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?