It would seem that the use of ORDERED LISTS in metadata fields is a
powerful tool. Search engines can use list order (1st is highest in
importance) to order search results. And users can request that only
the first n terms be searched. This encourages catalogers to provide as
much information about the object as possible.
Ordered list entry probably won't always be popular, but then, is that
the purpose of metadata? A cataloger may wish to increase the "hit"
rate on an object, but the user wants "best fit" results. An ordered
list provides an intermediary solution, allowing catalogers to enter
many terms. Users may elect not to limit searches by list order.
--Tom Wason
Andrew Waugh wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> You are raising two separate issues:
> * The intentional addition of inaccurate metadata
> * Prioritising metadata to avoid misleading
>
> They are almost the converse of each other.
>
> I saw a good example of confusing metadata about two years ago when I
> was shown a prototype of an electronic 'yellow pages' kiosk. Searching
> this system for the term 'piza' bought up a list of section headings.
> 'Restaurants' was towards the bottom of the list. Above it were things
> like 'Timber Yards'. These, upon investigation, sold wood for wood fired
> piza ovens.
>
> Piza was not a section heading; the system was relying on the term
> occuring in the business name or the descriptive text (really keywords)
> supplied by the business. Unfortunately the answer most people were
> looking for came far down the list (and under a section heading most
> people would not have expected).
>
> An answer to this problem may be to prioritise the keywords (the
> prioritisation is what I would call an annotation to the value).
> However, a major problem with metadata is the cost of its production
> and capturing more metadata simply adds to this cost and potentially
> impeads the spread of metadata.
>
> It is probably more efficient *at the moment* to improve the way the
> response is presented to the user. In the piza example, it is likely
> that the greatest number of hits were in 'Restaurants'; that catagory
> should have been presented first. More difficult situations (like your
> beer example) would require clever heuristics... Result summarisation is
> a very interesting research area.
>
> andrew waugh
--
--------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Wason, Ph.D.
Director of Research and Evaluation
Institute for Academic Technology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
730 Airport Rd., Suite 100
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599 USA
919.962.9286
919.962.4321 FAX
[log in to unmask]
|