Successfully reported this slideshow.

1 d.1


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

1 d.1

  1. 1. Jabin White Director of Strategic ContentWolters Kluwer Health – Professional & Education SSP 31st Annual Meeting Baltimore, MD | May 28, 2009
  2. 2.  What is metadata, and why should publishers care? Impact on publishers – how metadata impacts processes Case Studies – This isn’t your Daddy’s publishing business Final Thoughts, Recommendations
  3. 3.  Reading most definitions of metadata and related standards is like trying to resolve disputes with my kids As Ed said, metadata is “data about data” • But what does that mean? Its use may be increasing, but metadata is NOT new
  4. 4.  In the move from print publishing to digital, metadata is a powerful tool to help publishers get content in the right place, in the right format, and known to the right systems and people, at the right time Print books were easy • Everyone knew what they were • You could really only use them one way • They had a beginning, an end, a physical presence, and a set price (mostly)
  5. 5.  Today, computers are often communicating with one another as much as they are with users (people) Metadata becomes critical in: • B2B relationships • Enhancing B2C relationships • B2-_________ relationships Thequality of the metadata gives publishers a more powerful voice in what happens to their content
  6. 6.  For example: • A digital asset (an image) • What file format is it? • How big is the image? • Who took the picture? • Who owns the picture? • Can you use it on your web site? If you do, what credit do you have to give to the owner? • What date was it created? • Is it part of a collection? • Is it related to another piece of content?
  7. 7.  Ifa publisher’s goal is to disseminate content to the widest possible audience, metadata is critical
  8. 8.  Again, in books you had one use model Metadata allows publishers to have diverse relationships with content consumers and other information providers • Customers (duh) • Aggregators • The Open Web (not Google, but other search engines)  But don’t try to “game” the search engines with adult keywords; that’s just wrong  There have been lawsuits over use of meta keywords, including Playboy suing two adult web sites • Technology partners/developers • Systems wherein content is a “value add” • Multiple output formats
  9. 9.  HTML Metadata • <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso- 8859-1"> • <meta name="verify-v1" content="kBoFGUuwppiWVWGx4Ypzkw1Cs1GgMYEMMbfNr7F Y65w=" /> For people • <meta name="description" content="International publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians & students. Medical & nursing charts, journals, and pda software."> For search enginges • <meta name="keywords" content="springhouse, medical book, nursing journal, medical pda software, lippincott medical reference, lww, lippincott, lww com, medical publisher"> • <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css" type="text/css">
  10. 10.  Classifying Metadata  DescriptiveMetadata • ISBN (I told you this (sorry, my examples wasn’t new) are from STM) • Dewey Decimal • ICD-9 and ICD-10 System Codes • Books in • MeSH Print/CIP/Library of • SNOMED-CT Congress data • NANDA, NIC, NOC for • MARC records Nursing • DOI (Digital Object • NDC, HCPCS for drugs Identifier)
  11. 11.  Classifying Metadata  DescriptiveMetadata • ISBN (I told you this (sorry, my examples wasn’t new) are from STM) • Dewey Decimal • ICD-9 and ICD-10 System Codes • Books in • MeSH Print/CIP/Library of • SNOMED-CT Congress data • NANDA, NIC, NOC for • MARC records Nursing • DOI (Digital Object • NDC, HCPCS for drugs Identifier) • DOI (Digital Object Identifier)
  12. 12.  Usingcontrolled vocabularies, extra power can be added to content via semantic tagging to drive: • More precise searching • Contextually-based connections • Lowering of “two terms meaning the same thing” syndrome (hypertension vs. high blood pressure; heart attack vs. myocardial infarction) • Filling in of content gaps
  13. 13. How Metadata Changes Processes
  14. 14.  Impacton publishers depends on answers to questions in previous section • i.e., what am I going to get in return for investing in metadata, and is it worth it? • More and more, this is not an “if” proposition, it’s “how much” Publisherswho buy in have two basic choices on approach:
  15. 15.  Requires deeper commitment, but has bigger potential upside • Positive impact on product creation and development Requires thinking about tools, workflows, and enterprise-level systems to allow for creation and maintenance of metadata Combination of good metadata in the workflow and creativity in product development team can pay big benefits Allows participation of authors (or subject matter experts in lieu of) at the beginning of the workflow
  16. 16.  Requires lesser commitment, but potentially fewer rewards Can be done with zero impact on current systems Has benefit of content being in “final form” (whatever that means anymore) when intelligence is added in metadata Can keep SMEs as a separate offshoot of the workflow – easily outsourced Can replace all of the above with software solutions (Darrell and Chris will talk about that) 
  17. 17.  Chris, Darrell and I do NOT disagree There are justifications that can be made for tagging or entity extraction approaches (or both) Just as there is no “one size fits all” metadata, there is no ONE solution But if you must pick one, I’m right 
  18. 18.  Active vs. Passive Metadata • Active metadata  Publisher intentionally associates markup with certain pieces of content  Often using controlled vocabulary  Includes semantic indexing  Can also be machine-based, using scripts, etc. • Passive metadata  Metadata created based on use of content  Inheritance of properties from parent objects
  19. 19.  The use of active metadata usually means an impact on support tools • Re-think authoring tools to allow for capture of metadata by authors  This can be outsourced to external SMEs – help is available • Re-think content management to allow for preservation/management of metadata How deep you go depends on how big the payoff • Good semantic indexing can drive new features and functionality, but must used appropriately If you decide to add active metadata, a controlled vocabulary just became your new best friend
  20. 20. – a specific specification of a Ontology conceptualization • In English: a controlled vocabulary used to describe a group of topics Taxonomy – same as ontology, but with hierarchy implied Caveat – These two terms are so misused, their definitions no longer matter (think Content Management circa 2000)
  21. 21.  PRISM (Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata) – an XML metadata vocabulary for handling content – started out in magazines and journals, but has added other types Dublin Core – named after a 1995 workshop in Dublin, Ohio, it is, very simply, a set of 15 agreed-upon metadata elements used to describe objects • PRISM uses Dublin Core elements and then makes them specific to publishing RDF (Resource Description Format): an XML implementation that lets you richly describe relationships between data on web pages. Explain triplets
  22. 22.  Semantic Web – A web of data. Envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee, it will be a web driven by data that “talks” to other data • My kids will work on this FOAF Project (Friend of a Friend): Uses RDF to describe people and their preferences to the web, so you can find people with similar interests; all about social networking SPARQL (Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language) – once you have used RDF to describe resources and their connection points, you use SPARQL to ask questions about those connections and find stuff OWL (Web Ontology Language) – extends ability of RDF and XML Schemas to describe information
  23. 23.  Drug Reference Product Perfect, structured information that is a great example of metadata becoming just as important as content Examples of things that were stored in metadata: • Codes, codes, and more codes • Drug interaction information • Classifications (this one was actually redundant) • Formulary information • FDA approval date (could also be redundant)
  24. 24.  Four editors spent as much time working on metadata as they did on content itself All work on import/export from DB was done by: • Acting on metadata • Keeping metadata at top of priority list on output • “Output all drugs anticoagulants that were approved before 1982”
  25. 25.  Medical content (5 years ago I would have said “book”) Thousands of topics, sometimes printed, always updated, sent to web, handhelds How/when they are updated, whether or not they are printed, and whether or not they get extracted is all driven by …. Metadata!
  26. 26.  Extracts all are made by acting on metadata • What is the subject area of the topic? (this can be a MANY to ONE relationship) • When was the topic last updated? • Who was the author of the last update?
  27. 27. ID Values assigned during XML conversion
  28. 28. Gender values assigned by authors
  29. 29.  Have a metadata strategy • Business case should support investment in metadata • Be careful, and stay alert for mission creep – this stuff can get out of control very easily Know your organization • Is it a change tolerant organization? “All in” vs. measured, incremental approach should be considered • Show me someone who says they have the correct universal approach to metadata, and I’ll show you a liar
  30. 30. A little bit of metadata understanding by product development people can go a long way If a content set can benefit from metadata in the creation of new products, that could justify investment in metadata strategy and tools within the workflow
  31. 31. Jabin
  32. 32. 1. Contributor 9. Publisher2. Coverage 10. Relation3. Creator 11. Rights4. Date 12. Source5. Description 13. Subject6. Format 14. Title7. Identifier 15. Type8. Language Return