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.
Our Standards vs. Their Standards:
Development and Re-Use of Non-
Library Standards in the Cultural
Heritage Domain
Lars G...
2
Information exchange in libraries has gone a
long way during the last 50 years
| 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards ...
3 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
Libraries increasingly exchange information
with organisation...
4 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
But how do we do that in an interoperable
way?
ILS
MARC only
...
5 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
By using common data standards!
ISO
Open Geospatial (OGC)
W3C...
6 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
What we want to share is knowledge, but the
best we can do is...
7 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
That data, however, should be as machine-
interpretable as po...
8 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
1) 123 < 123.456 < 124
2) 123 < 123,456 < 124
Example 1: Floa...
9 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
1) 123 < 123.456 < 124
2) 123 < 123,456 < 124
float f = Float...
10 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
$c — Confidence value
Describes the confidence of the agency...
11 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
The most important date format is ISO 8601
– 20150819
– 2015...
12 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
MARC 21:
– 100 $d 1240 or 41-ca. 1316 (for people)
– 046 $f ...
13 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
Example 3: Geographic coordinates
14 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
Library formats support bounding boxes and
polygons
Source: ...
Type Examples
Point POINT (30 10)
LineString LINESTRING (30 10, 10 30, 40 40)
Polygon
POLYGON ((30 10, 40 40, 20 40, 10 20...
16 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
Record the points in the polygon as long/lat and “list coord...
| 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
“Record dates in terms of the calendar preferred by the agency
...
| 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
So what we really need, is a system that
mediates between the c...
19 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015
And we must ensure that we export data
using well-known, wid...
20 | 20 | Our Standards vs Their Standards | August 19, 2015
Common standards for future data exchange
http://www.gedanken...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Our Standards vs Their Standards

485 views

Published on

When deciding on how to describe cultural heritage resources in common exchange formats (e. g. MARC 21, RDF or XML), publishing organisations need to align their content standards with wide-spread, broadly adopted data standards in order to make information exchange as effective as possible.
This presentation from the IFLA Committee on Standards session in Cape Town on August 19, 2015 (2015-08-19) makes that case. There is also an accompanying paper in the IFLA library at http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1194

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Our Standards vs Their Standards

  1. 1. Our Standards vs. Their Standards: Development and Re-Use of Non- Library Standards in the Cultural Heritage Domain Lars G. Svensson | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 20151
  2. 2. 2 Information exchange in libraries has gone a long way during the last 50 years | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 PhotobyBeatriceMurch(CCBY-SA):http://flickr.com/photos/blmurch/465623933/
  3. 3. 3 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 Libraries increasingly exchange information with organisations that are not libraries (or at least they should!) Search engine Library Re- searcher Archive, museum FotovonDocSearls(CCBY): http://www.flickr.com/photos/docsearls/5500714140/
  4. 4. 4 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 But how do we do that in an interoperable way? ILS MARC only beyond this point
  5. 5. 5 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 By using common data standards! ISO Open Geospatial (OGC) W3C IEEE IETF
  6. 6. 6 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 What we want to share is knowledge, but the best we can do is to share data Knowledge DataData Information Information Knowledge Sender Receiver
  7. 7. 7 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 That data, however, should be as machine- interpretable as possible PhotobyKIUIStaff(CCBY):http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiui/3693823005/ Library data Other data Some data
  8. 8. 8 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 1) 123 < 123.456 < 124 2) 123 < 123,456 < 124 Example 1: Floating point numbers
  9. 9. 9 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 1) 123 < 123.456 < 124 2) 123 < 123,456 < 124 float f = Float.valueOf( “123,456” ); (Gives you a NumberFormatException) Example 1: Floating point numbers
  10. 10. 10 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 $c — Confidence value Describes the confidence of the agency using the process/activity identified in subfield $a to generate the linked field. The subfield contains a floating point value between 0 and 1. Either a comma or a point may be used as a decimal marker. 0 means no confidence and and [sic!] 1 means full confidence. (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd883.html) At some places, MARC 21 isn’t quite clear about this...
  11. 11. 11 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 The most important date format is ISO 8601 – 20150819 – 2015-08-19 – 2015-08-19T07:30:00+02:00 and its derivatives, e. g. EDTF – ~2015 (approximately 2015) – 201u (one of the years 2010-2019, but we don’t know which) Example 2: (Birth-)Dates in Authority Data
  12. 12. 12 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 MARC 21: – 100 $d 1240 or 41-ca. 1316 (for people) – 046 $f [1240,1241] $g ~1316 $2 EDTF (for machines) UNIMARC – 200 $f 1240 or 41-ca. 1316 (for people) – 640 $f #1240____? $i #1316____? (for machines) In MARC, dates are expressed differently at different places
  13. 13. 13 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 Example 3: Geographic coordinates
  14. 14. 14 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 Library formats support bounding boxes and polygons Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_Cape_in_South_Africa.svg
  15. 15. Type Examples Point POINT (30 10) LineString LINESTRING (30 10, 10 30, 40 40) Polygon POLYGON ((30 10, 40 40, 20 40, 10 20, 30 10)) POLYGON ( (35 10, 45 45, 15 40, 10 20, 35 10), (20 30, 35 35, 30 20, 20 30)) 15 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 A very important non-library format for coordinates is WKT (well-known text) Exampletakenfromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_text
  16. 16. 16 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 Record the points in the polygon as long/lat and “list coordinate pairs in clockwise order, starting with the most south-eastern vertex of the polygon. [...] The first and last coordinate pairs are the same. [...] If an area or areas within a given polygon are excluded, list the coordinate pairs for any excluded area in counterclockwise order.“ (RDA §7.4.3.3) The upcoming content standard RDA has instructions for coordinates too, but different ones…
  17. 17. | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 “Record dates in terms of the calendar preferred by the agency creating the data” and to “record a date associated with a person by giving the year.” An option used by PCC, BL and D-A-CH is to “add the month or month and day in the form [year] [month] [day] or [year] [month]. Record the month in a language and script preferred by the agency creating the data.” (RDA §9.3.1.3) Dates in RDA are not really aligned with ISO 8601, either 17
  18. 18. | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 So what we really need, is a system that mediates between the cataloguing code and the exchange format(s) 18 13 ነሐሴ 2007 Décade I Doudi, Fructidor an CCXXIII 2015-08-19 Dateconversionthroughhttp://www.funaba.org/cc ‫רביעי‬ ,4‫לּול‬ֱ‫א‬ 5775
  19. 19. 19 | 20 | Our Standards vs. Their Standards | August 19, 2015 And we must ensure that we export data using well-known, widely adopted standards My dad’s standard is better than your dad’s! Picture provided by e r j k p r u n c z y k (CC BY-SA): https://www.flickr.com/photos/24842486@N07/6162798898/ Picture by Pascal (CC BY): https://www.flickr.com/photos/pasukaru76/12144956203/ Who cares about your standard, anyway?
  20. 20. 20 | 20 | Our Standards vs Their Standards | August 19, 2015 Common standards for future data exchange http://www.gedankenkonsum.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/the-future.jpg

×