Proposed indicators used in the standards inspection method for the Wikipedia category scheme (taxonomy)
| Indicator | Reference | Description | Methodology | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluability | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) | There are evaluation mechanisms in place to determine the levels of quality of the category scheme and to detect deviations over time | Existence of agreed, approved, and disseminated procedures | Binary value |
| Reusability | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Fraunhofer ISST and INIT (2009) | The category scheme must be useful in different classification scenarios and for use within Wikipedia, in whole or in part The degree of reusability in each context will depend, to a large extent, on the requirements for specificity and comprehensiveness of that context What data exchange format is available for the extraction and implementation of the category scheme | Existence of agreed, approved and disseminated procedures Comparison of procedures with the content of the category scheme | Binary value |
| Stability | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) | The structure and chosen concepts must be long-lasting, unless the requirements of continuous updates recommend the incorporation of changes. In no case will categories requiring temporal updates be included (for example, current budget) | Analysis of temporal data on the creation of categories | Binary value |
| Number of categories (concepts) | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Stock (2015) | Counting KOS categories (concepts) and comparing them with similar resources, with the average number of documents per category as a supplemental dimension indicator | Counts are based on Wikipedia category data dumps, with comparisons to analog-format library catalogs and encyclopedias | Comparison |
| Number of semantic relationships | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Stock (2015) | Calculation of semantic relationships between categories (concepts) in KOS | The calculation is performed using data dumps related to Wikipedia categories | Case study based on database dumps |
| Enrichment index or granularity | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Gil Leiva (2008) Lancaster (2002) Stock (2015) | Average between the total number of relationships and the number of categories. References indicate the maximum number of levels ranging from 2 to 5 | Optimal values | |
| Degree of precoordination | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Lancaster (2002) Stock (2015) | Precoordination involves combining concepts at the time of category creation or when using them for categorization, as opposed to postcoordination, which involves users combining concepts during search | The calculation is based on data dumps of Wikipedia categories, and computes the average between the number of meaningful words (nouns, adjectives and verbs) in the categories and the total number of categories. References suggest a maximum number of levels ranging from 1.5 to 2 | Case study based on database dumps |
| Number of levels in the hierarchy or depth | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Stock (2015) | This considers categories linked by the hierarchical relationship in the same chain, from the top level to the lowest level | The average is calculated between the total number of levels and the number of categories. References indicate a maximum number of levels at 5 | Optimal values |
| Number of categories at the same hierarchy level or breadth | Alòs-Moner et al. (2010) Fraunhofer ISST and INIT (2009) Stock (2015) | This takes into account the subcategories of all categories, from the top level to the one immediately above the lowest level | The average is calculated between the sum of subcategories and the total number of categories (excluding the last-level categories). References indicate a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 12 | Optimal values |
| Indicator | Reference | Description | Methodology | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluability | There are evaluation mechanisms in place to determine the levels of quality of the category scheme and to detect deviations over time | Existence of agreed, approved, and disseminated procedures | Binary value | |
| Reusability | The category scheme must be useful in different classification scenarios and for use within Wikipedia, in whole or in part | Existence of agreed, approved and disseminated procedures | Binary value | |
| Stability | The structure and chosen concepts must be long-lasting, unless the requirements of continuous updates recommend the incorporation of changes. In no case will categories requiring temporal updates be included (for example, current budget) | Analysis of temporal data on the creation of categories | Binary value | |
| Number of categories (concepts) | Counting KOS categories (concepts) and comparing them with similar resources, with the average number of documents per category as a supplemental dimension indicator | Counts are based on Wikipedia category data dumps, with comparisons to analog-format library catalogs and encyclopedias | Comparison | |
| Number of semantic relationships | Calculation of semantic relationships between categories (concepts) in KOS | The calculation is performed using data dumps related to Wikipedia categories | Case study based on database dumps | |
| Enrichment index or granularity | Average between the total number of relationships and the number of categories. References indicate the maximum number of levels ranging from 2 to 5 | Optimal values | ||
| Degree of precoordination | Precoordination involves combining concepts at the time of category creation or when using them for categorization, as opposed to postcoordination, which involves users combining concepts during search | The calculation is based on data dumps of Wikipedia categories, and computes the average between the number of meaningful words (nouns, adjectives and verbs) in the categories and the total number of categories. References suggest a maximum number of levels ranging from 1.5 to 2 | Case study based on database dumps | |
| Number of levels in the hierarchy or depth | This considers categories linked by the hierarchical relationship in the same chain, from the top level to the lowest level | The average is calculated between the total number of levels and the number of categories. References indicate a maximum number of levels at 5 | Optimal values | |
| Number of categories at the same hierarchy level or breadth | This takes into account the subcategories of all categories, from the top level to the one immediately above the lowest level | The average is calculated between the sum of subcategories and the total number of categories (excluding the last-level categories). References indicate a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 12 | Optimal values |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.