Transcript Issues in the Transfer of Help Tools to Government Agencies: The Example of the Statistical Interactive Glossary (SIG) Stephanie W.

Issues in the Transfer of
Help Tools
to Government Agencies:
The Example of the Statistical
Interactive Glossary (SIG)
Stephanie W. Haas
School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
[email protected]
Supported by NSF grant EIA 0131824
Gov Stat
Find what you need
Understand what you find
• An important goal of the Statistical Knowledge
Network (SKN) is to give users an integrated
view of the agencies’ information.
• Advantages include sharing, rather than
duplicating, help resources among agencies.
• BUT, still need to maintain agencies’ identity,
while recognizing overlaps, similarities, and
differences among the information they provide.
• This presentation uses the SIG templates and
presentations as an example in exploring these
issues.
• We’ll continue the exploration in a discussion
session at the May 14, 2004 meeting.
Features of the
Statistical Interactive Glossary (SIG)
• Presentations of statistical term definitions in a
variety of formats. Explanations can be tailored
for specific contexts (e.g., agency concepts or
statistics).
• Template for structure of explanations.
• Template for development and delivery of
animated explanations.
• Allow agency experts to focus on content
development, not mechanics of construction.
• Presentations become part of the SKN.
Possible relationships between
agencies and terms (1)
AGENCY
AGENCY
AGENCY
TERM
Term is used by one agency; has only one definition.
Example: aged unit, used by SSA.
Possible relationships between
agencies and terms (2)
AGENCY
AGENCY
AGENCY
TERM
Term is used by more than one agency; has only one definition.
Example: race and ethnicity, used by many agencies.
Possible relationships between
agencies and terms (3)
AGENCY
DEFINITION-1
AGENCY
DEFINITION-2
DEFINITION-3
AGENCY
DEFINITION-4
TERM
Term is used by one or more than one agency; has more than one definition.
Term may be ambiguous within a single agency, and/or across agencies.
Example: education levels. NCHS uses 2 definitions, one of which is from
Current Population Survey (Census and BLS). NSF focuses on post-secondary
levels.
Goals and Concerns as SIG is
Transferred to Agencies
From the users’ perspective (end user as well as
agency user).
• Provide multiple views of SIG presentations
– unified view as single collection
– view of presentations relevant to specific agency
– view of presentations relevant to specific information
object (e.g., education as used in a specific table)
– view of presentations relevant to specific term or
concept (e.g., all definitions of “education”)
– other views?
• Find relevant presentations
– linked to information objects
– browsing through collection
– other ways?
• Understand similarities and differences in
meanings of terms that are ambiguous
within and between agencies.
• Understand which meaning is appropriate
for a specific use.
From the agency perspective (developers, other
experts)
• Avoid duplication of effort; share presentations
of shared terms, e.g. race/ethnicity
– Leverage formal and informal connections among
agencies
– What is already in the collection?
– How to link to an existing presentation?
• Create specialized presentation of a term for
specific information contexts; utilize general
pattern for explaining the term if one already
exists
– What is already in the collection?
• Cooperate with other developers to create
explanations of shared terms.
– What other agencies use this term?
– Do they all use the same definition of the
term, or is it ambiguous?
• Update definitions, explanations as
needed
– Does anyone else link to this explanation?
– Who (if anyone) “owns” the explanation?
• Where are explanations stored?
– on individual agencies’ sites
– in a central repository
• Are there any constraints on linking to any
presentation?
• Other concerns?
Three Possible Models
• Model 1: Agency creates presentations for
own terms and definitions; stores them on
own site.
• Model 2: Agency creates some general
presentations, some specific
presentations. Agencies cooperate on
shared terms. Presentations are stored in
central registry.
• Model 3: Combination of 1 & 2.
MODEL 1
AGENCY
AGENCY
P
P P
P
P
P
AGENCY
P
P
P
P
P
AGENCY
P
P
P
P
Each agency creates and stores its own presentations.
How do they discover what the others have created?
Can they link to others’ presentations?
MODEL 2
AGENCY
AGENCY
REGISTRY
P
P
AGENCY
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P P
AGENCY
Each agency stores presentations they create in central registry.
Agencies link to the presentations they need.
Easier to share; less likely to duplicate presentations.
MODEL 3
AGENCY
AGENCY
P
REGISTRY
P
P
P
P
AGENCY
P
P
AGENCY
P
P
P
P
Some presentations stored in agencies, some in registry.
Some sharing of presentations.
Can agencies link to others’ presentations?
How do they discover what already exists?
Discussion: How best to
• Present users with needed variety of views?
• Avoid duplication of effort; promote sharing
presentations where possible?
• Leverage formal and informal connections and
areas of overlapping information between
agencies?
• Integrate with existing glossaries?
• Extend these ideas to other kinds of help tools?
Other concerns about providing help?
Other help topics that need investigation?