ISO MLR semantics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

ISO MLR semantics

on

  • 2,523 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,523
Views on SlideShare
2,522
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

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.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
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=”http://example.com/persons#john”> <Name>John Smith</Name> <Email> [email_address] </Email> <Knows uri=”http://example.com/persons#gordon” /> </Person> foaf:name foaf:mbox foaf:knows http://example.com/persons#john “ John Smith” “ [email_address] ” http://example.com/persons#gordon
  • 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 http://example.com/persons#john “ John Smith” “ [email_address] ” http://example.com/persons#gordon My learning resource Contribution A http://example.com/persons#john “ A book” “ John Smith” “ 2008-09-03” “ [email_address] ” http://example.com/persons#gordon My learning resource Contribution A Person B “ A book” “ John Smith” “ 2008-09-03” title contribution date entity name
  • “Follow your nose” http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows RDF Schema label comment range HTML http://example.com/persons#john http://example.com/persons#gordon FOAF specification http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows “ 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?