the dublin core metadata initiative, the resource description framework, and purls november 6, 2000...
Post on 25-Dec-2015
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative,The Resource Description Framework,
and PURLs
November 6, 2000
Stuart WeibelStuart WeibelSenior Research ScientistSenior Research ScientistOCLC Office of ResearchOCLC Office of Research
Director, Dublin Core Metadata InitiativeDirector, Dublin Core Metadata InitiativeCopyright 2000 - All Rights Reserved
FAO Workshop on Metadata Standardsfor Electronic Publishing in Agriculture
Brussels, Belgium
2
Metadata for Resource Description and Discovery
A resource description community is characterized by common semantic, structural, and syntactic conventions for exchange of resource description
information
Libraries
MARC AACR2
3
The Internet Commons embraces many Resource Description Communities
ScientificData
HomePages Geo
InternetCommons
Library
Museums
Commerce
Education
4
OK, OK….(but never mind)
COMMERCE
5
DCMI:The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
DCMI is an open consensus building initiative International scope 2 major ‘products’ and supporting documents
(so far) A process A community A culture A forum
6
Mission of the DCMI
The mission of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is to make it easier to find resources using the Internet through the following activities: Developing metadata standards for resource
discovery across domains Defining frameworks for the interoperation of
metadata sets Facilitating the development of community- or
domain-specific metadata sets that work within these frameworks
7
Scope of Activities
Standards Development meetings and workshops to
support development of standards and best practice
Communications Website, working drafts,
documentation, recommendations, mailing lists...
Liaisons Promote interoperability
through liaison activities with other initiatives
Tools and Services promote availability of tools
to support creation, management, and use of DC metadata
Metadata Registry:infrastructure for managing vocabularies in multiple languages
Research Advance the infrastructure
and frameworks to support metadata interoperability
8
Liaisons
IEEE-LOM, IMS Education Resources
GILS MPEG W3C
Open Archives Initiative
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
RSS XML.COM
Development of liaisons with other metadata activities will improve prospects for interoperability
9
The Dublin CoreMetadata Element Set
Title Author/Creator Subject /Keywords Description Publisher Other Contributor Date
Resource Type Format Resource Identifier Source Language Relation Coverage Rights Management
10
Dublin Core Workshop Series
Chicago WWW Conference Oct, 1994 OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop Mar, 1995 OCLC/UKOLN Warwick Workshop, UK Apr, 1996 CNI/OCLC Image Metadata Workshop Sep, 1996 DC-4, Canberra, Australia Mar, 1997 DC-5, Helsinki, Finland Oct, 1997 DC-6, Washington, DC, USA Nov, 1998 DC-7, Frankfurt, Germany Oct, 1999 DC-8, Ottawa, Canada Oct, 2000
11
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
Dublin CoreWeb Site
http://purl.org.dchttp://dublincore.org
DC-General Dublin Core Mail Server
Working Groups
DCAdvisory Committee
Dublin CoreDirectorate
DC Executive Committee
Stakeholder Communities
12
Adoption by Major Communities
Australia, Denmark, Finland: public information discovery
Cultural heritage institutions
Libraries Educational resources Print and Preprint
archives NASA/JPL image
archives
Software repositories eBooks Financial and Insurance
industries Aerospace and
Automotive applications GIS applications Health Commerce: information
syndication (RSS)
13
DCMIOpen Source Software
Collaborative development promotes community commitment
Promote toolkits, utilities, and applications that support the creation, management, and exploitation of metadata
We hope many will contribute
14
DCMI Open Metadata Registry
EOR: Managing vocabularies defined by DCMI Languages Versioning Controlled vocabularies
Foundation for modular, incremental integration and evolution
Collaboration with European Schema project, ULIS in Tsukuba, Japan, ILRT (SchemaRama) in Bristol
http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/myrdf/services/EOpenRegistry
15
LC
NA
F
MA
RC
-Re l
a ter
Co
des
Juri
sdic
t io
n
DCMI Matrix of Semantics and Communities
Tit
le
Cre
a to
r
Pu
bli
s he
r
Co
ntr
i bu
tor
Dat
e
Rel
ati
on
So
urc
e
Iden
tif i
er
Lan
gu
ag
e
Su
bje
c t
Des
cri p
tio
n
Co
v era
ge
Fo
rma t
Typ
e
Rig
hts
DCMI
Au
die
nce
DC-Education
DC-Library
DC-Government
16
Alternative Representations of DC Metadata
Japanese
English
Portuguese
Danish
17
The Complete Matrix:A registry of metadata Semantics
18
Standardization
CEN Workshop Agreement formalized in January, 2000 Endorse Version 1.1 Dublin Core element set as
CWA 13874 Providing guidelines for industry to assist the
adoption of Dublin Core in Europe Establishing active participation and contributions
from relevant projects and activities, resulting in a web based "Observatory" on European work on metadata.
19
Launched: January 15, 1999
as cooperative OCLC research project Re-release: July 1, 2000
as integrated OCLC library service Key objectives:
Ongoing user input to shape features and priorities International scope, global use Minimize redundant effort by libraries Release system quickly, improve continuously Embrace key international standards
purl.oclc.org/corc
CORC:Cooperative Online Resource Catalog
20
CORC’s key features
Requires only Web-browser for access/use Incorporates key international standards:
Metadata: Dublin Core, AACR2/MARC Characters: Unicode, ALA Character Set
Automates the creation and maintenance of: Resource records (bibliographic records)
Including URL management (automation + cooperation) Authority records (established forms of names) Pathfinders (Webliographies)
Offers Web access to DDC Integrated with OCLC Cataloging & FirstSearch
21
NISO
NISO: Z39.85 Fast Track balloting concluded August 15;
Z39.85 has been approved, pending completion of administrative requirements
ISO Fast track process is a natural successor
22
RDFResource Description Framework
W3C’s RDF Resource Description Framework Resources
anything that can be identified
Description Framework Design of enabling technologies to support description of
these resources
23
RDF is ...
Data Model Model to support a web of named relationships connecting
uniquely identified things. XML representation Designed to impose structural constraint on syntax to support
consistent encoding, exchange and processing of metadata Schema
Enables resource description communities to a consistent means of declaring vocabularies
Enable reuse (museum, library, e-commerce…) Bootstraps Data Model
24
What you really need to know about RDF
It is XML based XML DTDs… extensibility is a problem RDF Schemas and XML Schemas are at least
partially in competition, and the dust has not settled
The market place will tell us…
25
RDF Schema
Designed to enable resource description communities the ability to define (and share) vocabularies
Support basic semantic integrity constraints Characteristics of classes or properties and/or constraints on
corresponding values
Support basic semantic relations “Illustrator” is a refinement of “Creator”
Designed to be extended
26
RDF Statements
…<rdf:Description rdf:about = “http://doc”> <bib:author rdf:resource = http://Stu /></rdf:Description>…
http://docbib:author
Statement
(http://doc, bib:author, http://Stu)
http://Stu
27
RDF Example 1
“Stuart Weibel”
URI:R“FAO Presentation”
title
creatordc:
dc:
<?XML version=‘1.0’?><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=“http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax#”
xmlns:dc=“http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/”> <rdf:Description rdf:about = “URI:R”> <dc:title> FAO Presentation </dc:title> <dc:creator> Stuart Weibel </dc:creator> </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
28
RDF Example 2
URI:R“FAO Presentation”
title
creatordc:
dc:
<?XML version=‘1.0’?><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=“http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax#”
xmlns:dc=“http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/”> <rdf:Description rdf:about = “URI:R”> <dc:title> FAO Presentation </dc:title> <dc:creator rdf:resource = “URI:Stu”/> </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
URI:Stu
29
“Eric Miller”“Eric Miller”
RDF Data Model Example 3
URI:R“FAO Presentation”
title
creatordc:
dc:
URI:ERICURI:Stu
“stu@oclc.org”“Stuart Weibel”
“OCLC”
bib:emailbib:affbib:name
URI:OCLC
URI:Personrdf:type
30
PURLs
Persistent URLs
31
Persistence
Persistence of Naming Persistence of content is a different problem -- digital
archiving -- and its REALLY hard
Persistent names are NOT a matter of technology Commitment of organizations charged with
responsibility for managing content and access
Technology is only a part of the solution (and it’s the easy part)
32
PURLPersistent URLs
In Computer Science: no problem that cannot be solved with an additional level of indirection!
PURLs: Redirect a symbolic name to a network location
No New Technology! Simple public domain db URLs simple tools to manage the PURLs
It’s free (http://purl.org)
33
Persistent Naming of Resources
Naming is easy: even the State of Ohio can do it Naming is hard: the IETF has failed to do it for
years (URNs) Naming is contentious: There are many naming
schemes, tailored for different purposes But it is going to happen… it is necessary
34
OCLC’s Naming Service
Under development (Albert Simmonds Basic Model:
Give me a name Ask for a service
Provide an architecture for the OPEN definition of services that can be applied to known resources integrate sectors… for profit, not for profit,
governmental, supra-governmental….
35
Examples of Services on Names
Given a named resource… let me buy it let me borrow it give me the citation show me the metadata show me the title page show me a review let me write a review tell me who owns it ….
36
Impediments
Legacy systems ISBN, ISSN, Name Authorities, DUNs Numbers, on
and on and on….
Architectures Probably best to avoid the Unitary Theory of Naming
Business models are shaky Who pays for maintaining persistence of naming and
content? Libraries? Publishers? Users? Governments?
37
Additional Information
Dublin Core Home page http://purl.org/dc
W3C RDF Home Page http://www.w3.org/RDF
EOR Demo http://wip.dublincore.org
top related