Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues

1,179
views

Published on

D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues

D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,179
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. [D2.5] Object model and metadata: Open issues Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009 Julie Verleyen
  • 2. Open issues [1/2]
    • Objects and their surrogates
      • Which types of objects?
      • Which relations?
    • Object description
      • How are object types described?
      • How to improve ingestion of existing descriptions  surrogate model? How to improve existing descriptions?
  • 3. Open issues [2/2]
    • Other Surrogate Elements
      • What kind of abstractions do we receive from content providers?
      • What kind of abstractions do we need to produce?
      • How do we get use/access license info?
      • Annotations
    • Required cross-domain functionalities
  • 4. Europeana prototype experience
    • Illustration of issues through real-world examples:
      • Types of objects
      • Relation between object types
      • Objects descriptions
      • Abstractions
      • Access/use license info
  • 5. 1. Types of objects
    • “ DIGITISED OBJECTS”
    • Typically: metadata describing an object which is the result of the digitisation process from all domains
      • Maps
      • Novels
      • Newspapers
      • Videos
      • Paintings
      • Music sheets
      • Theses
      • Postcards
      • Photographic plates
      • Historical, art, archeological, decorative items
      • Poems
      • TV programs
      • Audio recordings
      • Music instruments
      • Letters
      • Atlasses
      • Posters
      • Etc…etc…
  • 6.  
  • 7.  
  • 8. 1. Types of objects
    • “ MIXED OBJECTS”
    • Metadata related to digitised objects and physical objects are mixed
  • 9. Digital Object metadata Physical Object metadata
  • 10. 1. Types of objects
    • “ DIGITAL BORN OBJECT”
    • Not many + Difficult to identify…
  • 11.  
  • 12.  
  • 13. 1. Types of objects
    • “ HIERARCHICAL OBJECT”
    • Case of archival material with problem of granularity
      • Ex: “Archim” collection
  • 14.  
  • 15.  
  • 16.  
  • 17. 2. Relations between objects
    • At the moment: “Related items”
      • Automatic terms extraction from title , description , creator , what , when , who fields + weighting parameters  new search  related items
    • Not always straightforward:
      • Ex: <dc:relation>
      • Ex: Find the differences!!....
  • 18. 2. Relation between object types
  • 19.  
  • 20.  
  • 21.  
  • 22.  
  • 23. 3. Objects descriptions
    • Schemas dealt with so far :
      • dc, qdc, dc-based (tel, oai_va, …), ead, museumdat, local (pico, ), ese
    • More are available (mods, mets, other local flavours, etc…) but were not exploited
    • Metadata (fields & values) in different languages
  • 24. Collect Britain local Scran local Icelandic maps dc CIMEC ese Maps NL Archive ead NO Museums museumdat
  • 25. 4. Abstractions
    • Footage of video, thumbnails, table of contents….?
      • Thumbnails (were requested)
      • TOC
        • Ex: Hungarian Electronic Library: <dc:description>
  • 26.  
  • 27.  
  • 28. 5. Access/use license info
    • Analysis of metadata:
      • <dc:rights> field:
        • Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
  • 29.  
  • 30.  
  • 31. 5. Access/use license info
    • Analysis of metadata:
      • <dc:rights> field:
        • Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
      • <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):
        • Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection
  • 32.  
  • 33.  
  • 34. 5. Access/use license info
    • Analysis of metadata:
      • <dc:rights> field:
        • Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
      • <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):
        • Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection
      • Multilingual challenge:
        • Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection
  • 35.  
  • 36.  
  • 37. 5. Access/use license info
    • Analysis of metadata:
      • <dc:rights> field:
        • Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
      • <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):
        • Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection
      • Multilingual challenge:
        • Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection
    • Provided info is often not enough (intellectual property doesn’t indicate access status)
      • Test search in the portal:
        • Ex: search on “Picasso”
  • 38.  
  • 39.  
  • 40. http://216.139.227.103/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/ZE9CA/95-024000.jpg
  • 41. Picasso family rights + rights of photograph
  • 42. 6. Foreseen issues related to copyright
    • Case of 2 images (different resolutions) of physical object provided by 2 different institutions.
      • Example: :
        • Image of painting provided by Museum
        • Another image of same painting provided by Reproduction agency
  • 43. <end> Julie Verleyen Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009