Successfully reported this slideshow.

Emerging Cataloging Future

4,122 views

Published on

Presented at the Massachusetts Library Association meeting, May 7, 2008

Published in: Economy & Finance, Education
  • Be the first to comment

Emerging Cataloging Future

  1. 1. The Emerging Cataloging Future <ul><li>RDA, DCMI, and the Semantic Web </li></ul>Diane I. Hillmann Massachusetts Library Association Wednesday, May 7, 2008
  2. 2. The Starting Point: Here and Now <ul><li>RDA: Resource Description and Access in the last stages of development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Final full draft due in August; will be “published” in early 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dublin Core Metadata Initiative in partnership with RDA to develop Resource Description Vocabularies </li></ul>
  3. 3. The Destination: Where We’re Going <ul><li>RDA guidelines will be available </li></ul><ul><ul><li>will be used to support the creation of FRBR-based records </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RD Vocabularies will be available to support catalogers and applications </li></ul><ul><li>Specialized communities will be building Application Profiles </li></ul>
  4. 4. The Journey: A Series of Maps <ul><li>Envisioning new descriptive structures </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting libraries and other communities of practice as they build and share data </li></ul><ul><li>“Building in” support for future development and extension </li></ul>
  5. 5. RDA & RDVocabularies <ul><li>RDA: Resource Description and Access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This is the part you’ve heard about--the successor to AACR2 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resource Description Vocabularies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This is the part you may not have heard about, but it’s essential to understanding how RDA will be used </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. RDA--What can you expect?
  7. 7. <ul><li>RDA History in a Nutshell </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Step 1: AACR3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Step 2: AACR3, reorganized as RDA (FRBR invisible, still looking backwards) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Step 3: RDA, explicitly FRBR/FRAR, no longer tied explicitly to MARC </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>A FRBR-based approach to structuring bibliographic data </li></ul><ul><li>More explicitly machine-friendly linkages (preferably with URIs) </li></ul><ul><li>More emphasis on relationships and roles </li></ul><ul><li>Less reliance on cataloger-created notes and text strings (particularly for identification) </li></ul>The New RDA
  9. 9. What would this new approach look like? Pt.1: RDA organization
  10. 10. JSC Scenarios <ul><li>Scenario 1: separate records for all FRBR entities with linked identifiers </li></ul><ul><li>Scenario 2: composite bibliographic records (with authority records representing each entity) </li></ul><ul><li>Scenario 3: one flat record, with all Group 1 entities on a single record </li></ul>
  11. 11. Sect. 1: Recording Attributes of manifestation and item
  12. 12. Sect. 2: Recording Attributes of Work and Expression
  13. 13. Sect. 6: Recording primary relationships between Group I and II entities
  14. 14. Sect. 8: Recording relationships between Group I entities
  15. 15. A Cataloger Scenario Jane Cataloger is assigned to work on a gift collection. Her first selection is a Latvian translation of Kurt Vonnegut's &quot;Bluebeard: a novel.&quot; She searches the library database for the original work, and finds: * Author : Kurt Vonnegut * Work Title : Bluebeard: a novel. * Form of Work : Novel * Original Language : English
  16. 16. with links to the following expression information : * Language of Expression : English * Content Type : Text and one manifestation : * Edition : 1st trade edition * Place of Production : New York * Publisher : Delacorte Press * Date of Production : 1987 * Number of Units : 300 pages * Resource Identifier : [ISBN]0385295901
  17. 17. Jane begins her description by linking to the existing Work entity. She then creates an expression description: * Language of Expression : Latvian * Translator : Arvida Grigulis She creates an authority record for the translator since none yet existed. She continues by creating a fuller description for the new manifestation, linking to the authority record for the Latvian publisher (what luck, it already existed!). * Title : [in Latvian] * Place of Production : Riga * Publisher : Liesma * Date of Production : 1997
  18. 18. A Cataloger Scenario: Updated Jane Cataloger is assigned to work on a gift collection. Her first selection is a Latvian translation of Kurt Vonnegut's &quot;Bluebeard: a novel.&quot; She searches the library database for the original work, and finds: * Author : Kurt Vonnegut * Work Title : Bluebeard: a novel. * Form of Work : Novel * Original Language : English
  19. 19. A Cataloger Scenario: Updated Jane Cataloger is assigned to work on a gift collection. Her first selection is a Latvian translation of Kurt Vonnegut's &quot;Bluebeard: a novel.&quot; She searches the library database for the original work, and finds: * Author : http://lcnaf.info/79062641 * Work Title : Bluebeard: a novel. * Form of Work : http://RDVocab.info/genre/1008 * Original Language : http://marclang.info/eng
  20. 20. with links to the following expression information : * Language of Expression : English * Content Type : Text and one manifestation : * Edition : 1st trade edition * Place of Production : New York * Publisher : Delacorte Press * Date of Production : 1987 * Number of Units : 300 pages * Resource Identifier : [ISBN]0385295901
  21. 21. with links to the following expression information : * Language of Expression : http://marclang.info/eng * Content Type : http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text and one manifestation : * Edition : 1st trade edition * Place of Production : http://www.getty.edu/tgn/7007567 * Publisher : http://onixpub.info/2039987 * Date of Production : 1987 * Number of Units : 300 pages * Resource Identifier : [ISBN]0385295901
  22. 22. Jane begins her description by linking to the existing Work entity. She then creates an expression description: * Language of Expression : Latvian * Translator : Arvida Grigulis She creates an authority record for the translator since none yet existed. She continues by creating a fuller description for the new manifestation, linking to the authority record for the Latvian publisher (what luck, it already existed!). * Title : [in Latvian] * Place of Production : Riga * Publisher : Liesma * Date of Production : 1997
  23. 23. Jane begins her description by linking to the existing Work entity. She then creates an expression description: * Language of Expression : http://marclang.info/lat * Translator : http://lcnaf.info/88007685 She creates an authority record for the translator since none yet existed. She continues by creating a fuller description for the new manifestation, linking to the authority record for the Latvian publisher (what luck, it already existed!). * Title : [in Latvian] * Place of Production : http://www.getty.edu/tgn/7006484 * Publisher : http://onixpub.info/6770094 * Date of Production : 1997
  24. 24. Is FRBR the only model relevant here? Pt.2: DCMI steps in ...
  25. 25. A Dublin Core View of the World DCMI Abstract Model: http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/ Zoom DSL/T-burg Tel
  26. 26. A Dublin Core View of the World DCMI Abstract Model: http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/ Zoom DSL/T-burg Tel
  27. 27. Anatomy of a Statement Place of Production : New York Property Value Value String
  28. 28. Anatomy of a Statement Place of Production : http://www.getty.edu/tgn/7007567 Property Value Related Description
  29. 29. A Related Description
  30. 30. Description Sets a Key Concept Zoom DSL/T-burg Tel
  31. 31. Description Set= “A set of one or more descriptions , each of which describes a single resource .”* .”* *DCAM Definition
  32. 32. A Description Set “Package”
  33. 33. Don’t we already do vocabularies? Pt.3: Vocabs and the SemWeb
  34. 34. <ul><li>Our traditional vocabularies use text strings as identifiers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Numbers are used only for internal or intra-community transactions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Semantic Web uses vocabularies much more rigorously, though they often use library-based standards for vocabulary relationships as a starting point </li></ul>
  35. 35. http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/
  36. 37. Managing Vocabularies <ul><li>Description of entire vocabulary as a collection of concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Links to Concepts, History, Versions </li></ul><ul><li>Default status and Language for Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>URI for the vocabulary itself (includes token) </li></ul><ul><li>Links to Users </li></ul><ul><li>Links to XML schema and RDF encoding </li></ul>
  37. 38. Registering Concepts <ul><li>Required Preferred Label </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-language support </li></ul><ul><li>Permanent URI for the Concept </li></ul><ul><li>Support for status </li></ul><ul><li>Links to other Concept properties </li></ul><ul><li>Link to RDF fragment </li></ul>
  38. 39. <ul><li>These registry examples are for “value vocabularies” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LCSH is a value vocabulary, for example </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The same strategies work for RDA Elements ... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RDA Elements is a “schema vocabulary” </li></ul></ul>
  39. 40. List of RDA Proposed Properties
  40. 41. Details of Property Registration
  41. 42. Metadata “About” the Property
  42. 43. Isn’t this pretty complicated? Pt.4: Tying it all together ... Pt.4: Tying it all together ... Pt.4: Tying it all together ...
  43. 44. A Description Set “Package”
  44. 45. “ The process of &quot;profiling&quot; a standard introduces the prospect of a tension between meeting the demands for efficiency, specificity, and localization within the context of a community or service on the one hand, and maintaining interoperability between communities and services on the other. Different metadata standards may provide different levels of flexibility: some standards may be quite prescriptive and leave relatively few options for customization, while others may present a broad range of optional features which demand a considerable degree of selection and tailoring for implementation.” --- from http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/index.shtml Introducing Application Profiles
  45. 46. “ It is desirable to be able to use community- or domain-specific metadata standards - or component parts of those standards - in combination. The implementers of metadata standards should be able to assemble the components that they require for some particular set of functions. If that means drawing on components that are specified within different metadata standards, that should ideally be possible. They should also be safe in the knowledge that the assembled whole can be interpreted correctly by independently designed applications.” --- from http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/index.shtml Introducing Application Profiles
  46. 47. <ul><li>Consider how the idea of Application Profiles affects the landscape ... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No more agonizing over which metadata standard to choose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No need to sacrifice specific community needs that aren’t covered in general standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A standard methodology for extension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolving methods for testing conformance </li></ul></ul>
  47. 48. <ul><li>Some examples of Application Profiles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SWAP (Scholarly Works Application Profile) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collections Application Profile </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>KMODDL Application Profile </li></ul></ul>
  48. 49. Scholarly Works AP
  49. 50. Collections AP
  50. 51. KMODDL AP
  51. 52. Declaration of Voigt1 Vocabulary
  52. 53. Using the Vocabulary to Organize
  53. 54. Designing Data vs. Choosing a Data Format
  54. 55. <ul><li>Functional requirements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The functional requirements of a Dublin Core Application Profile describe the functions that the application profile is designed to support, as well as functions that are out of scope. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Domain model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The domain model defines the basic entities described by the application profile and their fundamental relationships. The purpose of the domain model is to define a basic scope for the application profile. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Description Set Profile (DSP) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A Description Set Profile defines a set of metadata records that are valid instances of an application profile. </li></ul></ul>Mandatory Components of a Dublin Core Application Profile:
  55. 56. <ul><li>Usage guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The optional usage guidelines describe how to apply the application </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>profile, how the used properties are intended to be used in the </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>application context, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Encoding syntax guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>The optional encoding syntax guidelines describe any application profile- </li></ul><ul><li>specific syntaxes and/or syntax guidelines, if any. </li></ul>Optional Components of a Dublin Core Application Profile
  56. 57. <ul><li>Implications for our future </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An end to the closed library community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A different approach to standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A library community engaged with the Web, sharing and accepting data more broadly </li></ul></ul>
  57. 58. Thank you! <ul><li>Contact: Diane I. Hillmann </li></ul><ul><li>Director of Metadata Initiatives, Information Institute of Syracuse </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>Slides from this presentation may be re-used in conformance to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 (United States) license

×