IFLA Namespaces. Gordon Dunsire Chair, IFLA Namespaces Technical Group Session 204 — IFLA library standards and the IFLA Committee on Standards – how can they better serve you? — IFLA Committee on Standards IFLA World Library and Information Congress 11-17 August 2012, Helsinki, Finland . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
IFLA NamespacesGordon DunsireChair, IFLA Namespaces Technical GroupSession 204 IFLA library standards and the IFLA Committee on Standards how can they better serve you? IFLA Committee on StandardsIFLA World Library and Information Congress 11-17 August 2012, Helsinki, Finland
OverviewBackgroundNamespaces, linked data, Semantic WebTask Group report on namespace requirementsCurrent activityStrategic issues
Semantic Web (1)Metadata represented as simple, single statementsThis book has title Metadata is easyStatements are in 3 partsThis book has title Metadata is easyA triple!Subject predicate - object
Semantic Web (2)Use machines to process metadataVery fast, global network, 24/7Use the infrastructure of the World-Wide WebMachines require things to be identifiedNo ambiguity machines are dumbIdentifiers based on Uniform Resource Locator (URL)Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
Semantic Web (3)URI can be constructed using URL domain plus local identifierDomain is guaranteed to be uniqueSet of URIs with same domain is a namespaceIFLA domain: http://iflastandards.infoURI for FRBR entity Work:http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/C1001
IFLA namespacesFunctional Requirements modelsFRBR, FRAD, FRSADInternational Standard Bibliographic DescriptionISBD ConsolidatedMultilingual Dictionary of CataloguingMulDiCatUNIMARC (in the future)
IFLA Namespaces Task GroupSet up in 2009, under auspices of Classification & Indexing SectionRepresentation from Bibliography, Cataloguing, C&I, Information Technology, and Knowledge Management sections+ FRBR Review Group, ISBD Review Group, ISBD/XML Study Group
TasksTo prepare a requirements and options paper on the topic of IFLA support for the representation of IFLA standards in formats suitable for use in the Semantic Web.To act as caretaker until an IFLA Namespaces Technical Group is constituted.Requirements paper published in 2010
Some requirementsVersion controlHistory auditMultilingualDe-referencingHuman-readable data for humansMachine-readable data for machines
Current activity (1)Monitor development of IFLA namespacesFRBRer, FRBRoo, FRAD, FRSAD, ISBD, MulDiCatDevelop mappings/links between namespacesDevelop links to non-IFLA namespacesDublin Core, MARC21, RDAInvestigate commons namespaces for interoperabilityBetween domains (archives, libraries, museums, etc.) and their schema and data
Standards alignment => namespace mappingISBDUNIMARCFRBRFRADFRSADMulDiCatRDAMARC21EADVRA
Current activity (2)Develop guidelines on translations of namespacesMultilingual Semantic WebPublish guidelines by end of 2012Develop guidelines on use of IFLA namespacesExtension and refinement for special requirementsTask for 2013
Strategic issues 1: Beyond bibliographic namespacesE.g. education and trainingRDF properties for has curriculum, has accredited agent, has audience, etc.E.g. conservation of, and access to, special formatsValue vocabularies that can link to RDA/ONIX Framework, etc.
Strategic issues 2: What it means to be semantic and linkedUr-standards need clear terminology and definitionsUr-standards should explicitly identify entities, attributes, and relationships, for representation as RDF classes and properties (element sets)IFLA namespaces should be ontologically mapped, and synchronized with changes in ur-standards
Strategic issues 3: What it means to be open and linkedUr-standards should be freely availableUnderpin trust in derived namespacesControl and constraint discourage innovative application of IFLA schemas and members datasetsBut control is necessary for standardizationIFLA standards in the global digital environment need to move further into the open ecologyE.g. Commons namespaces, semi-official web services, etc.