I've learned that the date for completion of migration to IPSV has been floated as December 2006. This information came direct from a presentation by Sheila Apicella; it means all local authorities and other public bodies using the e-Government Metadata Standard (e-GMS) should be using IPSV to tag information by then.
The ODPM has agreed that the IPSV is a recognised taxonomy and will meet the requirements of Local e-Government Priority Outcome R3. The current version of e-GMS (v3.0) mandates use of the GCL. But the next edition of it, expected in summer 2005, will instead require the IPSV to be used.
At cScape we''ve been doing some interesting work with search technology and IPSV.
Firstly, at least two companies that I know of offer technology for automating the selection of the correct IPSV terms for tagging pages. We're looking at integrating these with general metadata management in Microsoft CMS to save content authors time and to improve the consistency of tagging.
Normally I find that automatic classification rarely lives up to expectations, but within a very clearly defined knowledge domain like this one it actually seems to work. We're avoiding the perils of complete automation by using the technology to suggest terms that the content author can either select to tag a page or ignore.
Secondly, IPSV includes non-preferred terms. These are terms that aren't the official terms used by information managers, but might well be in common usage. For example a preferred term might be 'abandoned vehicles', but a non-preferred (real world) term might be 'dumped cars'.
Site visitors will not necessarily search on preferred terms, so all that effort meta-tagging to improve search results might be wasted. However, if pages that are tagged with non-preferred terms are automatically tagged with non-preferred terms the chances of users finding what they are looking for are increased.
We've not completed the proof of concept on these two yet, but I'll post the outcome when we do.
Recent Comments