This document discusses moving a locally-developed metadata model for the Variations Digital Music Library to a standardized conceptual model. It describes how the original model was developed in 2001 based on a work-centric data model. Over time, it became clear that adopting a standard model like FRBR would help with long-term sustainability and interoperability. The current project involves analyzing how FRBR applies to music and investigating potential encoding schemas to implement the new conceptual model.
Moving from a locally-developed data model to a standard conceptual model
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
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
Editor's Notes
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.
