Before I respond to specific questions on metadata I should point out that
the LGCS is not, as far as we are aware, intended as a schema for
structuring information. The LGCS is a taxonomy that should be used in
conjunction with subject metadata items to classify / index information. The
information structure, or file plan, should be designed in a way that is
easy for staff to use on a daily basis whilst at the same time facilitating
the organisation’s need to exercise control over its information.
With regards your comment on metadata rendering the file plan pointless, you
are correct except that, in order to operate without a file plan, you would
need to load every piece of information with so much metadata, to facilitate
its later retrieval, that it would not be practical. The file plan and
metadata, as well as the information naming convention, should complement
each other so that the file plan is not overly complex and difficult to
navigate whilst at the same time staff are not required to record too much
metadata on a document.
Clearly a file plan is a two dimensional structure and therefore can never
satisfy everyone’s requirements in terms of how they want to structure
information. It is the metadata that provides additional dimensions which
allow staff to interrogate the information within the EDRM repository in a
way that meets their particular needs.
Take your example of the address versus service. If you have the address as
the parent folder in your file plan, with service folders below it, you can
see from the structure what services are being supplied to any particular
address and all service related documentation associated with that address
will be held together. However, if you wanted to see a particular service
related document, for example the original application form, for all
households currently receiving a specific service you will have to go
through each address folder to see if it has a sub-folder for the service in
question and then look in that folder for the application form. Not
particularly useful from a service department perspective. Using metadata
can resolve the problem. Each document within the service folder would need
two metadata items, one that records what service the document relates to,
e.g. housing benefit, and another that records what type of information the
document contains, e.g. application. This would enable you to search for all
housing benefit applications across all address folders.
In answer to your specific questions:
1. There should be a common scheme for the whole organisation which will
contain metadata items that are common across the organisation plus some
that are specific to each business area. There are various mechanisms to
automatically apply metadata values; some depend on which EDRM product you
use. With Wisdom you can pull values from the document properties, default
values and inherit values from the folder in which you store the document.
In the address versus service example above you could inherit the service
value from the service folder.
2. I am not aware that Wisdom can pull metadata from document filenames as
standard but it is likely that a script could be developed to do so.
3. Metadata requirements need to be determined through requirements
investigation and analysis in order to define a metadata library; as well as
information types and the metadata allocation across those information types
4. There is a government metadata standard – eGMS (eGovernment Metadata
Standard) – which is part of the eGIF (Government Interoperability
Framework) standard. The objective of the standard is to have a common
vocabulary in order to facilitate the electronic exchange of information
across government: http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/egif.asp
5. There is also a basic standard called Dublin Core: http://dublincore.org
6. As mentioned above, it would not be advisable to base your file plan on
the LGCS. In order to get a structure that is fit for purpose you need to
gain an understanding of the information you have, how that relates to the
work your organisation undertakes and how staff need to use and share that
information both internally and with external partners.
7. We have considerable collateral from previous design work with local
government clients that would be suitable for reuse, if you are interested.
I hope this is helpful.
[log in to unmask]
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:42:36 +0100, Martin Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>This is a copy of a query put on the relevant esd tollkit forum (in case
>anyone recognises it). I am just opening the question out to a wider
>pool of expertise.
>We are in the process of implementing and EDRMS [Wisdom by
>Diagonal (now Morse)] in a local government borough.
>At the moment we have a file plan based on the LGCS but I am a little
>concerned about how the file structure should be set up below this
>level. At present each individual service area which works on address-
>based cases seems to be creating a separate folder for each address in
>the borough which seems a little ungainly to me. I have heard mention
>of possibly putting the address level of the structure above the service
>level, but I think this would interfere with the LGCS and would still
>represent a huge file structure. All the reading I have done on EDRMS
>etc indicates that the metadata is critical and that without it an EDRMS
>will become unusable.
>I already notice a significant amount of irrelevant returns on searches
>from a system which contains relatively little data as yet, but this could
>be due to not having narrowed down the search string properly.
>I have noted comments which concur with my own understanding that if
>you have good metadata then the file structure becomes largely
>irrelevant, but the problem with the creation of all the required
>metadata is that it probably even more onerous than creating large
>numbers of folders.
>I wonder if someone could answer a few questions for me:
>1. Is it necessary to have a standardised metadata scheme across all
>departments contributing to the EDRMS data and are there automated
>or semi automated ways of applying it to the documents?
>2. Would it be possible to extract the metadata automatically from a
>well structured file name protocol?
>3. What is the basic minimum metadata required for functions such as
>Housing, Environmental Health and Planning/ Building Control?
>4. Is the extent of such metadata laid down in standards? (ie: do eGov
>metadata standards extend to this level of detail?)
>5. If not has anyone developed a standardised set and what are they?
>6. Below LGCS, is a simple folder structure based on "Year" a
>reasonable solution or should it be more complex and if so how and
>7. Does anyone please have an example of their own or of best practice
>relating to these questions?
>Many thanks in advance,
>For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask]
>For any content based queries, please email
[log in to unmask]
For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask]
For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]