Next time the Internet comes crashing down about your ears,
spare a thought for the value of standards, starting with TCP/IP and HTTP. When
you consider how the superhighway relies on precise implementation of an
immense jigsaw of protocols and standards, it’s a miracle we ever find
anything. But while we can’t get along without them, standards are also a pain.
They push you into one-size-fits-all and clip the wings of dizzy free-fliers.
At ISKO-UK’s Great Debate [1] last February, the
international standard ISO 25964 [2] collected a lot of flak from some speakers
who wanted their thesauri to escape control, and conversely from others who
urged greater discipline, in the style of an ontology. So it was refreshing to
attend EDUG’s April workshop [3], where the ISO 25964 guidance on mapping
received a grateful welcome.
EDUG is the European Dewey User Group, whose membership
includes a great many national libraries and major university libraries. Their
patrons want unfettered and uncluttered access, not just to the resources held
locally, but to all the collections you can reach through the Internet. Given
the multiplicity of different thesauri, subject headings and classification
schemes used to index and/or classify the original material, and given the
shrinking budgets for re-classifying new acquisitions, mappings between the
various vocabularies have been seen as part of the solution.
But mappings are a challenge! Between one thesaurus and
another, cases of exact equivalence between concepts are the exception not the
rule. Between a thesaurus and a classification scheme there’s an additional
complication – the precoordination built into most classes. Thesaurus concepts
designed for postcoordinate indexing do not easily map to or from classmarks,
originally developed for arranging books on shelves.
While mapping has no easy answers, that does not mean we
should give up trying. As Grete Seland quoted from Piet Hein:
Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting
back.
ISO 25964 sets out basic guidelines, starting with thesauri
and reaching part of the way towards classification schemes and other types of
Knowledge Organization System (KOS). For some years members of EDUG have been
drawing upon these guidelines in projects such as MACS [4], Criss-Cross [5],
Coli-conc [6], and a project to map the Norwegian thesaurus Humord to Dewey. Some
are looking towards Semantic Web applications; others are simply trying to
speed up cataloguing of resources already classified or indexed by a different
KOS. In the EDUG forum a big concern is to build all the accumulated knowledge
guidance into WebDewey [7].
This workshop in Naples focused specifically on developing
recommendations for best practice when mapping to the Dewey Decimal
Classification System. Standards were greatly in demand. Speakers pointed out the limitations of both
ISO 25964 and SKOS [8] in this context, but the general conclusion was to build
on and extend these standards rather than casting them aside. Detailed conclusions
of the four working groups are currently in discussion, and should be published
on the website [3] by the end of June 2015.
So come back standards, all is forgiven… for the meantime.
And as for the teams developing mappings to Dewey, even when supported by
standards, wish them fortitude and a jar of paracetamol as they grapple with
the intellectual challenges of mapping to a pre-coordinated scheme.
[1] http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate
[2] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/
[3] http://edug.pansoft.de/tiki-index.php?page=2015meeting
[4] http://www.nb.admin.ch/nb_professionnel/projektarbeit/00729/00733/index.html?lang=en
[5] http://ixtrieve.fh-koeln.de/crisscross/index_en.html
[6]
http://www.slainte.org.uk/edug/docs/2012/Balakrishnan-EDUG2012.ppt
[7] http://dewey.org/webdewey/login/login.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference