The hierarchy for digital preservation consists of several terms. For the most part, these terms were appropriate, and it was easy to find information relevant to the topic by using them. Simple searches revealed many pages related to the topics in the hierarchy, as well as to digital preservation in general. It was not an entirely perfect hierarchy, but it was certainly a useful guide. As for terms that were not particularly useful, persistent identification seems to qualify. In Google, this search term mostly just found documents including the words “persistent” and “identification,” without relating to persistent identification itself. A search for the term “systematic transfer” resulted in a considerable amount of documents dealing with the systematic transfer of money, rather than information. In addition to the terms already listed, it might be useful to include “encapsulation” under “preservation strategies,” as this is another way of overcoming technological obsolescence. While the categories under the main heading of digital preservation were developed quite well, they might have benefited from slightly neater organization. Perhaps, for instance, “digital obsolescence” could be placed closer to “preservation strategies,” since these are essentially strategies to combat digital obsolescence. Overall, though, the hierarchy was very effective.

The topic map provides a neat layout, and incorporates XML tags, while still maintaining the benefits of the initial hierarchy. It is fairly easy to understand where one topic ends and another begins, because the XML tags indicate this. One topic can be nested inside another, and all topics can have their own unique titles and topic identifiers.

Will topic maps help to change the World Wide Web into a Semantic Web? It is definitely a possibility. XML has already caught on with many libraries and other businesses, and it might well set standards for the future. It has many advantages, including the ability to define tags and classes of data. A major problem with the Web as it stands today is that there are few standards or guidelines for pages that exist on it. This is actually an advantage in some ways, since anyone can contribute data to it. The disadvantage is that such lax standards can really hurt someone looking for information on the Internet, and cause trouble for the people coding the Web documents. Greater semantic and organizational standards for the Web would help users on both ends, and a language like XML, which can be used to create such useful documents as topic maps, can help to achieve these higher standards. The topic map presents an organized approach to any topic, allowing users to find and use information from the Web much more easily.

As good as all of this sounds in theory, however, such resources as topic maps will not necessarily transform the entire World Wide Web. The Web is a large entity, and its very nature is somewhat chaotic. There will probably always be some documents that are totally disorganized, and outside the scope of topic maps and the like. This cannot really be helped, as it is part of what must come with the free exchange of information that the Internet is supposed to represent. Nonetheless, the Semantic Web developments will still be of great assistance to researchers, and will introduce a significant amount of order into the chaos that is the Web.

View my topic map
Return to my main INFO 653 page 1