Moving from a Locally-Developed Data Model to a Standard Conceptual Model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Moving from a Locally-Developed Data Model to a Standard Conceptual Model

  • 212 views
Uploaded on

Riley, Jenn. "Moving from a Locally-Developed Data Model to a Standard Conceptual Model." International Conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,......

Riley, Jenn. "Moving from a Locally-Developed Data Model to a Standard Conceptual Model." International Conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 6, 2008.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
212
On Slideshare
212
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

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
  • 30 mins including questions
  • 1) “underlying most metadata specifications there is an assumption about an abstract model…[which] specifies the concepts used in the standard, the nature of terms and how they combine to form a metadata description”
    From: Nilsson, Mikael. “Harmonization of metadata standards.” PROLEARN: European Commission Sixth Framework Project Deliverable D4.7. January 2008. http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/lomi/images/5/52/D4.7-prolearn.pdf
    2) FRBR, for example, doesn’t deal with oral tradition or improvisatory works well
    3) “the notion of reusing ‘elements’ between metadata standards and formats using incompatible abstract models is fundamentally flawed” From: Nilsson, Mikael, Pete Johnston, Ambjörn Naeve, and Andy Powell. “The Future of Learning Object Metadata Interoperability.” In: Harman, Keith and Alex Koohang (eds.). Learning Objects: Standards, Metadata, Repositories, and LCMS. Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press, 2007.

Transcript

  • 1. Moving from a locally-developed data model to a standard conceptual model Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Indiana University Digital Library Program
  • 2. 2 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 I’m a practitioner. • And a librarian. • But I work in a department whose mission is to advance the state of the art in digital libraries, • and I’m particularly interested in innovative discovery systems. Therefore, I often act as a bridge between the researcher and the implementer.
  • 3. 3 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Libraries’ metadata focus • Practical! • Element sets and the records that implement them • Metadata element sets tend to be defined by their encodings ▫ Rarely do element sets from this community have multiple encodings ▫ Rarely is there an externally defined model on which the encoding is based • Only recently has this community started thinking about conceptual models
  • 4. 4 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Some conceptual models • FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 1998 report from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) • CIDOC CRM: International Committee for Museum Documentation Conceptual Reference Model, ISO 21127:2006 • DCMI Abstract Model, 2007 ▫ “Information model” ▫ At a higher level of abstraction than the first two
  • 5. 5 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 What’s the connection? • Significant literature on both topics, but they rarely reference one another • Should also note that the categories “element set” and “conceptual model” don’t have strict boundaries • Does a metadata element set need to be explicitly based on a conceptual model? • What does it even mean for an element set to conform to a conceptual model?
  • 6. 6 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 What the community has realized • An element set necessarily instantiates an underlying conceptual model ▫ Even if it’s not explicitly defined ▫ Even if it’s internally inconsistent, or not really what was intended • The conceptual model has a profound effect on what can be done with the metadata, and what can be described with it • Mapping between element sets easier when they use the same conceptual model
  • 7. 7 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 DCMI leading work in this area • DCMES, 1995 • Warwick Framework (format-independent container architecture) and slight revisions, 1996 • Introduction of qualifiers in 2000 • DCMI Abstract Model ▫ First draft 2004 ▫ Current version June 2007 • Encodings ▫ Have changed over time ▫ DCMI has long presented several options ▫ Now will be explicitly connected to the Abstract Model • Libraries should learn from this development
  • 8. 8 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Applying these principles to Variations @ Indiana University • Variations Digital Music Library in operation since 1995 ▫ Streaming audio ▫ Scanned scores, and a few encoded scores • Work-based data model developed in 2001 ▫ Defined as a human-readable data dictionary ▫ Data structured as XML inside the system ▫ XML Schema for Java classes to interact with not developed until 2005 • Current work focused on long-term sustainability ▫ Locally-developed data model is a liability ▫ FRBR gaining real traction in the library community ▫ It became obvious we needed a change, and one based on conformance to a standard conceptual model
  • 9. 9 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Original Variations data model
  • 10. 10 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Variations vs. FRBR Variations 2/3 Entity FRBR Group 1 Entity Work (more concrete than FRBR Work) Work Instantiation Expression (can only appear on one Container) Container (includes some copy-specific data) Manifestation Media Object (defined as a digital file) Item
  • 11. 11 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Current status of our work • Reports analyzing FRBR/FRAD as applied to music ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ Music-specific entity definitions Attributes needed/not needed Relationships needed/not needed Additions to FRBR/FRAD needed • Currently investigating encodings ▫ No data structure from IFLA, and other library bodies haven’t stepped up ▫ Internal data representation vs. export formats • Pending grant application for development work to perform the switch – stay tuned!
  • 12. 12 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Encodings under consideration (1) • FRBR in RDF ▫ Researcher-driven ▫ No stable body behind it ▫ Only covers entities and relationships, not attributes • FRBRoo ▫ “Harmonization” of FRBR and CIDOC/CRM ▫ Limits Events to those for Group 1 entities ▫ “Electronic publishing” model doesn’t include a Manifestation ▫ No OWL ontology for FRBRoo yet, only for CIDOC/CRM
  • 13. 13 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Encodings under consideration (2) • Music Ontology ▫ Scope considerably wider than what Variations needs ▫ Lacks model for FRBR Group 3 entities • DCMI/RDA Vocabularies ▫ Because RDA is FRBR-based ▫ But likely not close enough to FRBR for us • So we may have to make our own ▫ But would still export some of these other alternatives
  • 14. 14 International Society for Knowledge Organization August 6, 2008 Thank you! • Let’s find more ways for researchers and practitioners to work together. • Questions? • For more information: ▫ jenlrile@indiana.edu ▫ These presentation slides: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/ isko2008/isko2008.ppt