ISO MLR semantics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

ISO MLR semantics






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as OpenOffice

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.

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

ISO MLR semantics ISO MLR semantics Presentation Transcript

  • Mikael Nilsson < [email_address] > et al. Making MLR semantic?
  • History
    • Contribution in Jeju from a number of experts:
      • “Requirements for ISO MLR interoperability”(WG4 N0238)
      • Suggested basing MLR on semantic technologies
    • The group was tasked to present a proposal for an MLR standard based on semantic technologies
    • Outline of such a proposal was submitted (WG4 N0278) - presented here
  • Background
    • Islands of metadata interoperability, for example
      • The “LOM island” - IEEE LOM and LOM-based profiles
      • The “MODS island”
      • The “MPEG-7 island”
      • The “Dublin Core & RDF island”
    • Two approaches to Application Profiles
      • Base standard – profiles customize the base
      • (LOM, MODS, MPEG-7)
      • Framework only, profiles combine terms arbitrarily (Dublin Core, RDF) <-- MLR wants to be here (?)
  • Metadata interoperability now IEEE LOM NorLOM UK LOM Core ... RDF Dublin Core DC APs Semantic Web ... MARC21 MARC-XML METS METS MPEG-7
  • Metadata interoperability vision Education Government Libraries Multimedia Semantic Web
  • Levels of interoperability
    • Human interoperability - words
      • Use the same definition of words , regardless of technical framework
    • Semantic interoperability – the cloud
      • Machines apply the same processing to terms whereever they appear
      • This is the purpose of RDF
    • Profile interoperability – the domain
      • Domain-specific interoperability based on shared profiles, vocabularies, etc.
      • Quality control, syntax validation etc.
  • Proposal for MLR
    • DON'T create a new metadata island
      • DON'T create a need for more crosswalks
    • DO use a framework-based approach
      • DO allow for application profiles combining terms from other sources
    • DON'T reinvent the framework
      • DON'T require others to redefine their terms for use in MLR
    • DO base the framework on the RDF model
  • Statement-based models
  • Statements as graphs title contribution date entity name My learning resource Contribution A Person B “ A book” “ John Smith” “ 2008-09-03”
    • An XML format defined from an application profile
    • The format depends on the application profile
    • Interpreting as RDF triples is straightforward if application profile is knowns
    Making an XML schema <LearningResource> <Title>A book</title> <Contribution> <Date>2008-09-03</Date> <Entity> <Name>John Smith</Name> </Entity> </Contribution> </LearningResource>
  • Another example (FOAF-like) <Person uri=””> <Name>John Smith</Name> <Email> [email_address] </Email> <Knows uri=”” /> </Person> foaf:name foaf:mbox foaf:knows “ John Smith” “ [email_address] ”
  • Walk-through <LearningResource grddl:transform=”http://yyy/mlr.xsl” > <Title>A book</title> <Contribution> <Date>2008-09-03</Date> <Entity> <Name>John Smith</Name> </Entity> </Contribution> </LearningResource> http://yyy/mlr.xsl foaf:name foaf:mbox foaf:knows title contribution date entity name foaf:mbox foaf:knows “ John Smith” “ [email_address] ” My learning resource Contribution A “ A book” “ John Smith” “ 2008-09-03” “ [email_address] ” My learning resource Contribution A Person B “ A book” “ John Smith” “ 2008-09-03” title contribution date entity name
  • “Follow your nose” RDF Schema label comment range HTML FOAF specification “ Knows” “ A person known by this person (indicating some level of reciprocated interaction between the parties)” foaf:Person
  • Linked Open Data
    • More than 2 billion RDF triple
  • Summary
    • Semantic technologies allow for
      • Large-scale interoperability (triples, AP-independent, follow-your-nose, linked data)
      • Ontology support
      • Reuse of existing standards
      • Collaboration between standards bodies
      • Reuse of existing tools
      • Implementation in many environments
        • From mobile or AJAX applications
        • Through HTML (RDFa) and RSS
        • To multi-billion-triples RDF stores
  • Consequences for MLR drafts
    • Use a “statement”-based model based on RDF
      • Mature specification, large set of tools (parsers, reasoners, databases, etc)
      • Ontology support (formal semantics)
    • REMOVE structure attributes from MLR terms
    • Provide new MLR templates for describing terms
      • Properties, like “title”, “creator”
      • Classes, like “Learning Resource”, “Event”, “Contribution”, “LangString”, “Classification” etc.
    • REMOVE current application profile definition
  • Defining a property
  • Roadmap
    • Part 1: Overview of MLR, how to make new parts, etc
    • Part “B”: Basic RDF-based model, templates for properties, etc.
    • Part “C”: Core elements. Allow reference to e.g. Dublin Core terms.
    • Part “D”: Definition of Application Profiles, records, etc.
    • Part “E”: MLR Core Application profile
    • Part “F”: XML format for MLR application profiles
  • Some issues
    • Should MLR use RDF directly or add some constructs on top?
    • Can properties from other specs be reused in MLR application profiles? (Dublin Core etc.)
    • Should MLR parts reference external properties?
    • Should MLR collaborate directly with e.g. DCMI in developing notion of application profile?