Registering the RDA VocabulariesDiane I. HillmannInformation Institute of Syracuse/Metadata Management AssociatesMetadata.maven@gmail.com

Why Register?For vocabulary usersDiscoverabilityChange notificationPotential for broader participation by the communityFor vocabulary owners:Versioning and change managementNotifications for users and maintainersSupport for vocabulary extension and community formation

For vocabulary users

Discoverability

Change notification

Potential for broader participation by the community

For vocabulary owners:

Versioning and change management

Notifications for users and maintainers

Support for vocabulary extension and community formation

How Did We Get Involved?In April/May 2007, the JSC met with a group including DCMI and Semantic Web experts:Established the DCMI/RDA Task Group (chaired by me and Gordon Dunsire of the University of Strathclyde) It was agreed at the meeting that the TG would build the formal representation of the elements and vocabularies and set up an Application Profile The TG recruited consultants and volunteers to do the work, with funding from the British Library and Siderean Software

In April/May 2007, the JSC met with a group including DCMI and Semantic Web experts:

Established the DCMI/RDA Task Group (chaired by me and Gordon Dunsire of the University of Strathclyde)

It was agreed at the meeting that the TG would build the formal representation of the elements and vocabularies and set up an Application Profile

The TG recruited consultants and volunteers to do the work, with funding from the British Library and Siderean Software

The ChallengesTiming:We started the registration process while the text was still in flux and the only version of the vocabularies was on a spreadsheetTechnologyThe Registry had only recently implemented registration of element sets when we started on the element vocabulariesStandards and conventionsThe “how-to” required to develop RDF vocabularies was still in flux

Timing:

We started the registration process while the text was still in flux and the only version of the vocabularies was on a spreadsheet

Technology

The Registry had only recently implemented registration of element sets when we started on the element vocabularies

Standards and conventions

The “how-to” required to develop RDF vocabularies was still in flux

Then, of course, there was the politics …

Timing: The Bad News:Most elements and vocabulary concepts were updated at least once as the vocabularies continued to developSome flip-flopped several times (“Title of Work” vs “Title of the Work” holds the record)We were often the last ones to see the revised texts, and our needs to know specifically what had changed were too often ignored (making our quality control processes far more difficult)Final versions of the relationship vocabularies (Appendices I, J, K in the text) are still not in our hands

Most elements and vocabulary concepts were updated at least once as the vocabularies continued to develop

Some flip-flopped several times (“Title of Work” vs “Title of the Work” holds the record)

We were often the last ones to see the revised texts, and our needs to know specifically what had changed were too often ignored (making our quality control processes far more difficult)

Final versions of the relationship vocabularies (Appendices I, J, K in the text) are still not in our hands

Timing: The Good NewsImportant issues were encountered at early stages and we were able to discuss solutions with a broad swath of librarians and SemWeb expertsThe need to create relationships between RDA to FRBR stretched our creativity and knowledge (particularly of RDF vocabulary standards)We caught a lot of our own mistakes on the second and third passWe gave the software a very good workout!

Important issues were encountered at early stages and we were able to discuss solutions with a broad swath of librarians and SemWeb experts

The need to create relationships between RDA to FRBR stretched our creativity and knowledge (particularly of RDF vocabulary standards)

We caught a lot of our own mistakes on the second and third pass

We gave the software a very good workout!

Technology (Software)Registry software has matured and stabilized as registration has proceededStatus of all RDA registered elements and concepts are now “New—Proposed” but will change to “Published” prior to RDA releaseThe NSDL Registry will be announcing its new name and a new sustaining organization, “The Registry Consortium” this fall, which will bring important partners into the continued development of the software

Registry software has matured and stabilized as registration has proceeded

Status of all RDA registered elements and concepts are now “New—Proposed” but will change to “Published” prior to RDA release

The NSDL Registry will be announcing its new name and a new sustaining organization, “The Registry Consortium” this fall, which will bring important partners into the continued development of the software

Technology (Standards & Conventions)A major goal was that the registered elements and concepts will be available for use in applications using either XML or RDF (we think we managed that)Supporting these two disparate standards has required extra care in building the vocabularies and relationshipsWe had a lot of help from the Semantic Web Community as we sought to accomplish our goals in a flexible and “correct” manner

A major goal was that the registered elements and concepts will be available for use in applications using either XML or RDF (we think we managed that)

Supporting these two disparate standards has required extra care in building the vocabularies and relationships

We had a lot of help from the Semantic Web Community as we sought to accomplish our goals in a flexible and “correct” manner

The General StrategyWe used the Semantic Web as our “mental model”Wanted to create a “bridge” between XML and RDF to support innovation in the library community as a whole, not just those at the cutting edge or the trailing edgeAlthough IFLA had agreed in principle that the FRBR entities would be registered with an IFLA domain, that still hasn’t happenedProblems with the IFLA website upgrade and issues around domain choices have delayed FRBR registrationWe registered the FRBR entities using an “example.org” domain, which we will change when an official domain is available

We used the Semantic Web as our “mental model”

Wanted to create a “bridge” between XML and RDF to support innovation in the library community as a whole, not just those at the cutting edge or the trailing edge

Although IFLA had agreed in principle that the FRBR entities would be registered with an IFLA domain, that still hasn’t happened

Problems with the IFLA website upgrade and issues around domain choices have delayed FRBR registration

We registered the FRBR entities using an “example.org” domain, which we will change when an official domain is available

Strategic ChoicesIn 2005, DC worked with LC to build a formal representation of the MARC Relators so that these terms could be used with DChttp://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/appendix_roles.shtmlThis work provided a template for the registration of the role terms in RDA (in Appendix I)Role properties are registered at the same level as elements, rather than as attributes (as MARC does)

In 2005, DC worked with LC to build a formal representation of the MARC Relators so that these terms could be used with DC

http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/appendix_roles.shtml

This work provided a template for the registration of the role terms in RDA (in Appendix I)

Role properties are registered at the same level as elements, rather than as attributes (as MARC does)

URIDefinitionFor use with this FRBR entity7/13/0912ALA Annual: Linked Data Program

More specific properties7/13/0913ALA Annual: Linked Data Program

7/13/0914ALA Annual: Linked Data ProgramSource vocabularySpecific property

Issues and ImplicationsLimitations inherent in building relationships to FRBR entities as part of the element definitions are likely to come back and bite usInconsistency in techniques for relating RDA Elements and FRBR entities add to the complication of the schemaLimitations in the ability for others to re-use our data inherent in decisions made to default traditional library data element aggregation in the element definition

Limitations inherent in building relationships to FRBR entities as part of the element definitions are likely to come back and bite us

Inconsistency in techniques for relating RDA Elements and FRBR entities add to the complication of the schema

Limitations in the ability for others to re-use our data inherent in decisions made to default traditional library data element aggregation in the element definition

Relating FRBR and RDAWe had concerns with the decision to make these connections at the element level; we felt it should be done in the Description Set ProfileBecause elements are specifically related to (generally) one FRBR entity, specialized communities with a different view of of their (and their user’s) needs have no alternative than to create different elementsIt’s our view that relationships between RDA elements and FRBR entities are best made at the Description Set Profile level

We had concerns with the decision to make these connections at the element level; we felt it should be done in the Description Set Profile

Because elements are specifically related to (generally) one FRBR entity, specialized communities with a different view of of their (and their user’s) needs have no alternative than to create different elements

It’s our view that relationships between RDA elements and FRBR entities are best made at the Description Set Profile level

Multiple RelationshipsThere are multiple techniques being used in RDA to make the connection between FRBR entities and RDA elementsElements related to more than one FRBR entityRelationships in Appendix J actually include the name of the FRBR entity in the name and have separate definitionsOther elements and sub-elements appear multiple times in the text and ERDs with no indication that they might be repeated elsewhere (with the same definition)In the case of “Name” it is described as specifically related to all three Group 2 entitles

There are multiple techniques being used in RDA to make the connection between FRBR entities and RDA elements

Elements related to more than one FRBR entity

Relationships in Appendix J actually include the name of the FRBR entity in the name and have separate definitions

Other elements and sub-elements appear multiple times in the text and ERDs with no indication that they might be repeated elsewhere (with the same definition)

In the case of “Name” it is described as specifically related to all three Group 2 entitles

Aggregated StatementsRDA sets up Publication, Distribution, Manufacture and Production statements very much the way they have been done since catalog card days:Assumed aggregation of Place, Name and Date are obvious leftovers from catalog cards, and are not necessary to enable indexing or display of those elements together if libraries want to do thatOur concern was that such restrictions would create problems for reuse of RDA elements This has indeed happened: we were actually told by two SemWeb developers (one from LC) that they wanted to use “Place of Publication” but couldn’t because we had tied its use too tightly)

RDA sets up Publication, Distribution, Manufacture and Production statements very much the way they have been done since catalog card days:

Assumed aggregation of Place, Name and Date are obvious leftovers from catalog cards, and are not necessary to enable indexing or display of those elements together if libraries want to do that

Our concern was that such restrictions would create problems for reuse of RDA elements

This has indeed happened: we were actually told by two SemWeb developers (one from LC) that they wanted to use “Place of Publication” but couldn’t because we had tied its use too tightly)

Adding FunctionalityFeeds for additions and changes to element sets and vocabularies on available on the Registry front pageDiscussion functionality, down to the element or concept level, will be available by fallBasic Description Set Profiles are in the building phase, will be available by RDA releaseEach Registry page now includes a Feedback link—please ask questions or tell us what you think!

Feeds for additions and changes to element sets and vocabularies on available on the Registry front page

Discussion functionality, down to the element or concept level, will be available by fall

Basic Description Set Profiles are in the building phase, will be available by RDA release

Each Registry page now includes a Feedback link—please ask questions or tell us what you think!

Why Is All This Important?Doing this work in parallel with the development of the RDA Text was an enormous challenge, but puts the library community in the position to move forward quicklyThe RDA Elements and Vocabularies provide the basis for migrating from MARC to something that the broader information community can understand and interpretOther communities are watching how we do this, and how well we meet the challenges of the future

Doing this work in parallel with the development of the RDA Text was an enormous challenge, but puts the library community in the position to move forward quickly

The RDA Elements and Vocabularies provide the basis for migrating from MARC to something that the broader information community can understand and interpret

Other communities are watching how we do this, and how well we meet the challenges of the future

Thank You!Check out the Registry:http://metadataregistry.orgContact us:Metadata.maven@gmail.comjonphipps@gmail.com