Jenny I agree.


A few comments here, and Jenny, I agree too =)

There is an ARMA SDC Project in progress presently to generate a Guideline
on the subject of "Controlled Language" that was originally started by
Margaret Pember of Curtin University in Perth while she was on the SDC.
Unfortunately, she has since left the SDC, and fortunately Tod Chernikoff
has stepped up to manage this project, which is nearing completion.
However, before Margaret left, she produced an introductory brochure on the
subject, which is available in PDF form on the ARMA SDC web Page at this
URL:

http://www.arma.org/pdf/articles/CL.pdf

Essentially, this concept involves becoming more intimately familiar with
how information is described within your organization and how people search
for it,  By doing so, you can develop a "lexicon" for use within your
organization by individuals when describing documents, data, information,
and ultimately, records when they are saved and/or cataloged.  This CL isn't
intended to replace the capture of metadata, but rather to compliment it and
enhance your ability to locate information through the use of common
terminology used in your organization.

 I read the following article yesterday
> http://www.gcn.com/print/26_09/43573-1.html It speaks about using
> metadata in the government based on the Federal architecture model.  It
> also says that GSA is investigating technologies and sharing of
> information.


I read this article as well Laura.  But I had a bit of a different "take
away".

Mine was more that the individuals responsible for deploying the FEA
(Federal Enterprise Architecture) are having difficulty gaining acceptance
by end users and IT staff as well, because they are more convinced that the
DRM (Data Reference Model) they established for use within the FEA is a
better fit for what they want to accomplish.

It's much better aligned (and similar) to the "classification models" used
by NARA and throughout the Federal Government for describing information
presently, and there isn't as great of a glazed look in the eyes of users as
there is when someone says they need to capture "metadata" =)

The comments that made me think they (the Feds) may be re-thinking this are:


Despite this high-profile model, some government agencies obviously feel
that additional metadata structures should be explored.

In late March, the General Services Administration issued a request for
information relating to the semantic representation of knowledge (GCN.com,
Quickfind 761). That document listed several evolving metadata,
classification and sharing technologies that GSA is interested in exploring.


It's not yet clear if this effort will work in concert with the Data
Reference Model or if it will take metadata in a new direction. But GSA
obviously sees a need to investigate additional structures.

One thing I'm sure they're experiencing is the harsh reality that ERM
product offerings, third party OOTB companion pieces, and RM Consultants all
look to metadata for indexing and describing  information assets stored
electronically... it's part-and-parcel with the process.

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance