• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Making working thesauri
 

Making working thesauri

on

  • 1,150 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,150
Views on SlideShare
1,150
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Making working thesauri Making working thesauri Presentation Transcript

  • Making a taxonomy work for the organisation Liddy Nevile Sunrise Research Laboratory/La Trobe University
  • Making a functional taxonomy
    • The role of a taxonomy is not limited to discovery within the realm of the creator of the digital library.
    • What is necessary for a good taxonomy to work inside and outside the organisation, for the organisation?
    • How interoperable are the organisation’s resources?
    • How do outsiders access and contribute to the organisation’s knowledge base?
    • Does the individual user get access to what they need to use the resource?
    Three interoperability problems
    • Opening the silos across the organisation
    • Integrating external and internal resources for external and internal use
    • Considering the individual so that everyone gets access to the resources
    Three dimensions to the problem
  • Three case studies
    • Victorian government ‘silos’
    • Quinkan Rock Art
    • AccessforAll considerations - TILE
  • Interoperability
    • Structure
    • Syntax
    • Semantics
    • (system conformance)
  • 1. Working across the silos
    • Making Inter-operability Visible
      • Visualising Interoperability: ARH, Aggregation, Rationalisation and Harmonisation
      • With Michael Currie, Meigan Geileskey, Richard Woodman
    • Project of Victorian Department of Premier & Cabinet
    • http://www.bncf.net/dc2002/program/ft/paper21.pdf
  • 1. Working across the silos
    • 3 government departments all using the same AGLS schema
    • Differences in purpose - one makes brochure-ware, one records critical info, one does broad-based research, ….
    • All have document m’ment systems
    • All docs must be discoverable
  • Process
    • Aggregate -
      • List all elements and values currently used - is there a significant difference?
  •  
  • Process
    • Aggregate
    • Harmonise
      • Look at the list of elements and decide which have material differences
    • **Remembering that each agency values all its metadata content
  • Harmonise trivial differences
    • Mis-use of available elements, qualifiers etc
    • Different expression of the same type of information
    • Different granularity
    • Different element name for the same information, …
    • -> need to rationalise
    • Element names
      • Inconsistent case eg. DC.Title/TITLE/title EDNA.Userlevel/UserLevel
      • Non-standard names eg. DC.Keywords
      • Non-standard qualifiers eg. DC.Description.Abstract
      • Non-standard abbreviations eg. DC.Lang
    • Fields
      • Standard and non-standard element names
        • eg. 'description' and DC.Description and Custodian
    Rationalise
    • Values
    • (Despite DCMES recommendations …)
      • DC.Identifier:
        • other id numbers without qualifiers.
      • DC.Date:
        • also used yyyy, yyyy/m/d, yyyy-dd-mm
      • DC.Format:
        • Non-standard terms eg. VHS (PAL)
        • Incorrect case eg. text/HTML
    Rationalise
    • DC.Language: also used en, en-au, en-AU
    • Qualifiers embedded in values:
      • DC.Publisher CONTENT="corporateName=State..."
    • Non-standard proper names
      • DPC for Department of Premier and Cabinet
    • ->Generally inconsistent use of capitalisation and punctuation
    Rationalise
  • Discoveries
    • Main problems were to do with incompatibility of syntax and semantics although both were well described in documentation and looked very simple.
  • Outcomes
    • Minimal interference
    • Visualisation of differences/incompatibility
    • Support for local specification and global interoperability
    • Base for a single system to satisfy many purposes using ARH approach
  • 2. Repatriation of Quinkan Culture
    • with Eric Wainwright (Team Leader), Sophie Lissonnet (metadata) and others
    • An ARC funded LINK Project
    • Full report - http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1135/
    • Int. J. of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies (IJMSO)
ISSN Vol 1 No 3. (Online): 1744-263X  -  ISSN (Print): 1744-2621
  • Quinkan Country Images from the Laura Booklet published by the Ang-gnarra Corporation
  • Quinkan Culture
    • People were here 36,000 years ago
    • The community has been ravaged in the last 200 years and so has the culture
    • 60 people remain
    • 290 km from the nearest city
    • with 100,000 Rock Art paintings in excellent condition.
  • Repatriation of resources
    • The problem - seamless import and export of descriptions to offer a single portal
    • People moving out of country stay connected and those in country can learn from those out of country
    • Multiple voices for multiple audiences
  • Dublin Core - qualified
    • A standard form of description with rule-based extensions
      • Locally specific - globally interoperable
    • Standard mappings from other standards
    • Enabling functions on the classifications for better discovery
      • Annotations
      • Semantic Web applications
  • Semantic Web applications Tommy George inspecting red rock ochre. "A lot of paintings are made in red."
  • Annotation Services
    • W3C annotation server (Annotea)
    • Uses W3C standards and technologies
    • Uses RDF metadata framework
    • User accessible
    • Create, store, edit and delete annotations
    server Annotea
  • Annotation Servers text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text Annotates Original Resource User/Author text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text
  • 3. Access For All
    • By law in Australia, all public resources to be available to all equally ie do not discriminate against those who cannot access text, or sounds, or visuals.
  • How do we know what he needs?
  • Accessibility (M’soft)
    • 60% working adults in the US - esp. many who are not self-identifying
    • ?% people using alternative devices, eg phones?
  • Accessibility metadata
    • Even if resources are accessibility standards conformant, those that suit an individual user are:
      • not necessarily accessible to her
      • not discoverable if they are accessible
  • Accessibility accommodations
    • By lowest common denominator?
      • W3C WAI standards
    • By presumed audience?
      • Guess work by site developer
    • By individual user?
      • AccessForAll ISO standards
  • TILE
    • E-learning environment that enables learner-centric transformation of learning content and delivery
        • Authoring support for transformable content and Metadata
        • Browser
        • Learning Object Repository
        • Learner Preference System
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Accessibility metadata
    • Metadata to describe needs and preferences of user
    • Metadata to describe accessibility characteristics of resources
    • Accessibility service to match resources to needs and preferences
  • Problems for interoperability
    • Syntax
    • Semantics
    • Structure
  • Structural incompatibilities user achievements aspirations VCE medicine opportunities engineering UNI TAFE Apprentice
    • identity
    • achievements
    • aspirations
    • opportunities
    Hierarchical vs ‘flat’ Five : Three
  • Compatible structures
  • Compatible grammars Compatible grammars ( http://www. dlib .org/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html )
  • Standards conformance
    • Clearly defined requirements for local specificity, global interoperability
    • Clearly stated standards for structure, syntax and semantics (functional abstract model)
    • Process-integrated metadata creation and editing
    • Organisational conformance evaluation
  • Thank you.
  • title