I'm doing some file cleanup and stumbled across a copy of a "CM Briefing" from several years ago - CMb 2005-13, entitled "More Users=Simpler CMS." It was written by James Robertson of Step Two Designs, an Australian consultancy with a specialty in intranets. I've known James for years, he has a solid background in intranet design, content management, user-centered design and knowledge management.

I'm writing this quick post because this briefing opens with:

In many projects, the plan is to deploy a new content management system (CMS) across the whole organisation. In these organisation-wide deployments, an assumption is made that a “big” CMS will be needed to meet the “enterprise” needs. In practice, a better rule is that the more users that will be accessing the CMS, the simpler (and more usable) the system should be.

YES! Less is more, even in the world of linked data. For years we've seen attempts at building very large, very complicated ontologies, taxonomies and metadata schema for public use. The big ones are fine, but for the right reason, in fewer scenarios. What we've seen gain adoption on a larger scale are some relatively simple frameworks: Dublin Core & FOAF; more recently Open Graph Protocol and Schema.org.

Are there times when a large ontology is needed? Absolutely. Do you need one to get started? Heck no. Start small and simple.

First determine what you need: a simple schema with small controlled vocabularies? A lightweight ontology? That will depend on your goals for publishing data and the kinds of questions you want users to be able to ask of your data.

Next decide on the smallest number of elements you need to get the important data modeled. For example, an Address Record. You need a Street, Building Location, City, State and Zip Code (in the U.S.). Having a controlled vocabulary for the States will make your life much simpler. That's it; you're good to go. Move on to the next data problem.

Finally, encode in a way that will allow it to grow, integrate with other data sets, be usable in many applications and have reasonable maintenance requirements.

Keep it simple, until you need more.

I'm at SXSW and experiencing interesting opposing stereotypes, which are not necessarily good or bad.

I was just in the Augmented Reality meetup room, which is lively and social and moving - hot with many interesting conversations. The organizer stood on a chair to say hi, thanks for coming, who's new, who needs a developer, who wants to talk about what - great, go! The folks are business folks, developers, dreamers. It's loud and fun.

I'm now in the Librarian meetup, in which everyone is sitting nicely and taking turns speaking, trying to have a single meaningful full group conversation. We're talking about librarians' responsibilities and rights at curating public data such as Wikipedia, and what kinds of metadata should be maintained and kept accurate, and how crowd-sourcing can be useful, but introduces errors. (PhillyHistory.org is one example.) It's not necessarily fun, but it's certainly engaging. (Remember - I was a 'traditional' librarian - I DO respect what these people do!)

I think the librarians have a longer term vision and commitment: they're talking long term access, thinking a bit about the semantic web and prototype applications, and talking about pilot projects to use Zotero to curate focused collections. The developers are talking about sexy and utility apps that will have a lifespan of 1-3 years before sinking to the deadpool or evolving into something new by integrating the next new technology to come along. They however will make a greater business impact.

Both of these groups pretty much have the same goal - to make content readily available in context for as many people as possible. How can we get them talking more to each other? Shall I drag a few folks from one room to the other? (Really tempted, but probably not a good idea!)

My Myers-Briggs test was right - I can do well in both rooms. But where will I end this hour?

UPDATE: Librarians!!! Broaden your market! Step away from your public service, public funding mentality - even you corporate librarians (you simply have a known funder). Be AGILE - develop products, services, apps; fail OFTEN. Be bold. You are vital. SO MANY industries need you - especially high tech.

There is much discussion going on in semantic technology circles about how to determine authority. It has reminded me of my Reference Services course with A.J. Anderson at Simmons College GSLIS.

When I was in library school we were taught how to ascertain the authority and provenance of our sources, to ensure we were providing our patrons with the most trusted sources of information we could find. It was about RESPECT and HONOR; about doing the right thing. It was not about algorithms. No mathematically derived number will match the passion of a dedicated human, intent on finding the best source of information available with the resources at hand, with the mindset that s/he is there to provide impeccable SERVICE and if possible EDUCATE the patron.

That being said, how can we define algorithms that let us use the machine to support the human's effort? I look for integrity in my sources, but define its attributes a little differently than others in computer science fields I think.

1. Is the source complete - whole/intact?
2. Is the source broad and shallow (an overview) or narrow and deep (comprehensive coverage of a single or few topics.)
3. Is the source there when I need it? (On the web - is the URI persistent/no "Page Not Found" errors. In print - this is why libraries have reference sections from which you cannot borrow!)
4. Is the source factual - research-based, critical, op/ed?
5. Is the author of the information well-suited to present on the topic? Degreed? Real-world experience of any tenure? How much experience? Participates in open discussions on the subject? Regularly published in the same or related fields? Highly regarded by peers qualified to make such a judgment? Unbiased by funding sources?
6. Does the source reference other materials of the same AND differing research results or opinions?

Frequently though, despite all of this effort, at the end of a search I will find myself selecting the "right" source much the same way as the experts in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink did - I trust my instincts. Why? Because I don't often have all of the data I need to determine if a source passes the above tests.

I'd like to see an app that indexes and visualizes these elements for me - an app that visualizes what each individual determines is their own definition of integrity. Perhaps having good reviews by others of a similar knowledge/experience level as themselves on a topic is important. Perhaps having the opinions of friends is important.

I'd like an app in which each of these components is plug-n-play, not pre-determined for me like Google's 200 part algorithm.

Of course, I'll make the effort to use it.

In the meantime, please tell me in the comments what matters to you when determining authority, trust or integrity of an information source. I'm genuinely curious to learn and want to help move the dialog along.

[Interestingly, this Google search provides some excellent information on how librarians recommend you determine authority. Check them out and see if you can determine if these resources have integrity!]