Notes
were taken on flip-chart during discussion;
After
discussion, noted items were classified under eight topics;
The
number of items in each topic were:
Linkage issues 9
Human Computer Interface
issues 8
Time (Temporal variant data
and versioning issues) 8
Standards 8
Legacy Data 4
Representation of
information and relationships 3
Customization (of views to
user-context) 2
Funding 1
(Counts should be understood
to indicate how we spent our time, not a measure of consensus around a
particular topic or set of issues.)
The
issues under each topic were then summarized by teams of 1-3 group members.
Summaries
Linkage Issues:
Summary.
Many of the "linkage" issues raised in our discussion, such as
representations of place names, lineage of named feature data, relationships
among features, and linkages between collections and place names could be
addressed by developing and promulgating a shared object-oriented (e.g., UML)
model of gazetteer systems. The model
would include (and resolve issues concerning) data structures, interfaces
between distributed gazetteer systems, and interfaces between clients and
gazetteer systems.
Linkage
issues:
1.
Centralized
vs. distributed (federated?) gazetteer systems
2.
Providing
associated names and the lineage of a named feature
3.
How
to link collections to gazetteers? e.g., copy/replicate place-name data out
from source (concurrency problems) vs recording a place-name identifier in a
collection to reference the place-name entry (guaranteed availability and
performance of source to deliver data upon demand)
4.
Gazetteers
and linked systems need to ensure that updates to gazetteer data (e.g., name
changes, footprint changes/additions) are incorporated into existing catalog
records.
5.
2-5
year goal: enable
"peripheral" place-name projects to use infrastructure for managing
place-name data; could be accomplished by "product-izing" gazetteer
software and making it available to such projects, or enabling such projects to
establish and manage a "mini-repository" of place-name data within an
existing larger gazetteer system (remote to the project).
6.
Provide
associated names, including homonyms (e.g., Name as administrative unit, name
as natural feature. May have different footprints: island of Hawaii vs. State
of Hawaii; or may have same footprint: Reagan National Airport as
administrative unit vs. Reagan National Airport as Airport.) Provide thesaurus-like capability: type in
variant name à display
"official" name; under "official" name, provide historical
names
7.
Enable
viewing of temporal changes for a named place. (How has the footprint changed?
How has the name changed?)
8.
Support
batch processing of huge quantities of collection records, where output is
linkage of collection records to gazetteer entries.
9.
Link
named places to census units.
HCI
Develop
(through partnerships) tools and methodologies to access gazetteer data via
intuitive, but sophisticated and layered interfaces. These interfaces will embody technologically advanced (e.g.,
natural language query, speech recognition) capabilities where theme, temporal,
and spatial components are adaptable to user requirements (needs).
The idea behind layered interfaces derives from the
fact that place-name and footprint data can get very deep, particularly if the
data include historical versions, "unofficial names", etc. The initial response (layer) to a place-name
query might be relatively simple, but would include indications when additional
data of a particular type exist for an entry term. A layered approach would give the user capability to drill down
into the associated data (or even go laterally to related places) as far as
they care to. Customization might let
repeat users access deeper layers or particular attributes directly, depending
on the potential volume of data returned by a particular query.
Standards Issues:
I.
Protocols
are needed for :
A. interchange for content and
scope of controlled vocabulary keywords
B. communication among
processes
C. communication between users
and contributors
II.
How
do we coordinate different efforts for standards among:
A. International community
B. Within other communities
C. And ensure
coordination/integration with other relevant standards (e.g., Dublin Core,
FGDC)
III.
Who
will be the authority for transliterations of place names?
Time (temporal issues):
I.
Time
has three aspects in the context of a gazetteer:
A. the dataset itself
B. Actual data about the
entries: name change, geometry change
C. metadata about an entry
(date of source, date a change was made)
II.
Require
support for searching across time
Involves consideration of user interface, data model, & functions
III.
Require
support for visualization of change
IV.
Also
need to consider relationship between entries over time; e.g.,
place x is in area y at t1, but
place x is in place z at t2
V.
Actions
A. We need to understand more
about what time means in context of gazetteer
B. Look at how existing
gazetteers handle change (or don't); what rules are applied in each?
C. Define data model or how to
accommodate temporal changes
D. Investigate support for
searching and visualization of time-variant data.
Legacy Data
Definition:
"Legacy data" exists in an organized form, but needs (digitizing)
migration to modern systems and integration with other information retrieval
systems, including authority control systems, thesauri, and gazetteers.
Recommended
approach to solving the legacy data problem:
1)
Do
inventory of legacy data
2)
Estimate
cost and time
3)
Prioritize
4)
Digitize
5)
Reformat
6)
Link
to authority sources
7)
(Must
link to time dimension for disciplines such as archaeology.)
Representation of
information and relationships
Aspects
of representation identified:
·
presentation
of names for non-Roman alphabet and script languages; includes methods of
romanization or transliteration; must be exchangeable
·
graphic
locational representation of the place names to assist in verifying the place
(part of possible collaborative project)
Customization (see HCI)
Possible
collaborations in research and infrastructure development
1)
Between
the Natural History collections community and Berkeley digital library GIPSY
project to geo-reference text-based descriptions of collecting localities.
2)
Enable
response place-name searches to include visual display of feature location and
context. Partners could include: National Geographic (World Atlas project),
ESRI, and ADL.
3)
Usability
testing / Interface Design of web interfaces to gazetteers. Federal web committee engaged Human Factors
International (http://www.humanfactors.com/)
to user-test and review important federal web sites (e.g., Thomas). An HCI specialist could be engaged to
conduct user-testing of gazetteer web sites, report back, and then conduct a
follow-on workshop with gazetteer info providers.
4)
International
participation in the evolution and development of digital gazetteers. Roger Payne suggested that he could present
the results of this workshop at the international meeting in New York, January
2000.