         

        Regards,

         

        Dan Segal

        Taxonomy Delivery Manager

        Dow Jones Client Solutions

        PO Box 300 Princeton, NJ 08543

        Phone: 609.627.2159

        Email: dan.segal@dowjones. com

        solutions.dowjones. com

         

         


      • John OGorman
        Carol s comments (and Gerard s) highlight a major concern for me: SharePoint s architecture is not designed to (easily) support taxonomies or controlled
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 29 1:28 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Carol's comments (and Gerard's) highlight a major concern for me: SharePoint's architecture is not designed to (easily) support taxonomies or controlled vocabularies. It's not that it can't be done, but basically everything that 'touches' SharePoint is bound in to SharePoint. In other words, whatever elegance you come up with will be forced to support SharePoint's navigation schema.

          This runs contrary to where the CMS industry is headed vis-a-vis the semantic web: sites should be data-driven, multi-faceted and multi-lingual. Not hierarchical, path-driven and all English all the time.

          In fact, I will hazard a guess that Web Content Management applications are going to begin to behave more like data warehouses, with the digital assets of all stripes taking a second seat to the data.

          John O'

          --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Carol Hert <carol.hert@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Dan,
          > Could you clarify your statement about using the tagging voc across content types--my understanding is that with SP out-of-the-box functionality in content types and site columns, that reusing the tagging voc in different content types would only be true if the same site column (which has the tagging voc)  exists in those content types (and that those content types would all have to exist on the same site or site collection.)  Thanks in advance!
          >
          > I agree with your other "what could be improved" comments- and also with the general notion that enabling an easy connection between tagging vocs and content is key (if you can get people to actually input the metadata).
          >
          > Carol Hert,
          > SchemaLogic, Inc
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: "Segal, Dan" <dan.segal@...>
          > To: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:38:15 AM
          > Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re:Taxonomy & Sharepoint
          >
          >  
          > Matt:
          >  
          > In response to your inquiry:
          >  
          > “I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts & reflections of TaxoCop members on what they feel Sharepoint does well from a taxonomy perspective (as well as what could be improved).”
          >  
          > What SharePoint does well:   SharePoint provides a common environment and a common process for creating, storing, and managing heterogeneous content (documents, wikis, blogs, lists, images, etc.).   From a taxonomy perspective, this model is very powerful in that the same tagging vocabulary and the same tagging mechanisms can be applied across a range of content types, all residing within the same system.  Opportunities for maintaining uniformity and consistency are greatly improved over previous models, which may have involved, for example, integrating content from stand-alone systems (for example, content management systems, file shares, collaboration tools, etc.) and/or harmonizing multiple, stand-alone taxonomies and processes.
          >  
          > What could be improved:  Tagging vocabularies in out-of-the-box SharePoint are limited to flat lists of terms.  In order to apply a robust taxonomy that includes hierarchical, equivalent, and associative term relationships, one must enhance SharePoint either through custom programming or through the use of third-party add-ons.  SharePoint could be improved through the incorporation of taxonomy support into native capabilities.
          >  
          > I presented a workshop at SLA 2009 that covers some of these topics in greater detail.  The slides are publicly available at:
          >  
          > http://www.solution s.dowjones. com/sla/# techzonesessions
          >  
          > Regards,
          >  
          > Dan Segal
          > Taxonomy Delivery Manager
          > Dow Jones Client Solutions
          > PO Box 300 Princeton, NJ 08543
          > Phone: 609.627..2159
          > Email: dan.segal@dowjones. com
          > solutions.dowjones. com
          >  
          >  
          >
        • Matt Moore
          Many thanks to everryone who s commented so far (lots of sense being talked) but I want to pick up on these comments from John:   This runs contrary to where
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 30 12:04 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Many thanks to everryone who's commented so far (lots of sense being talked) but I want to pick up on these comments from John:
             
            "This runs contrary to where the CMS industry is headed vis-a-vis the semantic web: sites should be data-driven, multi-faceted and multi-lingual. Not hierarchical, path-driven and all English all the time.

            In fact, I will hazard a guess that Web Content Management applications are going to begin to behave more like data warehouses, with the digital assets of all stripes taking a second seat to the data."
             
            The assets are not so much taking a second seat as being broken up. Rather than publishing a timetable as a document (either HTML or PDF), a transport provider can make the underlying data available as an XML feed. The level of granularity that can be worked with is getting finer & finer.
             
            We're seeing this on the web but are wee seeing this in the enterprise yet? Who's ahead?
             
            Cheers,
             
            Matt

          • John OGorman
            ...   ... Hi Matt; You ve hit on another aspect of the same phenomenon, I think, and you have also identified the common theme: the increasing level of
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 30 8:53 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Matt Moore <laalgadger@...> wrote:>
               
              > The assets are not so much taking a second seat as being broken up. Rather than publishing a timetable as a document (either HTML or PDF), a transport provider can make the underlying data available as an XML feed. The level of granularity that can be worked with is getting finer & finer.
              >  
              > We're seeing this on the web but are wee seeing this in the enterprise yet? Who's ahead?

              Hi Matt;

              You've hit on another aspect of the same phenomenon, I think, and you have also identified the common theme: the increasing level of granularity.

              Part of the reason we are seeing the types of changes you describe with the timetable is the fact that smaller chunks (of anything) are more likely to be reusable: Toronto refers to the same named location regardless where it appears, so you get the precision you want, but with this level of granularity throughout, 'Toronto' can easily be associated to any number of other chunks. Also, chunks are more fluid.

              The challenge for taxonomists and others managing information is to create an environment where this granularity can be leveraged to improve data quality without adding unnecessary overhead.

              The points I was making about SharePoint apply to every CMS I've worked with, and coincidentally these same points are relevant with respect to my posts about metadata. Embedding chunks and relationships between those chunks inside a CMS contributes to the application-driven segregation I hinted at.

              When every application in an enterprise does it (applies its own metadata) you get the Babelesque mess we have now.

              Web information architecture is beginning to affect enterprise information architecture, but as to who's on first? No idea.

              John O'
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.