Upload
jada-mclean
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dublin Core for MuseumsDay 2
Paul MillerUK Office for Library & Information Networking
Thomas HofmannAustralian Museums On-Line
CIMI
John Perkins [email protected]
Overview for Friday March 26 The Dublin Core in 1999 Break CIMI and the Dublin Core Lunch Beyond Dublin Core Discussion, Review Q&A
Stabilising the Dublin Core
Dublin Core has evolved rapidly; six international, interdisciplinary workshops
Dublin, Ohio, USA. March 1995 http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core_reporthttp://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core_report
Warwick, United Kingdom. April 1996 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july96/07weibel.htmlhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/july96/07weibel.html
Dublin, Ohio, USA. September 1996 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january97/oclc/01weibel.htmlhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/january97/oclc/01weibel.html
Canberra, Australia. March 1997 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.htmlhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html
Helsinki, Finland. October 1997 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february98/02weibel.htmlhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/february98/02weibel.html
Washington DC, USA. November 1998 http://purl.org/dc/workshops/dc6conference/index.htmhttp://purl.org/dc/workshops/dc6conference/index.htm
Stabilising the Dublin Core
Dublin Core has evolved rapidly; expression in 27 different languages, including
English, Arabic, Burmese, Czech, Danish, Dutch,
Finnish, French, German, Greek, Indonesian,
Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Turkish. http://purl.org/dc/groups/languages.htmhttp://purl.org/dc/groups/languages.htm
Chinese (‘Big 5’) version of 都柏林核心集 at
http://dimes.lins.fju.edu.tw/dublin/
Chinese (simplified characters) version under
development.
Stabilising the Dublin Core
Dublin Core has evolved rapidly; with a wealth of implementations, all interpreting
the evolving Core slightly differently, and making
it improve each time
Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS)
http://www.naa.gov.au/govserv/agls/http://www.naa.gov.au/govserv/agls/
Arts & Humanities Data Service (AHDS)
http://ahds.ac.uk/public/metadata/discovery.htmlhttp://ahds.ac.uk/public/metadata/discovery.html
http://prospero.ahds.ac.uk:8080/ahds_live/http://prospero.ahds.ac.uk:8080/ahds_live/
and many more…
http://purl.org/dc/projects/index.htmhttp://purl.org/dc/projects/index.htm
Stabilising the Dublin Core
Dublin Core has evolved rapidly; from Thirteen initial elements
to Fifteen today
by adding Rights, splitting Subject & Description in two,
and renaming Author to Creator.
(Re–) Introducing the Dublin Core
TitleTitle CreatorCreator SubjectSubject DescriptionDescription PublisherPublisher ContributorContributor DateDate TypeType
FormatFormat IdentifierIdentifier SourceSource LanguageLanguage RelationRelation CoverageCoverage RightsRights
http://purl.org/dc/
Stabilising the Dublin Core
Attempts are now being made to draw
upon all this knowledge in a controlled
manner, and to guide the development of
Dublin Core a little bit more… .
Directorate
A ‘Directorate’ has been formed at OCLC,
consisting of Stu Weibel and Eric Miller.
They are responsible for driving the whole
process forward in consultation with the
Advisory Committees.
Advisory Committees
A Policy Advisory Committee has been
established, consisting of significant
individuals in communities aligned to the Dublin
Core. Their job is to represent the interests of
their communities and to guide the evolution of
DC.
John Perkins advocates cultural heritage
issues on this group.
Advisory Committees
A Technical Advisory Committee has been
established, consisting of the chairs of
various Dublin Core working groups, as well as
some other people.
Paul Miller advocates cultural heritage issues
on this group.
DC–GENERAL
The main discussion forum for Dublin Core is a mailing list
called dc–general.
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–general/
In order to minimise discussion on this list, most of the work
associated with moving Dublin Core forward has been
devolved to a series of working groups. Some of these
groups deal with issues specific to one or more Dublin Core
elements, whilst others address more generic topics
All of these lists are open for anyone to join, and they are
the Dublin Core
All previous DC lists no longer used.
Element Working Groups
DC–AGENTS Deals with Creator, Contributor and Publisher
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–agents/
DC–COVERAGE Deals with the Coverage element
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–coverage/
DC–DATE Deals with the Date element
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–date/
Element Working Groups
DC–FORMAT Deals with the Format element
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–format/
DC–RELATION Deals with the Relation element
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–relation/
DC–SUBDESC Deals with the Subject and Description elements
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–subdesc/
Element Working Groups
DC–TITLE Deals with the Title element
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–title/
DC–TYPE Deals with the Type element
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–type/.
Issue Working Groups
DC–CITATION Deals with issues related to expressing
bibliographic citations in Dublin Core
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–citation/
DC–DATAMODEL Deals with formalising the underlying data model for
Dublin Core. Currently concentrating on RDF.
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–datamodel/
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/.
Issue Working Groups
DC–GUIDES Deals with issues related to creating generic and
community–specific documentation for use of
Dublin Core
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–guides/
DC–IMPLEMENTORS For discussion of issues arising whilst trying to
implement Dublin Core in real environments
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–implementors/.
Issue Working Groups
DC–INTERNATIONAL Deals with issues related to expressing
Dublin Core in languages other than English
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–international/
DC–ONE2ONE Deals with formalising the assumptions behind the
Dublin Core’s “1:1 model”
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–one2one/.
Issue Working Groups
DC–SCHEMA Attempting to clarify the relation between Dublin
Core and similar models from groups such as
IFLA and INDECS
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–schema/
DC–STANDARDS Deals with the standardisation process for Dublin
Core, concentrating specifically upon CEN, NISO
and ISO accreditation.
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–standards/.
Formalisation
Dublin CoreWeb Sitepurl.org/dc/
Dublin CoreDirectorate
DC Policy Advisory Committee
DC Technical Advisory Committee
Working Groups
Stakeholder Communities
DC-General Dublin Core Mail Server
www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc–general/
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
Clarification and Stabilisation
Fifteen Dublin Core elements currently
defined by RFC 2413 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in–notes/rfc2413.txt
Element working groups currently trying to clarify
these definitions will produce a new RFC (‘DC 1.1’)
concerned only with the 15 elements; not with any
qualification or subelement structure
will not substantially change the elements
will clarify definitions in order to make them say what we
always meant them to say.
Qualification and Substructure — Syntax
There have been many attempts to develop
a syntax for expressing substructure within Dublin
Core. For example; <META NAME=“DC.Creator” CONTENT=
“(TYPE=personal) (SCHEME=LCNAF) Kipling, Rudyard”>
<META NAME=“DC.Creator.personal”
CONTENT=“(SCHEME=LCNAF) Kipling, Rudyard”>
<META NAME=“DC.Creator”
TYPE=“personal”
SCHEME=“LCNAF”
CONTENT=“Kipling, Rudyard”>
Qualification and Substructure — Syntax
All are being used somewhere, but the
Dublin Core community as a whole is yet to
wholeheartedly endorse one approach.
The Data Model group is working with the
Resource Description Framework (RDF) in
order to both clarify the underlying model for
DC and to offer an XML–based means of
expressing the elements, their values, and any
desired substructure.
Qualification and Substructure — Syntax
R“CIMI Presentation”
Title
Creatordc:
dc:
“Paul Miller”
<RDF xmlns = “http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax#” xmlns:dc = “http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/”> <Description about = “R”> <dc:Title> CIMI Presentation </dc:Title> <dc:Creator> Paul Miller </dc:Creator> </Description></RDF>
Qualification and Substructure — Syntax
RDF specification http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
XML specification (RDF is usually
expressed in XML) http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/
Draft RDF Schema specification (will make it easier
to express DC substructure) http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
Dublin Core data model specification expected in
April.
Element Qualifiers and Value Qualifiers
rdf:Valuedc:Element
R
dcq:Type(element qualifier)
dcq:Scheme(value qualifier)
(previously known as TYPEs, SUBELEMENTs, and SCHEMEs)
Element Qualifiers and Value Qualifiers
“Created”
dcq:DateType
“1999–03–26”
rdf:Valuedc:Date
Resource
“ISO 8601”
dcq:Scheme
Qualification and Substructure — Values
Dublin Core community advocates use of
existing term lists where possible, rather
than the invention of new ones so use AAT if it has the terms you need, rather than
inventing a new thesaurus of museum terms
http://www.gii.getty.edu/aat_browser/
Continuing pressure to create ‘approved’ lists
of element and value qualifiers, but it is proving
difficult to make these sufficiently generic.
DC and CIMI
Paul MillerUK Office for Library & Information Networking
Thomas HofmannAustralian Museums On-Line
CIMI
John Perkins [email protected]
Dublin Core and the museum community
Challenges for museums Emphasis on attributes of the physical object (artefact) Need to associate the physical object with persons, places
and events Need to account for collections Need to account for surrogates such as photographs Historical lack of content standards
Assumptions regarding DC DC is useful to describe artefacts and associated
information resources in the museum community DC is simple to use and learn Adequate technical infrastructure exists to support use of
resource discovery
Testbed Phase I
Goals Evaluate feasibility of DC for museum
community Identifying and resolving operational,
technical and intellectual issues Promote international consensus on DC
practices in museum community
Introducing the CIMI testbed project (I)
Milestones Involvement of over 18 participants
(Software vendors, Museums, Consultants, Cultural Heritage Gateways)
Over 300,000 record repository (museums, collections, artefacts) using DC Simple, both created from scratch and exported from legacy systems
Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core
Introducing the CIMI testbed project (I)
Outcomes DC is easy to use DC simple is a machete, not a
scalpel All Elements depend on Resource
Type DC can be applied to both physical
and electronic resources Further user evaluation necessary
Introducing the CIMI testbed project (I)
Testbed Phase II
Goals Finalisation and publication of “Guide to
Best Practice: Dublin Core” Identification of proposed qualified
elements (sub–structure) Examination of RDF Initial effort in mapping DC elements to
CIMI Access Points New set of sample records (at ADLIB) User evaluation
Introducing the CIMI testbed project (II)
Milestones
There are four meetings scheduled for 1999. Please see http://www.cimi.org/ for updates on the testbed phase II
Introducing the CIMI testbed project (II)
Outcomes The schedule for 1999 for sees the following
deadlines:Guide publication (April)DC recommendation (December)DC to CIMI Access Points
mapping (November)RDF examination (July)Choreographed demonstration/
user evaluation (October)Final report and
recommendations (December) For updates please see http://www.cimi.org/
Introducing the CIMI testbed project (II)
About the Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core
Basis for the Guide: Based on Dublin Core 1.0 (RFC 2413) Recommendations based on testbed experience, not large scale
production efforts Syntax used in examples and testbed based on XML
Document structure: 15 DC simple elements starting with TYPE to assist in following
the 1:1 rule (original vs. surrogate) Each element:
- Introduced with standard DC Definition (RFC 2413)
- Explained with CIMI Interpretation- Manifested with CIMI Guideline- Illustrated through Examples
Appendices contain sample records for different types of museum describing a variety of resource types
Beyond Dublin Core
Paul MillerUK Office for Library & Information Networking
Thomas HofmannAustralian Museums On-Line
CIMI
John Perkins [email protected]
The Dublin Core in context Dublin Core was originally developed as
a tool for the discovery of electronic
resources although now extended to physical objects,
it is still about resource discovery
Other initiatives fulfil similar niche roles, such as rights
management metadata, administrative metadata, etc.
Some initiatives are far more complex, and encompass
many of these roles within a single implementation.
How do we integrate and interoperate?
Extending the Dublin Core
The fifteen basic elements of the
Dublin Core are extensible,
optional, and repeatable. Many implementors have extended these elements through
the addition of substructure (AMICO…)
Others have added whole new elements to the core in order to
meet their needs
The ‘Admin Core’, for example, is aimed specifically at the
metadata kept in order to manage data
http://metadata.net/admin/
where do we stop extending and use something else instead?
Other ‘niche metadata’ markets
Resource Discovery is one ‘niche’
market
Others include rights (INDECS…)
description of educational content (IMS, GEM…)
ratings (PICS…)
How do these relate to Dublin Core?
Detailed museum approaches
There are several cultural heritage developments
which attempt to encompass far more than
resource discovery
How can they be interconnected,
whether semantically or technically?
SPECTRUM
The Dublin Core ‘filter’
A User A Resource
spatially discrete?
Dublin Core‘filter’
DC.title
DC.creator
DC.subject
DC...
mapping/ crosswalk
The Dublin Core ‘filter’
Working together, we can map from detailed descriptions and methods ‘up’ to the Dublin Core.
Creator
Subject
Coverage...
Artist’s NameType of Work
Period depictedPlace depicted
...
SurnameForename
Title...
The Dublin Core Filter
Assuming that a satisfactory mapping can be
defined, the Dublin Core therefore becomes a
common language of access to more detailed
resources, without the need for institutions to
change their systems.
The Warwick Framework and RDF
The Warwick Framework concept from the second Dublin
Core workshop is realised in RDF
Under this model, it becomes possible to bolt ‘packages’
of metadata together in a near–seamless fashion.
Description Archival Management
Terms & Conditions
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
http://www.cimi.org/
© CIMI 1999