RDA-DCAM and Application Profiles


Published on

Presentation at the DCMI/RDA meeting at the British Library, April 30, 2007

Published in: Education, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

RDA-DCAM and Application Profiles

  1. 1. The DCMI Metadata Framework <ul><ul><li>DCMI Abstract Model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vocabularies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application Profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name> </li></ul></ul>
  2. 2. The DCMI Metadata Framework <ul><li>Fundamental notion: the one-to-one principle </li></ul><ul><li>” One resource – one description” </li></ul><ul><li>History: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1994: 15 ”core” elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2000: Qualifiers => need for a model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2002: Grammatical principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2005: DCMI Abstract Model </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. DCMI Abstract Model <ul><li>Defines the core constructs used in DC metadata: properties , vocabulary encoding schemes, etc... </li></ul><ul><li>Refined and formalized version of the “DCMI Grammatical Principles” </li></ul><ul><li>Built on the one-to-one principle </li></ul><ul><li>Basis for defining vocabularies, profiles and syntaxes </li></ul><ul><li>Basis for interoperability with other initiatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RDF & the Semantic Web </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IEEE LOM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>etc. </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Basic structure of DCAM Value Resource Property Property/value pair Non-literal Literal
  5. 5. The Manzanillo Framework
  6. 6. Creating metadata using DCAM Description Set Profile Description Set Metadata record Interoperable interpreter transfer usage DMCI Abstract Model Functional Requirements Vocabulary (existing and new) Domain Model (Entities and relationships) Resources Syntax
  7. 7. Remaining Questions 1: What is RDA? <ul><li>Framework? </li></ul><ul><li>Abstract Model? </li></ul><ul><li>Vocabulary? </li></ul><ul><li>Application Profile? </li></ul><ul><li>Syntax? </li></ul>
  8. 8. Remaining Questions 2: Who's RDA for? <ul><li>Librarians? </li></ul><ul><li>Application developers? </li></ul><ul><li>Database managers? </li></ul><ul><li>Users? </li></ul><ul><li>Vocabulary creators? </li></ul><ul><li>Application Profile creators? </li></ul>
  9. 9. The ”values” of the DCAM <ul><li>Two sorts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Values ”in” the description itself = Literals (not the same as value strings) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other values </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Literal = string + language or datatype (=SES) </li></ul><ul><li>Non-literals are described </li></ul><ul><ul><li>” inline” by </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>0 - 1 URI for identification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>0 – 1 VES for identifying controlled vocabulary </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>0 – many value strings (= string + language or datatype) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in a separate description </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Interoperability for DC metadata <ul><li>Reusing existing properties... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in new application profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in new syntaxes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Adding new properties to... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>existing application profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>existing syntaxes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Introducing new values to existing properties </li></ul><ul><li>Expressing existing APs in new syntaxes </li></ul>
  11. 11. Vocabulary Model (elements) Example: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
  12. 12. Vocabulary Model (values) <ul><li>No real consensus on how to describe value vocabularies. </li></ul><ul><li>Value vocabularies come in many kinds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>simple lists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>thesauri </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>taxonomies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ontologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SKOS? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Profile Model Example: CEN/ISSS CWA 14855
  14. 14. Where we are (DC family)
  15. 15. Where others are (IEEE LOM family)
  16. 16. Where others are (RDF family)
  17. 17. Cross-framework interoperability <ul><li>How about interoperability between </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DC <==> IEEE LOM <==> RDF <==> MPEG-7 etc.? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All follow the same basic pattern </li></ul><ul><li>BUT – very different abstract models </li></ul><ul><li>In general: cross-framework is hard </li></ul><ul><li>DC <==> RDF works – as models are intentionally compatible </li></ul><ul><li>See also “ The Future of Learning Object Metadata Interoperability” , in Koohang A. (ed.) Learning Objects: Standards, Metadata, Repositories, and LCMS, in press. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Terminology <ul><li>Stop using “metadata standard” or “schema” </li></ul><ul><li>Start using either </li></ul><ul><ul><li>abstract model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>metadata format/syntax </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>metadata vocabulary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>application profile </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ What kind of specification am I trying to produce?” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most: application profile (+ some vocabulary) </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Take home message <ul><li>Formalized models (DCAM, vocabs, profiles) pave the way for interoperable processing </li></ul><ul><li>A clear framework helps us fill in the blanks </li></ul><ul><li>Much progress over the last year! See DC-ARCH... </li></ul><ul><li>The word ”schemas” is overused... </li></ul>