A Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach to      Semantic Metadata Interoperability                                      ...
BACKGROUND• Describes, explains, locates, collocates• Facilitates retrieval, use, management(Chan & Zeng, 2006; Day, 2003a...
BACKGROUND
THE IRONY ABOUT STANDARDShttp://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/meta/english/metamap.html
METADATA INTEROPERABILITY     http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html
METADATA INTEROPERABILITY• Sharing semantically compatible information• Managing in semantically compatible ways• Enabling...
CAUSES OF INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS       •Naming       • Identification       • Constraints       •Terminological        ...
CAUSES OF INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS
ARBITRARINESS IN „OBJECTIVE‟ SYSTEMS       Dewey Decimal Classification
INTEROPERABILITY LEVELS  Based on (Haslhofer & Klas, 2010)
INTEROPERABILITY SOLUTIONS
USING SINGLE STANDARD• Very good for technical interoperability• Good for structural interoperability• Not feasible for se...
METADATA MAPPING(Based on Chan & Zeng, 2006)
SCHEMA DERIVATION• Deriving lighter schema from a complex one                     MODS             MARC-       MARC-      ...
APPLICATION PROFILES  • Mix and match solution  • Reusing metadata elements  • Schema level solution  • Requires to adopt ...
METADATA REGISTRIES• Publishing/exposing metadata schemas• Schema level solution• Does not deal with metadata values      ...
XMLhttp://www.futerra.co.uk/blog/336
SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES• RDF• RDFS• OWL
RESEARCH QUESTIONS• What are the views and experiences of LIS researchers, librarians  and users in using metadata?• What ...
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Crotty, 1998, p. 42)
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD      • Glaserian      • Straussian      • Constructivist( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Gl...
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD FOR SEMANTIC             INTEROPERABILITY• Scant use of theories in LIS• Semantic interoperability ...
DATA COLLECTION• Unstructured, in-depth interviews• Three categories of participants• Choice of Research Site (Phase-I stu...
DATA ANALYSIS USING NVIVO 8
PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS FROM PHRASE-I   Metadata simplicity versus complexity              http://www.arkshelving.com/Pics...
ASSUMPTION OF USER KNOWLEDGE
PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS: OPAC“OPAC is the biggest innovation for libraries that ever happened”                            ...
THE PROBLEMS• By their very nature, cultural information objects convey different meanings for  diverse user groups, and h...
CONCLUSIONDue to the very nature of the diversity inherent in institutionaland cultural interpretations as well as differe...
Thank You!      Questions?Getaneh.Alemu@port.ac.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Semantic Metadata Interoperability in Digital Libraries

1,178 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,178
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Semantic Metadata Interoperability in Digital Libraries

  1. 1. A Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach to Semantic Metadata Interoperability in Digital Libraries Getaneh Alemu Penny Ross Brett StevensThe 3rd Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference, Athens, Greece 24th-27th May 2011
  2. 2. BACKGROUND• Describes, explains, locates, collocates• Facilitates retrieval, use, management(Chan & Zeng, 2006; Day, 2003a, 2003b; Duval, Hodgins, Sutton, & Weibel, 2002; Nilsson, 2010; NISO, 2004; Weinberger, 2007)
  3. 3. BACKGROUND
  4. 4. THE IRONY ABOUT STANDARDShttp://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/meta/english/metamap.html
  5. 5. METADATA INTEROPERABILITY http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html
  6. 6. METADATA INTEROPERABILITY• Sharing semantically compatible information• Managing in semantically compatible ways• Enabling users to perform desired tasks (Rothenberg, 2008)
  7. 7. CAUSES OF INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS •Naming • Identification • Constraints •Terminological (Haslhofer & Klas, 2010)http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/apple/clusters/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adam-mange.jpg
  8. 8. CAUSES OF INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS
  9. 9. ARBITRARINESS IN „OBJECTIVE‟ SYSTEMS Dewey Decimal Classification
  10. 10. INTEROPERABILITY LEVELS Based on (Haslhofer & Klas, 2010)
  11. 11. INTEROPERABILITY SOLUTIONS
  12. 12. USING SINGLE STANDARD• Very good for technical interoperability• Good for structural interoperability• Not feasible for semantic interoperability
  13. 13. METADATA MAPPING(Based on Chan & Zeng, 2006)
  14. 14. SCHEMA DERIVATION• Deriving lighter schema from a complex one MODS MARC- MARC- XML LiteProblem: Retains the requirements of the original schema (Chan & Zeng, 2006)
  15. 15. APPLICATION PROFILES • Mix and match solution • Reusing metadata elements • Schema level solution • Requires to adopt specifications of original schema(Baker, Dekkers, Heery, Patel, & Salokhe, 2008; Chan & Zeng, 2006; Heery & Patel, 2000; Hillmann & Phipps, 2007)
  16. 16. METADATA REGISTRIES• Publishing/exposing metadata schemas• Schema level solution• Does not deal with metadata values (Chan & Zeng, 2006)
  17. 17. XMLhttp://www.futerra.co.uk/blog/336
  18. 18. SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES• RDF• RDFS• OWL
  19. 19. RESEARCH QUESTIONS• What are the views and experiences of LIS researchers, librarians and users in using metadata?• What solutions do they consider practical for facilitating information exchange, information sharing, and data integration?• How much useful do they consider top-down vs bottom up approaches and Semantic Web and Web 2.0 technologies in relation to semantic metadata interoperability?
  20. 20. PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Crotty, 1998, p. 42)
  21. 21. GROUNDED THEORY METHOD • Glaserian • Straussian • Constructivist( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 2001; Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
  22. 22. GROUNDED THEORY METHOD FOR SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY• Scant use of theories in LIS• Semantic interoperability is a qualitative concern(Andersen & Skouvig, 2006; Floridi, 2000; Hjorland, 2000; Allan, 2007; Lehmann, 2010; Haslhofer & Klas, 2010, p.17)
  23. 23. DATA COLLECTION• Unstructured, in-depth interviews• Three categories of participants• Choice of Research Site (Phase-I study) • 2 lecturers, 1 PhD researcher and 8 MSc students
  24. 24. DATA ANALYSIS USING NVIVO 8
  25. 25. PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS FROM PHRASE-I Metadata simplicity versus complexity http://www.arkshelving.com/Picsed/pages/SOUTH%20COUNTRY%20OPAC_jpg.htm
  26. 26. ASSUMPTION OF USER KNOWLEDGE
  27. 27. PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS: OPAC“OPAC is the biggest innovation for libraries that ever happened” participant
  28. 28. THE PROBLEMS• By their very nature, cultural information objects convey different meanings for diverse user groups, and hence, can be interpreted variously• Human beings are highly unlikely to agree on a singular, top-down and hierarchical classification of objects• Unfortunately, most current standards tend to adhere to what is known as the ontologically and objectively true viewpoint which substantially fails to capture and represent local and/or regional perspectives and interpretations. “The way Asians describe Asian art is quite different from the way a Westerner does.” participant
  29. 29. CONCLUSIONDue to the very nature of the diversity inherent in institutionaland cultural interpretations as well as differences in the usage ofterms in metadata vocabularies, semantic metadatainteroperability issues can better be addressed by adopting asocial constructivist philosophical approach and by utilising aconstructivist grounded theory methodology.
  30. 30. Thank You! Questions?Getaneh.Alemu@port.ac.uk

×