Updated by the P2RX Web Group on April 15, 2001

Updated by the P2RX Web Group on December 17, 2001

The group reviewed the topic hub "clean-up" and Hub Version 2.0 lists prepared by Andy on December 11. The lists were sorted according to the type of item (a Need, an Improvement, or a new Feature) and the amount of resources that would be required to accomplish it (Low, Medium or High).

Hub Clean-up List

(Drafted 12/11/01 by Andy Bray, NEWMOA)

Topics (in no particular order)
Finish Development on “Relate NAICS to Topic Hubs”
Expand and Improve the P2 Thesaurus
Check Hubs for Links with No Subsection Associations
Navigate Between Centers’ Hubs
Credit Lines
Full-Text Searching
Update the Hub Guidelines Document
Check Free Keywords Against Authority Keywords
Share Information on Who is Doing What for External Review
Outline Process for Adding Core Links to the Table of Contents Page
Function for Deleting Links From a Hub
Suggest a Resource
Debug and Expand Rating Links and Email
“Best ___ Links” Heading to Vanish if There are no Core Links
Documentation
Where to Go; Contacts?

Finish development on “Relate NAICS to Topic Hubs”: There is currently an input form in the administrative area of the Topic Hub. This input form was set-up so that Centers who had existing resources that were catalogued by NAICS could leverage this content for the Hubs. Currently the form has been developed, but the file that supports the form and processes the information (the action page) has not been developed.

Expand and Improve the P2 Thesaurus: In the “Proposed Controlled Vocabulary Strategy for the P2Rx Topic Hub Project and Programs Database” located at: http://www.p2rx.org/adminInfo/THVoca.cfm, a strategy has been outlined for continued maintenance and expansion of the P2 Thesaurus. This would require Centers forward “Free Keywords” that they are using to describe resources in their Hubs to the librarians. The librarians would then review these terms to determine if these terms, or like terms, should be added to the P2 Thesaurus. Once this determination is made, a process would be developed for updating the controlled vocabularies on all Centers’ Hub databases.

Check Hubs for Links with No Subsection Associations: It is possible that some Centers have added links to their Topic Hubs and have not catalogued these resources so that they are associated with one or more of the subsections for that Hub. In this event, the link is not currently being displayed in that Topic Hub. To remedy this, NEWMOA has developed a short utility that checks a Hub database to determine if there are any links in that database that have not been associated with a subsection. If they have not been, then the authoring Center may click on a link and pull that resource up in the URL input screen and modify the record for that resource, associating that link with a subsection subsections.

Navigate Between Centers’ Hubs: Currently, the left-hand navigation of the Hubs contain a pull-down menu that will allow the user to navigate between Hubs on a given Center’s site. WRRC has modified this pull-down menu so that it allows the user to navigate between all of the Hubs developed by all of the Centers. To implement this on all Centers’ sites, this tool would need to be programmed in ColdFusion and an additional field would need to be added and populated in the Hubs table of the Hub.mdb database on all Centers’ sites.

Credit Lines: There currently is a means of giving credit to the primary author (P2Rx Center) and collaborating P2Rx Centers at the bottom of each Hub. Some Centers have expressed interest in being able to provide credit to non-P2Rx entities. To do so, the existing programming would need to be expanded and the database would need to be expanded to accommodate this data. Also, currently there is no means of removing a lead or collaborator once they have been added. This would require programming to modify the “Identify Leads and Collaborators on the Mercury Topic Hub” feature. In terms of giving credit, there should be some discussion as to what appropriate amounts of credit are and how the varying levels should be worded.

Full-text Searching: The Hub Model designed by P2RIC allowed for full-text searching of all publications that make up a given Hub. Currently, NEWMOA and P2RIC have committed to outline the process to get this in place on all Centers’ sites. The web group will then discuss this and the related issue of maintaining local copies of all publications that make up the Hubs and determine the next course of action.

Update the Hub Guidelines Document: The Hub Guidelines document resides on P2Rx.org and is linked to from all Centers’ URL Input screens (screen used for adding links to a Topic Hub). There is a need to update this guide to include subtle changes that were made to the data model as the Hub was finalized. It would also be useful to add anchors to the Guidelines document to allow for quicker access from the URL Input screen (e.g. if the cataloger is looking for help with what to put in the date field, they could click on “Help” next to that text box on the URL input screen and go directly to that section of the Guidelines document).

Check Free Keywords Against Authority Keywords: Some Centers have chosen to do keyword cataloguing of resources they have added to their Topic Hubs. As a way of checking the quality of their cataloguing, Centers should consider reviewing the list of “Free Keywords” and comparing it to the list of “Authority Keywords” to make sure they are not using Free Keyword terms that are similar to something in the P2 Thesaurus (Authority Keywords). Where possible, using this controlled vocabulary will allow users to do a keyword search across multiple Topic Hubs and access publications from different Hubs related to the same issue.

Share Information on Who is Doing What for External Review: Many Centers are using external reviewers to get feedback on the Topic Hubs they are developing or have developed. Centers may benefit from hearing about the process other Centers are using in this area and what has worked and what has not worked.

Outline Process for Adding Core Links to the Table of Contents Page: The process for adding core links to the Table of Contents pages is not clear to all Centers. A brief written process for how to go about doing so would benefit those in this position.

Deleting Links From a Hub: There is not currently a means of deleting links from a Hub once they have been added. GLRPPR and WRPPN have developed such processes and will coordinate with NEWMOA on how to integrate what they have done into the Hub Template files.

Suggest a Resource: Collecting suggested resources from users is an important aspect of the continuous improvement and expansion of the Topic Hubs. To do this, there needs to be a means of soliciting this information from users. This could be a simple email link to the Hub Primary Author, or a link to a public version of the URL Input screen. Some work has been done on the later, and a place holder has been built into the Hub model to accommodate this feature, but the program needs to be completed.

Rating Links and Email: The rating system has been designed so that when a link is rated, the information is stored in the Hub database and the primary author for that Hub receives and email, notifying the author of the rating. There is a bug in this programming that needs to be resolved. Additionally, the rating system needs to be explored as a data exchange item in the future so that when Hubs are being published on sites other than that of the primary author, the rating information is still sent to the right place.

“Best ___ Links” Heading to Vanish if There are no Core Links: Currently, if there are no Core Links defined for a given subsection, the “Best ___ Links” Heading in the left-hand navigation appears with nothing listed below it. NEWMOA has modified the programming so that this heading will not show up if there are no core links defined for a given subsection or the Table of Contents page. This programming can be distributed to Centers with instructions on how to implement it.

Documentation: There is a need to document how to go about creating a Topic Hub using the Administrative pages and supporting documentation to the Topic Hub. One possibility is to expand and improve upon the explanatory text that is provided in the Hub Admin pages. Another possibility is to develop a Hub development checklist and/or Hub Developers Guide.

Where to Go; Contacts?: There has been some discussion about what pieces of information Centers would like to display in the “Where to Go for Help” section. This discussion needs to be brought to a decision, finalizing the minimum pieces of information that will be displayed by all Centers on all Hubs. Also, some Centers have expressed interest in displaying contact information. To address this, it needs to be determined how the system can accommodate contact information when available, and yet fall back to Program information when contact information is not available. This will likely include the need to expand the table structure of the Programs Database.

Topic Hub Version 2.0

(Drafted 12/11/01 by Andy Bray, NEWMOA)

Topics (in no particular order)
Hierarchy
Redesign “Geographic Location” Attribute
Redesign Page Structure
Hard Copy Order Information
“Print This Fact Sheet”
Staying Current
Keyword and Field Searching
OECA Clearinghouse Connection
ImageMap Table of Contents Page
More Graphical Left Hand Navigation
One Link, Multiple Hubs
The Consumers Edition of the Topic Hub
User Feedback

Hierarchy: As the list of available Hubs continues to grow over time, there will be a growing need for placing the list of available Hubs into a logical grouping, making the Hubs easier to navigate. In the initial Hub design, a hierarchy has been included as a first attempt at grouping the original Hubs. There is interest in revisiting this grouping, possibly modifying it, and putting it into use by designing a front end to the Topic Hubs that makes use of this hierarchy. WRRC, GLRPPR, and WRRC have volunteered to revisit the initial draft of the hierarchy and determine were cross links can be made. This redrafted list would then be incorporated into the Hubs.

Redesign “Geographic Location” Attribute: Currently the Geographic Location field is a text field that is used to house values for four attributes: National; State (input the full name of the state, not just an abbreviation); City; Local (this means county, parish, municipalities, metropolitan areas such as Kansas City Missouri/ Kansas City Kansas, Omaha/Council Bluffs, Chicago and surrounding suburbs). Because this is a text field it is difficult to control the quality of the information gong into the field and it is difficult to make use of this information. Redesigning this field so that it would be a series of fields would allow for better use of the geographic information. Creating a state field would allow for searching by state or region and would simplify the implementation of the “Regional Spoke” aspect of the Hubs that some Centers will be exploring.

Redesign Hub Page Structure: From a programming standpoint, the way in which the Hub pages have been laid out (only in the programming, not what the user sees in terms of page layout from a visual standpoint) has made for difficulties in the way Centers implement the Hub and Regionalize the look and feel. It is anticipated that the same difficulties encountered by Centers would be encountered by Center partners that are interested in republishing the Topic Hub in its entirety. To eliminate these issues, the Hub page design should be modified to simplify the table structure of the page so that the Hub stands alone as an application and can be dropped into another entities website.

Hard Copy Order Information: Currently the Topic Hub Bibliography and Details pages allow for the posting of information on Hard Copy publications and will note (when no URL is available) that a publication is only available in hard copy. However, currently there is not a way to note where or how a publication may be ordered other than storing this information in the Description field. It is possible to expand the Hub to allow for storing of information on where a publication may be ordered, such as phone number, websites, and approximate costs (if any).

“Print This Fact Sheet”: Often web pages do not print out that well because the way pages are layed-out. To address this for the Topic Hubs, Centers have talked about how to build a print-friendly version of each Hub page into the Hubs. This could be done either by stripping out the formatting, or by providing a PDF version of a fact sheet containing the narrative for that Hub.

Staying Current: Also know as News, this area of the Hub would provide users with ongoing information on what the hot items were with regard to a given topic. Collecting news related to the topics Centers have developed Hubs for would provide Centers that are not already collecting and publishing news on a regular basis with an opportunity to do so under a narrowly defined scope. This would also bolster the Hubs and give users a reason to come back to the Hubs on a regular basis.

Keyword and Field Searching: Centers have added detailed information on the resources (links) that make up their Topic Hubs. To leverage this information, a keyword and field searching feature could be developed that would allow users the option of searching for links by Title, URL, Description, Source, Resource type, Date, AND/OR Geographic location. For Centers that have implemented Keyword cataloguing, users would also be able to search for resources by keyword.

OECA Clearinghouse Connection: A number of potential content sharing partners have been identified for the Topic Hubs. One partner for this content is the OECA Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse. The Centers should work toward exporting the Hub link information to the Clearinghouse in a format that may be easily incorporated into the Clearinghouse collection.

Image Map Table of Contents Page: Early in the Hub development process it was suggested that a wholly graphical user interface (such as the virtual facility tour) to the Topic Hubs might be of interest to users. In other words, in place of the text that currently makes up the Table of Contents page, a Center may chose to replace this text with an Image Map that will allow users to navigate the Hub by dragging there mouse over different parts of the Image Map and clicking on the sections they are interested in. For Hubs where this might be appropriate, this issue should be further explored.

More Graphical Left Hand Navigation: The left-hand navigation that is part of the Hub Template is mostly text-based. To enhance the appearance of the Hub, some Centers have chosen to add graphics in place of the text navigational elements. Other Centers should explore doing so.

One Link, Multiple Hubs: There are areas where some of the Hubs overlap in terms of the information that is covered and the resources that are included as links for Hubs. To alleviate possible duplication of effort and to leverage the cataloguing work that has already been done, a mechanism should be built into the Hub Admin area to allow an existing publication to be associated with a different Hub, maintaining the information about that publication and capturing new information about where in the new Hub the publication should be placed.

The Consumers Edition of the Topic Hub: The primary audience for the Topic Hubs is Technical Assistance Providers. However, a number of the resources that make up the Hubs are directly geared towards consumers, businesses, and industries. Centers should explore the possibility of leveraging Hub resources to create consumer editions of certain Hubs where the need for such a thing exists.

User Feedback: It is always a good idea to have some place on every web page to allow visitors to provide feedback. Many of the Centers have this throughout their site, including their Hubs. Is there a need to solicit more prescribed feedback on the Hubs, or do the feedback features that already exist need to be made more prominent? Is there a version of the User Survey that can be incorporated into the Hub?

Back to P2Rx Administrative Information

TOP