Comments on: Sedona’s New Commentary on Search, and the Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/ A Team approach to electronic discovery combining the talents of Law and IT. The views expressed in this blog are my own, and not necessarily those of my law firm or clients. Copyright Ralph Losey 2008. All Rights Reserved. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:56:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Hundredth Blog: Thoughts on SEARCH and Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. « e-Discovery Team http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-6680 Hundredth Blog: Thoughts on SEARCH and Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. « e-Discovery Team Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:12:57 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-6680 [...] Information Retrieval, 8 The Sedona Conf. J. 189 (2007), which I have previously written about in Sedona’s New Commentary on Search, and the Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse, and the Text Retrieval Conference (TRC) sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and [...] [...] Information Retrieval, 8 The Sedona Conf. J. 189 (2007), which I have previously written about in Sedona’s New Commentary on Search, and the Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse, and the Text Retrieval Conference (TRC) sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and [...]

]]> By: Inadequate Keyword Searches by Untrained Lawyers May, in Some Circumstances, be Sanctionable « e-Discovery Team http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-5691 Inadequate Keyword Searches by Untrained Lawyers May, in Some Circumstances, be Sanctionable « e-Discovery Team Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:37:19 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-5691 [...] more sophisticated concept-type search alternatives to keyword search should be considered because keyword searches alone may not [...] [...] more sophisticated concept-type search alternatives to keyword search should be considered because keyword searches alone may not [...]

]]> By: Life Insurance blog http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-5685 Life Insurance blog Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:43:56 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-5685 <strong>Learn facts about the life insurance industry</strong> Information on the life insurance industry Learn facts about the life insurance industry

Information on the life insurance industry

]]> By: Criminal Case Raises Interesting e-Discovery Search Issues « e-Discovery Team http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-5605 Criminal Case Raises Interesting e-Discovery Search Issues « e-Discovery Team Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:42:50 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-5605 [...] For more on the law review article, Information Inflation, by Paul & Baron cited above, see my prior blog Information Explosion and the Future of Litigation. I have also previously written on the above cited Sedona Commentary on Search in The Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse. [...] [...] For more on the law review article, Information Inflation, by Paul & Baron cited above, see my prior blog Information Explosion and the Future of Litigation. I have also previously written on the above cited Sedona Commentary on Search in The Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse. [...]

]]> By: In Re Discovery » Sedona’s New Commentary on Search, and the Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2614 In Re Discovery » Sedona’s New Commentary on Search, and the Myth of the Pharaoh’s Curse Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:53:42 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2614 [...] Blog entry posted by Ralph Losey on e-Discovery Team, September 16, 2007: The Sedona Conference has just released its Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery (August 2007) for public comments. A copy may be downloaded for personal use. This Best Practices Commentary, like all of the Sedona publications, was written by a committee of expert members of The Sedona Conference, who agreed upon the content and wording. This particular group is called the “Search and Retrieval Sciences Project Team.” Writings by committee are usually an invitation for disaster, but Sedona consistently manages to pull it off, and do a first rate job, primarily, I think, because of the quality of their editors. The Editor-in-Chief for the Search Team is Jason Baron, about whom I have written several times previously, along with Executive Editors Richard Braman and Kenneth Withers, and Senior Editors Thomas Allman, James Daley and George Paul…. Print Share This Close [...] [...] Blog entry posted by Ralph Losey on e-Discovery Team, September 16, 2007: The Sedona Conference has just released its Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery (August 2007) for public comments. A copy may be downloaded for personal use. This Best Practices Commentary, like all of the Sedona publications, was written by a committee of expert members of The Sedona Conference, who agreed upon the content and wording. This particular group is called the “Search and Retrieval Sciences Project Team.” Writings by committee are usually an invitation for disaster, but Sedona consistently manages to pull it off, and do a first rate job, primarily, I think, because of the quality of their editors. The Editor-in-Chief for the Search Team is Jason Baron, about whom I have written several times previously, along with Executive Editors Richard Braman and Kenneth Withers, and Senior Editors Thomas Allman, James Daley and George Paul…. Print Share This Close [...]

]]> By: Ken Withers http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2524 Ken Withers Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:16:50 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2524 Thank you, Ralph, for resurrecting Dabney’s “Curse of Thamus” from the tomb of academic history – I always loved the article and still have a copy in my file of important reading that I downloaded on October 24, 2000, as one of the few works exploring the intersection of law and information science and the implications of the Blair and Maron study (and as an avid reader of Biblical Archaeology Review, I applaud your choice of graphic illustration). I appreciate your comments and hope that your readers will submit more. All Sedona Conference papers are a “work in progress,” even though we might call them “final” for the purposes of publication. Your readers should also be aware that the research behind this most recent commentary on search and retrieval technology is very much in progress. We actively support the new “legal track” of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s annual Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) at http://trec.nist.gov/. Jason Baron of the National Records and Archives Administration captains the effort, under which members of The Sedona Conference’s Working Group 1 supply sample discovery-like queries and human reviewers to help evaluate the performance of a variety of cutting-edge automated text retrieval methods in development. Membership in Working Group 1, and participation in developing these Commentaries, is open to all, and I encourage your readers to join up at http://www.thesedonaconference.org. Keep up the good work on your excellent blog, and I hope you allow us to post URLs occasionally. Thank you, Ralph, for resurrecting Dabney’s “Curse of Thamus” from the tomb of academic history – I always loved the article and still have a copy in my file of important reading that I downloaded on October 24, 2000, as one of the few works exploring the intersection of law and information science and the implications of the Blair and Maron study (and as an avid reader of Biblical Archaeology Review, I applaud your choice of graphic illustration). I appreciate your comments and hope that your readers will submit more. All Sedona Conference papers are a “work in progress,” even though we might call them “final” for the purposes of publication.

Your readers should also be aware that the research behind this most recent commentary on search and retrieval technology is very much in progress. We actively support the new “legal track” of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s annual Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) at http://trec.nist.gov/. Jason Baron of the National Records and Archives Administration captains the effort, under which members of The Sedona Conference’s Working Group 1 supply sample discovery-like queries and human reviewers to help evaluate the performance of a variety of cutting-edge automated text retrieval methods in development. Membership in Working Group 1, and participation in developing these Commentaries, is open to all, and I encourage your readers to join up at http://www.thesedonaconference.org.

Keep up the good work on your excellent blog, and I hope you allow us to post URLs occasionally.

]]> By: Keeping it all (your data, that is) together « Post Process http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2246 Keeping it all (your data, that is) together « Post Process Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:33:46 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2246 [...] here). An excellent view of the recommendations contained in the white paper may be found at e-Discovery Team. What is certain is that technology associated with e-discovery still has a ways to come (although [...] [...] here). An excellent view of the recommendations contained in the white paper may be found at e-Discovery Team. What is certain is that technology associated with e-discovery still has a ways to come (although [...]

]]> By: rjbiii http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2245 rjbiii Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:11:40 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2245 This is a brilliant post. There is no doubt that many (most? all?) searches executed against a data universe today in lit support fail in some ways. I wrote a paper for law school that discussed the need for a "feedback loop" in the e-discovery process to test the validity of the "initial assumptions" used to formulate the search criteria. In its simplest form, this feedback loop consists of indexing and building of terms list of those documents classified by counsel as "relevant" or "privileged," and reviewing that list of terms to see if modification to the seach criteria is necessary. Additionally, metadata could be scanned to search for data custodians that might have been overlooked. I don't know any vendors that do this, or consultants that advise clients to incorporate such a process, but it only makes sense. It strengthens the discovery process and at the very least allows a greater measure of defensibility of it in the courtroom. After all, the criteria used to filter through the data universe determines what the reviewers see, and if there is a flaw in that process, then how can you be sure of the final result? This is a brilliant post. There is no doubt that many (most? all?) searches executed against a data universe today in lit support fail in some ways. I wrote a paper for law school that discussed the need for a “feedback loop” in the e-discovery process to test the validity of the “initial assumptions” used to formulate the search criteria.

In its simplest form, this feedback loop consists of indexing and building of terms list of those documents classified by counsel as “relevant” or “privileged,” and reviewing that list of terms to see if modification to the seach criteria is necessary. Additionally, metadata could be scanned to search for data custodians that might have been overlooked. I don’t know any vendors that do this, or consultants that advise clients to incorporate such a process, but it only makes sense. It strengthens the discovery process and at the very least allows a greater measure of defensibility of it in the courtroom. After all, the criteria used to filter through the data universe determines what the reviewers see, and if there is a flaw in that process, then how can you be sure of the final result?

]]> By: Lee Barrett http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2244 Lee Barrett Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:21:20 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/sedonas-new-commentary-on-search-and-the-myth-of-the-pharaohs-curse/#comment-2244 The problems of keyword search are even more pronounced in smaller and medium sized firms across the country, many of whom are most assuredly not terribly familiar with automated electronic searches through documents. In order to be truly effective, a technology-based answer will also have to be affordable and largely "turn-key". Even more importantly, as has been pointed in this blog, and in others, is that the attorneys MUST know what their clients know about the day to day business implementation of the digital enterprise. Many keyword searches, while seemingly intuitive and rational, can be easily defeated by the machinations of the parties. The short hand that people often use in email or other forms of truncated digital communication, especially when used to refer to offbeat phrases such as "Project Look What the Cat Dragged In", can result in numerous variations of keywords for one independent area of interest. Whether the reliabilty of keyword search is pegged at 20% simply due to the reliability of the underlying technology, or because of other external factors, clearly lawyers cannot be lulled into relying on a single "magic bullet" to meet their obligations in e-discovery. This is clearly one area where one must keep sight of the entire forest, and not focus on just the trees. The problems of keyword search are even more pronounced in smaller and medium sized firms across the country, many of whom are most assuredly not terribly familiar with automated electronic searches through documents. In order to be truly effective, a technology-based answer will also have to be affordable and largely “turn-key”.
Even more importantly, as has been pointed in this blog, and in others, is that the attorneys MUST know what their clients know about the day to day business implementation of the digital enterprise. Many keyword searches, while seemingly intuitive and rational, can be easily defeated by the machinations of the parties. The short hand that people often use in email or other forms of truncated digital communication, especially when used to refer to offbeat phrases such as “Project Look What the Cat Dragged In”, can result in numerous variations of keywords for one independent area of interest. Whether the reliabilty of keyword search is pegged at 20% simply due to the reliability of the underlying technology, or because of other external factors, clearly lawyers cannot be lulled into relying on a single “magic bullet” to meet their obligations in e-discovery. This is clearly one area where one must keep sight of the entire forest, and not focus on just the trees.

]]>