Showing posts with label cloud computing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cloud computing. Show all posts

Monday, April 8, 2013

Learning Management Systems are a Cloudy Commodity




Industry statistics show that overall IT departments spend 80% of budget on maintaining core data-centre technology and only 20% on the applications (e.g., an LMS) that deliver the real value for an organization. IT is a cost centre, not a strategic asset.

It’s worse with eLearning. Our experience is that successfully implementing and managing an LMS/LCMS is beyond the capability of most IT organizations. Yes, they can install it and get it running but beyond that they simply don’t have the domain experience. Their experience is in structured data (databases) and they regard courseware as unstructured data. Worse, they believe eLearning is essentially PowerPoints running on a web server; they don’t know how to stream video on the intranet; they won’t support half the file formats common in eLearning courseware; and they’re too concerned about Bring Your Own Device to even think about mobile courses.

Cloud Computing can change this.

Like mobile it seemed that Cloud Computing would always be out there somewhere, always several years in the future. But in the same way consumers pushed mobile computing into the enterprise without IT, they are consuming and promoting cloud computing in many guises and bringing it into rogue business units. Here are just a few examples of Cloud Services that you may have used or heard about:

  • Automatic upgrades of software on your computer
  • Amazon, FaceBook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube and others reside on vast globally distributed Cloud Computing platform
  • Stores like Apple iTunes, Google Play, Windows Store
  •  File hosting services like Box, Dropbox, Flickr, Google Drive, iCloud, Instagram, Microsoft (Live) SkyDrive, UbuntuOn
  • Free eMail services like Hotmail (Live Mail), Gmail, Zoho Mail, AIM Mail, iCloud Mail, Outlook, Yahoo!, and a dozen others
  • Online backup services like IDrive, KinectD, MozyHome, Nero, Norton
  • Google Docs, Microsoft Office 365, Zoho office tools
  • Google Chromebook cloud computers
  • Windows 8 pushing users onto the MS Cloud as the default
  • Apple pushing users onto iCloud
  • Microsoft’s Lift London studio developing new games exclusively for the cloud
  • Wix is a really cool cloud service for developing web sites

What these have in common is that they are a form of Cloud Computing called Software as a Service (SaaS). Other cloud types not discussed here (and potentially of greater interest to the IT department) are Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
What does SaaS mean for eLearning? There are four basic ways for an organization to operate an LMS or LCMS:

  •  Internal Hosted
  • Hosted Service
  • Shared Service
  • Software as a Service

Internal Hosted is a non-cloud single-tenant model.  This is the traditional scenario where an LMS/LCMS is implemented and hosted by an IT department or business unit on local servers. The main advantage is direct control over governance and security. The disadvantages are lengthy and difficult procurement processes, and the need for capital investment that may be hard to get. Capacity is always a step function, so you capitalise servers over the forecast demand or experience loads that cause reduced service from too little capacity.
\
Hosted Service is also a non-cloud single-tenant model. This is the same as Internal Hosted except that it has been outsourced to a service provider who supplies the servers and manages the LMS/LCMS software application. This is sometimes called Managed Service. The servers can be located on premises or externally, depending on the arrangement. The advantage is that you don’t need IT approval for a capital expense because this is usually a leased service. The disadvantage is that you do need IT approval. This model also suffers from over- or under-capacity issues.

Shared Service is a non-cloud several-tenant model. This is an Internal Hosted model in which a few separate business units or organizations share a software application run by a centralised service provider to reduce costs. For example, enterprise web applications like Drupal, Joomla, SharePoint, WebSphere, WordPress and many others can be used to set up more than one web-site domain.

Typically partitioning of user data and content is very weak. Typically the oversight model is weak and bureaucratic. Often the users do not have end-to-end ownership of process. Security and governance, including content approval, are often subject to the business processes and delays of the chief business owner. New functionality, performance levels, service-level agreements and changes to the service are difficult to negotiate. This model also suffers from over- or under-capacity issues. It’s a popular government mantra but only a few practitioners have shown significant cost savings.

Software as a Service is a multi-tenant cloud model. This is an external software application from a service provider that runs on top of a stack of PaaS and IaaS cloud services. SaaS uses hypervisor virtualization to separate tenants. The software and database are architected for multiple tenants with strong partitioning of user and content data.

Security is managed by the SaaS provider. For protection, usually data is fragmented across several geophysical locations and often encrypted. The service-level agreement may be standard and difficult to customize. There is no capital cost – a major benefit. This model matches capacity to demand dynamically, and charges only for usage.

However, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978/2012 the US government can still access any data without a warrant if it is stored in the USA or if the service provider falls under US jurisdiction. Access does not have to be for reasons of national security – the legislation allows warrantless access for political and economic reasons, too.

Also, as an aside, any email stored in the USA over 180 days is not private or privileged.
In 2013 the FBI’s priority was to get new powers under the 1994 surveillance law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. The FBI wants the power to mandate real-time surveillance of email, cloud services, or online chat providers like Skype. This is everything from Dropbox and online games to Live Mail, Outlook Mail, Gmail and Google Voice.

As a simple matter of due diligence and security from economic espionage data should not be stored with US service providers unless extremely strong encryption is used on the client-side (keys should not be stored in the cloud). This is a thorny issue for service-level agreements.

Some of the benefits of SaaS are:

  • Lowering the opportunity cost of running technology. Opportunity cost is the cost of not doing something, thus foregoing future benefits.
  • Allowing for a shift of costs from capital expenditure to operating expenditure, which makes it much easier to acquire technology.
  • Lowering the total cost of ownership (TCO) of technology (resources are pooled).
  • Giving organizations the ability to add business value by renewed focus on core activities by spending 20% on core technology and 80% on better business applications.
  •  Enabling IT to focus on the strategic aspects of its role.
  • Empowering small- and medium-sized organizations through access to global-scale technology at utility prices.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has defined several essential characteristics for a cloud service:

  • On-demand self-service so an end user can sign up and receive services without the long delays that have characterized traditional IT.
  • Broad network access via standard platforms (desktop, laptop, mobile, etc.).
  • ·Resource-pooling across multiple customers who share bandwidth, load balancing, servers and databases.
  • ·Rapid elasticity so the service can scale to cope with demand peaks. This means the service level is always matched to the demand so you don’t pay for over-capacity or lose users from under-capacity.
  • Measured service with billing metered and delivered as a utility service the same way we consume electricity and water.

Some so-called cloud services charge by the number of users but we would argue that this is just a form of hosted self-service. A true utility service, e.g., electricity, doesn’t care how many people are in the house.

An LMS is a good candidate for SaaS. At this time there are several hosted self-service LMS providers: Articulate Online, BizLibrary CompanyCollege LMS, Docebo Cloud, ePath Learning ASAP, Epignosis LTD, eFront Enterprise LMS, Zenler Online and probably more.

An LMS meets some of the criteria for a cloud service, such as:

  •  It is not a differentiating or core business application
  •  It is usually web-facing
  • Users need access from desktop, laptop, mobile, etc.
  • Demand can be spiky when training campaigns are underway
  • Global delivery through content-distribution networks
  • It can be managed by business departments

An LCMS is not a good candidate for SaaS. It meets some criteria for not using a cloud service, such as:

  •  It is not web-facing (it’s a back-end system to a web-facing LMS)
  •  It does not have to scale rapidly to meet demand
  • It is a value-added service that differentiates the organization (especially with content re-use)
  •  It involves uploading many and often large files that consume bandwidth
Start thinking LMS cloud in long-term strategies (with appropriate security). Think about bringing an LCMS in-house.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Technology Change in eLearning

By David Shaw

eLearning has been in a period of stagnation characterised by an explosion in the learning management systems (LMS) sector (>300 in the market) and an implosion in the backend learning content-management systems (LCMS) sector (~6 in the market). This might seem like a contradiction but the 300 have brought no new big ideas about training and cost reduction and the LCMS vendors are still building complex information silos that discourage easy re-use of content.

Outside the largest organizations eLearning is still shackled by human-resource departments that (astoundingly!) don’t know how to train; corporate IT departments that are zoo-keepers who only know how to feed caged Microsoft software, and who believe that eLearning is PowerPoints best delivered on SharePoint; and in the eLearning space itself a waterfall process for developing courses that can often take more than six weeks and sometimes months for a one-hour course.

Maybe it's time for change.

“We live in a time of profound transition, when the future of everything is up in the air,” says Farhad Manjoo. Manjoo is Slate's technology columnist and the author of True Enough: Learning To Live in aPost-Fact Society.

That future is being shaped not by old nation-states but by the ‘five’ horsemen of technology: Apple (1976), Amazon (1994), Facebook (2004), Google (1998), and Samsung (1938). Together these rival companies define the global markets for cloud services; mobile devices like smartphones, eReaders and tablets; mobile apps; and social networking.

Riding in the dust in the company of strangers is Microsoft, struggling to redefine itself as a hardware company that can make hip fondleslabs that people actually want to buy. Windows still rules in corporate mindshare but it’s a slideshow everywhere else.

Android and iOS rule in operating systems for mobile phones and tablets, riding well ahead of the distant pack of QNX, Bada, Symbian, Windows Mobile, and Linux (in order of market share). As an aside, Android, iOS, QNX and Linux all have an ancestry in Unix.

Other mobile operating systems coming soon are BB10, Firefox, Jolla, Tizen, and Ubuntu. And of course there is Google Chromebook.

Yes, companies rise and fall but what distinguishes these five horsemen is that they are extremely successful in all their aspects, and especially in innovation. Nobody else comes close.

Besides the decline of Windows and a proliferation of platforms, what are the key changes driven by the horsemen's technology that impact content-management in general and eLearning in specific? The most notable ones are:
  • Rise of Mobile Media
  • Demise of Flash
  • Responsive Web Design
  • Content is a Commodity
  • Computing is a Commodity
 A PDF of the complete article discussing these factors is available by email from the author.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Indie Writers & Social Media - Part 4

David Shaw © 2010

eBooks are Happening Now

[updated 20100720] Several events in the last six months have heralded the maturing of eBooks. Don’t get me wrong. I like print. As Isaac Asimov said years ago at a Folio magazine conference, if digital had come first, some one would invent print and we would all think it was amazing: portable, tactile, durable, high resolution, reflected not transmitted light, open standard, long lasting and so on.

I don’t like reading online. Transmitted light is tiring and the environment is not immersive like a magazine spread. Higher resolution shrinks the size of type. The new ultra-landscape form-factor of LCD screens is best for wide spreadsheets or multiple open windows, but not long documents. A thousand is the most words most people will tolerate reading on screen before they get twitchy.

But I’ve decided the technology is now good enough. Hot type, cold type, laser printing, multimedia – things move on. Here are my reasons.
In the second quarter of 2010 Amazon sold 143 e-books for every 100 hardcover books, and the rate is accelerating. Say no more.
  • ePub has become the de facto standard, displacing several others.
eBooks have been confusing until recently because there were numerous competing standards tied to proprietary readers. Even PDF, which requires Acrobat Reader, was considered to be an eBook format. PDF was designed originally as a tool for printing.

ePub was developed as an open standard and when Apple adopted it for the iPad and Amazon also adopted it, it became the de facto standard. ePub is compatible with hardware eBook readers like the iPad and Kindle and software readers like Calibre, FBReader and Stanza. Personally I use an ePub plug-in for the Firefox browser.

ePub doesn’t include DRM (digital rights management) but I don’t see that as a big issue. I’m not a fan of DRM and its inclusion in the proposed copyright act, but that’s another conversation.
  • ePub books cost $0.00 to produce and store.
Well, close enough that it’s not worth counting the decimal places.
  • ePub books are easy for indies to produce.
You can take a semester course at a college, or I can teach you how in less than a day. That way you can get to market this year instead of next.
  • Like the iPhone before it, the iPad is a game changer.
Apple sold one million iPads in the first month and suddenly everyone was making a tablet device for eBooks. Here are some examples:
  • Apple announced the iBook store and Google announced an eBook store.
The game is on. We have a decent open standard, a multitude of compatible hardware and software readers, and major distribution channels through Amazon, Apple and Google. The de facto price for an eBook is $9-12 so these channels cater to impulse buying and volume sales.

Time to jump in.

Our eBook Strategy

In Part 3 of this series for indie writers we outlined a social-media framework around a print-on-demand strategy. As shown in the below graphic, this uses a PDF format sent to a publishing service such as Lulu or one of the others listed in Part 3. Lulu takes care of listing the book with Amazon. Amazon sells the book for a reasonable fee.

You can readily produce the PDF yourself if your book is one colour, but be sure to get a specification from the service you plan to use. If you're ambitious you can use a desktop publishing program like the open-source Scribus. I used to use Microsoft Word with Acrobat Distiller but lately I've switched to OpenOffice and its built-in PDF converter.

If you want to include four colours, then I recommend that you take your document to a quick-print shop and have them preflight the PDF for you. Just remember that services like LuLu have a sweet spot in their business model that excludes 600-page full-colour books.

(That's why my book about trawlers was still-born. As an alternative I started to convert it to a free blog book, but then that got derailed when I decided to turn it into a social-media portal for boaters. That's coming soon I hope.)

In this Part 4 we continue to build on this print strategy by adding eBooks.


Other Professional Networks

While this series is mostly about using social media to promote your book by executing an engagement or communications plan, we shouldn't forget other professional networks as an ingredient in creating market buzz.

In Part 3 this was partly shown by mentioning speaking at events to promote your book. But it also includes sending review copies to the traditional media and bloggers, and press releases to various book networks. A full discussion of this is outside our scope here - just remember not to be blinded by the hype around social media, and to explore, use and test all promotional avenues.

Even if your strategy is to publish eBooks, it might be worth printing a few to send to reviewers and others. They might be more receptive to dead trees.

Do It Yourself

The nice thing about eBooks is that they are easy for an indie to produce. The ePub format is a bit technical but once you get your head around it, it's pretty simple. (Of course, I used to think the same about sex.) Just kidding.

eBook distribution is through our familiar friend Amazon and new channels like the Apple iBook store and Google's eBook store. Today eBooks can be read on desktop computers, laptops, eBook readers and smart phones.

In the graphic, we show a single text source feeding separate processes for PDF and ePub. This is again a bit techie but not that difficult. We'll explore this a bit more in Part 5.

Audio Books

Another digital book format is MP3. Audio books are a somewhat untapped market that is on the verge of kicking off. Folks everywhere are listening to pods on the go. And eBook readers like the Kindle and iBook for iPad have been updated to handle audio and video.

This deserves serious consideration. The best audio books are done like radio plays of old, with different voices for each character. This too segues into the next part of this series when we discuss collaboration.

Next Time

In the final and Part 5 of this series, we will look at ways of using social media as a collaboration tool for indie writers.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

The Secret Sauce of Social Success

A few notions for implementing a Web 2.0 framework in your organization.

Everybody’s getting social these days. “Gimme a wiki, no, not that blue one, give me a red one. Oh, and throw in a tweeter, too, they’re so cool. And a Friends tab! We’ll put that on our web. My kids watch Friends!”

The next thing you know, Newsweek magazine is asking readers for their views on Iran in no more than 140 characters; the City TV breakfast host in Toronto is wittering about his race with the mayor to see who has the most followers; the web site about undies wants to know your closest friends; the premier of Ontario bans FaceBook because, well, he knows better than 250 million people; police are in schools warning parents about FaceBook and MySpace; the corporate IT folks are freaking about security; and senior management is trying to preserve command-and-control.

At least the TV host is living it.

The short story is if you’re not using these tools, you won’t understand them. The longer story is that most organizations implement them in ways that give rise to a lot of noise and very little signal. This is not so unusual. We tend to first use new technologies to do old and familiar things. This is unfortunate because social networking has the capability to transform organizations so they can meet the challenges rising from a transformation in the marketplace that is light speed ahead of most organizations. Those that don’t catch up will face a sudden disconnect from their market.

Here is an outline of one approach:

  • Collaboration in Web 2.0

  • Develop a strategy to engage

  • Develop objectives

  • Map objectives to functions

  • Map functions to Web 2.0 tools

  • Make connections

Collaboration in Web 2.0

Web 2.0 has many faces, and even more interpretations. Nobody really understands what it means, where it is going or what will be the future outcomes.

But fundamentally Web 2.0 is about collaboration. However, there are so many tools that can be used in different ways that it is hard to develop a productive strategy and even harder to predict the future. If you’re lucky your organization will adopt a strategy for information management that will integrate Web 2.0 with existing tools such as document- and records-management, and map them to business processes and service models.

If you’re unlucky, you will end up with new islands of technology and information, in the way that PC hard drives have become the repository of the most current data, and email has become the repository of many corporate decisions. The figure below is a high-level view of Web 2.0 in the enterprise, showing how to apply it in an obvious and low-risk manner. This architecture was deliberately designed to show you how to introduce the tools in ways that provide benefits without requiring a wholesale change in corporate culture.

But as shown below other strategies of engagement should deliver greater benefits, and at the same time meet the challenges of a socially networked marketplace.

Applying Web 2.0 in the enterprise

Develop a Strategy to Engage

To develop a unique strategy for your unique organization you should synthesize your understanding of the needs of the organization and your understanding of Web 2.0. This is why it is important that you use the tools. But ideally the tools are not used in isolation, in the way that word-processing is isolated from email. Collaboration requires that the tools be integrated, easy to use, and part of the daily process.

Two examples are given below.

In the first example, the goal is to drive volume by connecting supply to demand, using amplification of word of mouth. This drives customer sentiment in a positive direction. This is a principle that can be generalized across all social-networking applications.

The example depicts an organization that has integrated certain aspects of its intranet with an extranet for customer access. Typically, this would be used for managing joint projects. The intranet is internal, behind a firewall. The extranet exposes part of the intranet to customers, subject to security mechanisms and access controls. The web portal is the public-face of the organization.

In a sense, these are different views of a single collaborative platform. For example, a blog published by an expert within the organization would be accessible on the intranet, extranet and web portal. You don’t want to force people to have to go and find something, or to stumble on it by chance.

The outcome is some desired objective or set of objectives. The outcome shown below is “Market Buzz” but you could have more concrete outcomes like products sold, members registered, issues identified and closed, and so forth.
Engaging customers and prospects in a community

However, these activities are driven dynamically by a wide range of possible connections. The nature of the outcome can not be predicted. For example, you may discover that the issues you thought were important are not shared by the crowd, or that your market opportunities are in a different area than you planned.

Shown above are social connections because social conversations dominate all human activities. Although in some cases we can seek to guide these conversations in some constructive way, they are essentially unpredictable. Some examples of connections are given further below.

The difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is that Web 1.0 was largely a solitary experience. We each trolled the web, and perhaps sent a link to a few friends. We couldn’t easily find like-minded people around the world and engage with them.Web 2.0 gave us the tools to engage the world in conversation by establishing and/or joining communities of interest.

These connections between people are both static and dynamic. We all have regular friends, workplace friends and occasional friends. We engage in conversations that are constantly evolving. Thus, in a digital social network our possible connections with people and their interests and objects evolve dynamically. Feedback about those connections can be used to drive the social network to produce business outcomes.

The next example shows how a different type of organization, perhaps a nightclub, would use a different strategy. This strategy leverages an existing social destination, such as FaceBook or MySpace, and synchronizes content between the social network and the web site. Existing promotional networks, such as “Things to do in My City”, would provide further amplification. A communications plan for special events could provide the basic grist for conversation and amplification.

Leveraging FaceBook and existing promotional networks

Develop the Objectives

At a more granular level are the statements of objectives describing the specific planned results of your Web 2.0 strategy and what it is you are trying to achieve. When you write an objective, remember the SMART acronym: Each objective should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time bound. The objectives state the meat of what the strategy is trying to achieve. When the project to implement the strategy is complete, you need to be able to show that the objectives have all been satisfied. At times, you may have only a vague idea of the goals and objectives but struggle with trying to determine the best way to express them.

Map the Objectives to Functions

When you have identified the objectives, use a spreadsheet to map these to specific functions. A few examples of functions are shown in the below figure. This is another reason why it is important to have experience with Web 2.0 tools. Without such experience, you won’t be able to do this mapping.
Map objectives to functions

Map the Functions to Web 2.0 Tools

The next step is to map the various functions to a Web 2.0 tool. Several tools are shown in the below figure but there are numerous others that you should include in a spreadsheet. As you do this exercise, you will have to weigh the value of each function and tool, examine trade-offs, and set an achievable scope. You don’t need to implement every tool to have success.
Map functions to Web 2.0 tools

Experience has shown that the below technical criteria are critical success factors. One of them, pattern matching, will be discussed further.
  • Templates

  • Ease of use

  • Single sign-on

  • Workflow integration

  • Access

    • System tray

    • Portal gadget

    • Desktop gadget

  • Security

    • Profiles, ACL, content/document classification

  • Unified communications

    • Including notifications

  • Tagging

  • Federated search

  • Topic clouds

  • Making connections (pattern matching)
Of these technical criteria, four are extremely important and might be called the secret sauce in successful social networking:
  • Making connections for feedback
  • Linking for navigation
  • Generating topic clouds for browsing
  • Federated search to find stuff across several types of applications
This article only deals further with filters to make connections. Linking was discussed in Taxonomies & Their Cousins are Important.

Make Connections

In a small world it is easy to strike up conversations and, in a reasonable time, make connections with folks having somewhat similar interests. Thus, we might end up belonging to several communities of interest or practice.

In a larger world, even one as small as our enterprise, it is difficult to make connections outside our work group or department. Social networking software makes these connections on many criteria and presents them to us so we can make choices and decide which connections are relevant or otherwise important.

Put another way, to participate in a large social group people need to know what is going on. Suggesting connections is a form of feedback about activities and decisions being made in the group. Obviously this feedback has to relate to the objectives discussed earlier.

Making connections to provide feedback

The figure above shows the basic feedback mechanism. In any area of concern, whether it's interests, issues, objectives, product sales or whatever, there will be the current hot hits everyone is buzzing about, and a long tail of lesser subjects. By getting views on the hits, and using pattern matching to suggest some other subjects in the tail that might be of interest, a dynamic feedback mechanism is created. It has the effect of increasing interest or participation across the entire spectrum. But be aware in your filter design that positive feedback is self-reinforcing and can create a herd mentality.
Feedback increases the participation level

The below figure shows how a simple filter might work to suggest people you might consider as online “friends”. Like the promise in eHarmony, it matches people based on similar profiles. Here, it has suggested a connection established between Person-A and Person-B based on their similar profiles dhfnthfh.

However, there are many possible types of profiles. They can be demographic, purchases made, shared issues, common expertise or whatever else is important to the objectives of your social network. Multiple profiles can be weighted and combined in different ways to increase the participation level and produce direct measurable benefits.
Making connections

Selecting the right profiles and designing the right pattern-matching feedback filters is absolutely crucial in the success of your social-networking application. The resulting collaborations will drive your organization dynamically, much as conversations are now driving your market.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Taxonomies and their Cousins are Important

Understanding several models of organizing information will help in developing classification schemes.
David Shaw © 2009

It’s cruel when you discover a taxonomy for a wiki isn’t working to your satisfaction. Generally it’s easy to develop categories for a small project, but this one was for the deconstruction of a boat. Like many other real-life large objects, boats, MRIs, cars, airplanes and even IT projects cannot be categorized by decimal library systems.

In this case I started with the numerical taxonomy defined by S1000D, an international standard for airplanes, boats and vehicles. I adapted it based on experience from a project at the Coastguard, then three experts reviewed it and gave a thumbs-up.

The taxonomy has over 400 starter nodes. Around the creation of node 200 I began to feel “This isn’t right. It’s not how people think.”

This was a body blow. MediaWiki, the base of this project, doesn’t allow renaming categories in any easy way. The solution was to engage in a displacement activity like raiding the fridge. Instead, I wrote this blog to help you understand why taxonomies are important.

The Problem

S1000D uses a numerical classification scheme. The idea is that if you know the reference for engine repairs, then it doesn’t matter which aircraft is on the ramp for repairs because the information in its manual will be under the standard reference number. Even if it’s a car on the ramp for repairs, its engine information will be under the same reference number as in the aircraft manual.

Many taxonomies, library systems, record-management (RM) systems and even accounting systems use numerical taxonomies. Shown below is an extract from the standard Government of Canada scheme.
Numerical classifications are best left to witch doctors

The advantage of numerical schemes is that they allow a simple standard breakdown of information. For example, general information about taxes is 1008.100 and likewise, general information about marketing is 5006.100.

But the problem with numerical taxonomies is that they are inaccessible by mere mortals. It requires a trained RM witch doctor to tell you how to classify a document, and then how to find it a year later. The taxonomy becomes a black hole, probably of less use than the jumble on your hard drive.

Knowing this I converted the S1000D numerical model to a natural-language model. In other words, plain English. But one of the problems encountered was this:

 Boat Type
Boat Type.Sailboat
Boat Type.Sailboat.Sloop
Boat Type.Sailboat.Yawl
Boat Type.Trawler


This was logical in a numerical topic.subtopic.subtopic scheme but in plain language it was better as:
 Boat Type
Sailboat
Sloop
Yawl
Trawler


Also,

    Maintenance
Maintenance.Suppliers
Maintenance.Suppliers.Equipment


Was better as an entirely different construct:

 Maintenance
Suppliers

Equipment Suppliers


And

 Operations
Operations.Harbour
Operations.Mooring


Was better as:

 Operations
Harbour Operations

Mooring Operations


As you can see, a numerical model that allows an expert to know the topic and level of subtopic doesn’t translate easily to plain English. The danger with this revision is that I might encounter namespace clashes that I wouldn’t have with the original strongly typed names.

So, why bother with this, why not just put it into a wiki? Well, it’s not that simple. Even wikis need some kind of classification framework.

Let’s review some of the basics.

Namespaces

Taxonomies are associated with namespaces. If you read the technical definition of namespaces, your head will probably start to hurt. Here’s a simple one. A table in a written report is in the document namespace. A wooden table in your kitchen is in the furniture namespace. So, a namespace identifies the domain or context for a given vocabulary or set of terms.

Many namespaces are formalized. If you look at the source of an html page and see dc:publisher in the header, it simply means that the term publisher as used there is the one defined by the folks who developed the Dublin Core (dc) set of definitions.

Similarly, in MediaWiki a page name that starts with Category: denotes that the page is in the category namespace.

Without going into deep detail, you will recognize that this is similar to the example with an office document having multiple relationships.

But there are other possible knowledge representations.

Wheel of Wheels

Years ago on a project with thousands of nodes we experimented with a wheel of wheels. The goal was to let users navigate while always knowing what content was to the left and right of them, and also up and down.
Wheel of wheels for navigating nodespace

In the example in the figure, a user would start at 1.0. She could then navigate from 1.0 to either 2.0 or 3.0. If she went to 2.0, she could navigate to 2.2 through one of three paths. The node at 2.2 is also part of a sub-wheel with its own paths of navigation.

This example wheel represents the simple taxonomy shown in the figure left-below. The same figure on the right also shows all the possible navigational paths for one section. You could also adapt this to a navigational scheme for a set of web pages, using nested drop-down menus and hyperlinks for both the inter-links and back-links. But this would give you just one organizational scheme for the content, and people often come at content with a different context in their mind, i.e., a different mindset or facet.
Wheel of wheels in a more familiar form (left) and its navigational scheme (right)

Taxonomies

Taxonomies are trees or hierarchies of classification much like filing cabinets. We’ve all been brought up to understand filing cabinets or their modern equivalent: the Windows folder structure. In a taxonomy, or in your Windows folders there’s only one place to put a file. Supposedly.
Just tell me where to put my file...

Back in the real world, a year has gone by, you now have 12,000 files on your hard drive, you have a new task, and you remember a document that would help you. But you can’t remember the thought process that caused you to file it…where? You can’t even remember the file name or the title. And you didn’t put any keywords in the properties because you didn’t know you might need it in the future, or what the context would be. So you try Windows advanced search but you can’t even remember words specific enough for Windows brain-dead search and it returns 1200 hits including spreadsheets.

More than 50 hits is too many for you to process. Less than 20 means you might have missed the file you’re looking for.

Then you learn some simple tricks. Your organization doesn’t have a user-friendly document-management system, or if it does you don’t have permission to set up categories so you start using MSDOS-type file names to denote versions of a document: name_v1_2009-05-12.doc. You even create an archive folder to simplify housekeeping.

You make sure you email copies to co-workers, so you have backups. You start to put copies of the file into different folders because it has more than one context, and you want to be able to find it again in the distant future. Then somebody asks, “Who sent a copy to the customer, and does anyone know what version it was?”

That’s because your document really has relationships similar to this one:
Documents usually have many relationships

Relational Models

Hierarchical databases soon ran into the same sorts of classification problems, and so the relational database model was invented. Let’s use a simple example using a recipe for Coq au Vin. When you first started collecting recipes it was good enough to put this chicken recipe on an index card or copy-paste it into an OpenOffice or Word document.

As your collection of recipes grew, you started thinking about different ways of classifying them. One way would be to put them into a relational database that had a few classification tables such as shown here:
A relational database uses linked tables to establish relationships

Faceted Taxonomies

As folks began to realize that information has many facets, web designers developed faceted taxonomies. These have become very common.

Below is an example of a web site that categorizes recipes by Meal Type, Food Type (meat, vegetable, etc.) and Cuisine. Each of these categories is a facet. In the case of the Meal Type, it has been exposed at its second level, to reduce mouse clicks and simplify navigation. Food Type and Cuisine could be expandable menus.
Faceted taxonomies provide several navigational entry points

Thus, Coq au Vin could be found as:
  • Its name in the index.
  • A dinner meal.
  • A chicken recipe.
  • French cuisine.

Network (Wiki) Models

Wikis use a network model of organization. A network has no discernible root; although you might nominate one or more to serve as facets or entry points. The below figure shows our Coq au Vin recipe. Note that it is the only topic in our network. All the other nodes are either categories or subcategories.
A network has no root

Basically, this network says Coq au Vin is:
  • A recipe
  • French cuisine
  • A chicken dish
  • Suitable for a dinner meal
In MediaWiki or Wikka, as an example, at the bottom of the page we would put:

[[Category:Recipes]]
[[Category:FrenchCuisine]]
[[Category:Chicken]]
[[Category:Dinner]]

Also, Category:Dinner could readily be subdivided into Category:Appetizer, Category:Entrée and Category:Dessert.

Folksonomies & Ontologies

Are best left for another day....