Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
FP7‐INFRASTRUCTURES‐2011‐2, FP7‐ICT‐283700
Informatiks Workshop on Open Gov Data Standardisation, Koblenz, Germany, 17 Sep...
Agenda
0 Introduction
0 OGD Metadata standards
0 ENGAGE project
0 ENGAGE OGD architecture
0 Conclusions
Introduction
0 Metadata often defined as data about data
0 Metadata somehow describes (internet) resources for the end-use...
Introduction
0 Benefits of metadata6:
0 create order within datasets
0 improve storing and preservation
0 improve easily f...
Introduction
0 Current situation is a long way from the ideal situation:
0 In the domain of open data the discussion about...
Metadata standards 8
0 Hundreds of specific formats are used as a ‘standard’ within
specific communities but ones used wid...
ENGAGE project
0 ENGAGE-project (FP7): An Infrastructure for Open, Linked
Governmental Data Provision towards Research Com...
ENGAGE project - Functionalities
0 Contribution of ENGAGE over existing infrastructures:
1. Service for researchers and ci...
ENGAGE OGD architecture – the data model 8
A 3-layer structure for metadata is used:
0 CERIF
0 Relational model
0 Maintain...
ENGAGE OGD architecture 8
0 CERIF provides much richer metadata than the standards used
commonly with PSI datasets.
0 Cont...
ENGAGE OGD architecture - Models for an
infrastructure 8
0 The data model (controls data representation and data re-
use) ...
ENGAGE OGD architecture - Integration with e-
Infrastructure 8
Complete ICT environment for open data
Complete cohort of r...
Conclusions
0 Metadata are key enablers for OGD use, yield considerable
benefits
0 Objective: discuss OGD metadata standar...
a.m.g.zuiderwijk-vaneijk@tudelft.nl, m.f.w.h.a.janssen@tudelft.nl
Join our open data community:
www.engagedata.eu
ENGAGE e...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

OGD Metadata standards – The ENGAGE metadata architecture

804 views

Published on

workshop on open gov data standardization

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

OGD Metadata standards – The ENGAGE metadata architecture

  1. 1. FP7‐INFRASTRUCTURES‐2011‐2, FP7‐ICT‐283700 Informatiks Workshop on Open Gov Data Standardisation, Koblenz, Germany, 17 Sept 2013 OGD Metadata standards – The ENGAGE metadata architecture Anneke Zuiderwijk, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Marijn Janssen, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
  2. 2. Agenda 0 Introduction 0 OGD Metadata standards 0 ENGAGE project 0 ENGAGE OGD architecture 0 Conclusions
  3. 3. Introduction 0 Metadata often defined as data about data 0 Metadata somehow describes (internet) resources for the end-user1 0 Purpose / Type of use determines the distinction between data and metadata 0 Metadata is not just about the objects, but also about the relations between these objects (e.g. A is creator of B)2 0 Metadata are key enablers for the effective use of OGD3 – necessary to make sense of OGD 4, 5 1 Jeffery, K. (2013). Metadata models. Presented at Samos Summer School 2013. 2 Simons, E. (2013). Introduction. Presented at EuroCRIS Seminar 2013. 3 Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222-244. 4 Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked data Retrieved December 8, 2011, from http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html. 5 S. Dawes, T. Pardo, and A. Cresswell, “Designing electronic government information access programs: a holistic approach,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 21, pp. 3- 23, 2004.
  4. 4. Introduction 0 Benefits of metadata6: 0 create order within datasets 0 improve storing and preservation 0 improve easily finding, analyzing, interpreting, comparing and reproducing data 0 may make it possible to assess the quality of data 0 make it easier to link data 6 Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222-244.
  5. 5. Introduction 0 Current situation is a long way from the ideal situation: 0 In the domain of open data the discussion about metadata is on a very low level or sometimes not even present7 0 usually few and insufficient ways of managing metadata and interpretation of LOD e.g. 8,9 0 adding metadata is often viewed as an additional activity that only consumes resources 0 Objective: discuss OGD metadata standards used by the ENGAGE metadata architecture CEDEM 2012 7 Simons, E. (2013). Introduction. Presented at EuroCRIS Seminar 2013. 8 Schuurman, N., Deshpande, A., & Allen, D. M. (2008). Data integration across borders: A case study of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(4), 921- 934. 9 Xiong, J., Hu, Y., Li, G., Tang, R., & Fan, Z. (2011). Metadata distribution and consistency techniques for large-scale cluster file systems. IEEE Transaction on parallel and distributed systems, 22(5), 803-816.
  6. 6. Metadata standards 8 0 Hundreds of specific formats are used as a ‘standard’ within specific communities but ones used widely are: 0 DC (Dublin Core): used to describe web pages 0 CKAN (Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network): used in national OGD sites – based on DC 0 eGMS; e-Government Metadata Standard – based on DC 0 DCAT (Data Catalog): used for datasets on the web – based on DC 0 INSPIRE : used for datasets with geospatial coordinates 0 EU Directive and standard; some overlap with DC but extended 0 CERIF (Common European research Information Format): used for all research information 0 All but CERIF are ‘flat’ or ‘linear’ 8 Jeffery, K. (2013). Metadata models. Presented at Samos Summer School 2013.
  7. 7. ENGAGE project 0 ENGAGE-project (FP7): An Infrastructure for Open, Linked Governmental Data Provision towards Research Communities and Citizens (www.engage-project.eu, www.engagedata.eu) 0 Main goal: the development and use of a data infrastructure, incorporating distributed and diverse public sector information (PSI) resources 0 Go beyond PSI (data.gov) sites in number of datasets, diversity of datasets, quality of metadata
  8. 8. ENGAGE project - Functionalities 0 Contribution of ENGAGE over existing infrastructures: 1. Service for researchers and citizens 2. Metadata specification and content organisation (embracement of the Linked Data Paradigm while ensuring the quality and responsiveness of highly structured information models) 3. Automation in data entry and curation 4. Crowdsourcing and interaction with and between users of the platform 5. Data curation tools and services 6. Dataset visualisation possibilities 7. Multilinguality 8. User help and training 0 Needs to be supported by appropriate OGD metadata architecture
  9. 9. ENGAGE OGD architecture – the data model 8 A 3-layer structure for metadata is used: 0 CERIF 0 Relational model 0 Maintained by euroCRIS since 2002 (on request of EC), in use in 43 countries 0 National standard for research information in 10 countries 0 Mapped to various other metadata standards 1. DISCOVERY (DC, eGMS…) 2. CONTEXT (CERIF) 3. DETAIL (SUBJECT OR TOPIC SPECIFIC) Generate Point to Linked open data Formal Information Systems 6 Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222-244.
  10. 10. ENGAGE OGD architecture 8 0 CERIF provides much richer metadata than the standards used commonly with PSI datasets. 0 Contextual metadata (CERIF) allows rich semantics to be represented thus making the PSI datasets understandable to the end user (or software) through the metadata 0 Allows for: 0 Generating discovery metadata from CERIF; 0 Interconverting common metadata formats used in PSI using CERIF as the superset exchange mechanism; 0 Providing a semantic web / LOD representation of the metadata for browsing or query using SPARQL; 0 While maintaining a conventional information systems capability with structured query 6 Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222-244.
  11. 11. ENGAGE OGD architecture - Models for an infrastructure 8 0 The data model (controls data representation and data re- use) with its metadata described is only one relevant model 0 The other models are: 0 User Model 0 controls the way in which the end-user interacts with the e-infrastructure 0 Process Model 0 controls the way processes are constructed and executed in the e-infrastructure 0 Resource Model 0 catalogs the available computing resources in the e-infrastructure 8 Jeffery, K. (2013). Metadata models. Presented at Samos Summer School 2013.
  12. 12. ENGAGE OGD architecture - Integration with e- Infrastructure 8 Complete ICT environment for open data Complete cohort of researchers, research managers, civil servants, innovators, citizens, media Processing Model User Model Data Model Resource Model interaction with data, processing, persons providing what the user requires representing open datasets representing ICT 8 Jeffery, K. (2013). Metadata models. Presented at Samos Summer School 2013.
  13. 13. Conclusions 0 Metadata are key enablers for OGD use, yield considerable benefits 0 Objective: discuss OGD metadata standards used by the ENGAGE metadata architecture 0 ENGAGE 3-layer metadata model 0 Discovery metadata 0 Contextual metadata (CERIF) 0 Detailed metadata 0 CERIF 0 provides much richer metadata than the standards used commonly with PSI datasets 0 allows rich semantics to be represented thus making the PSI datasets understandable to the end user (or software) through the metadata
  14. 14. a.m.g.zuiderwijk-vaneijk@tudelft.nl, m.f.w.h.a.janssen@tudelft.nl Join our open data community: www.engagedata.eu ENGAGE eInfrastructures Project on Open Data engage.project engage_eu Thank you for your attention!

×