SCONE: reusability, granularity and collection strength

Gordon Dunsire & Dennis NicholsonPresented at the Collection Description Focus, Workshop 2,

Birmingham, 8 Feb 2002

Entity relationships

• Entities defined in the Heaney analysis– Collections; Locations; Agents; Subjects

• Relationships between entities within a single Collection Level Description defined– E.g. Administers, Owns, Describes

• Relationships between entities in multiple CLDs defined in SCONE– hierarchical (sub and super entities)– multiple super relationships as well as multiple subs

Relational database

Location

NameAddressTown

…[Key]

IsAdministered

By

[Location Key][Agent Key]

Opening Hours…

[Key]

Agent

NameHistory

…[Key]

Collection Level Description

CollectionLocation

Agent A

Agent B

Catalogue(Collection)

Granularity

Entity(Collection, Agent, Location)

Parent/SuperEntity

Parent/SuperEntity

Child/SubEntity

Child/SubEntity

Coextensivity and cascade

• Entity relationships within a single CLD should be at the same level of granularity

• Where a single CLD requires data from different levels, the Collection record must be linked hierarchically to appropriate Collection records at those levels.

• Data is then cascaded down the hierarchy from higher to lower level CLDs.

Virtual CLDs

CollectionA

CollectionB

CollectionC

LocationA

LocationC

Reuse & ‘virtual’ duplication

• Minimise duplication of stored data– Easier to maintain currency

– Improved accuracy

– Improved consistency

• Reusability– Automatic within SCONE

– Better ‘completeness’ of exchange records

– Related services• Shared data maintenance; e.g. SLIR, SWOP, ESH

Collections

• Hierarchies can be complex!– But ‘physicality’ is a constraint

• Example:– A collection of books by and about Robert Burns can

be a sub-collection of the ‘library’ collection where it is held, a sub-collection of a ‘Complete Burns’ distributed collection, and a sub-collection of a ‘Scottish poetry’ distributed collection.

• External content standards– Physical description, Identifiers (UKOLN)

Agents

• ‘Strict’ hierarchy; no multiple super-agents• Example:

– A person (Agent A) is a member (sub-agent) of a library team (Agent B), which is part of (sub-agent) of a library services department

• External content standards– Used: AACR2; AAAF– Possible: DNB; membership lists

Locations

• ‘Strict’ hierarchy; no multiple super-locations• Example:

– A shelf (Location A) is contained in (sub-location) of a library room (Location B), which is part of (sub-location) of the library building.

• External content standards– Used: OS gazetteer

– Possible: GIS datasets

In other words, SCONE

• Stores data to maximise efficient and effective maintenance.

• Presents complete Collection Level Descriptions by integrating relevant data.

• Produces flexible output for sharing data with other systems.

• Accommodates extensions to the depth, coverage and detail of Collection Level Descriptions

SCONE and Collection strength

• Conspectus; SCURL: Collaborative Collecting and Dynamic clumping. But: subjective; labour-intensive?

• SCONE: Alternatives: Brief tests? List checks? Shelf scans? Automated methods? External evaluation? Citation analysis? User based techniques (Circulation, ILL, DD statistics etc.) ? Professional judgment – key to all?

• Interim conclusion: professional judgement in CCD/ user needs environment: agreed methods/peer review

• But: an unhelpful, inherently subjective concept?• Strength: strong for who, for what purpose? (CURL)• Disaggregate idea to give users/staff clearer guidance?

Collection Strength: Elements

• Elements: – What does it all add up to? Compared to what?

– Since when? Current intensity? Responsibility?

– What about audience level? Experience level? Quality?

– Small but significant collections? The strength of distributed collections? Subjective helpful if explicit?

• User and Collector needs? What? Why? When?– Browsing in ‘strong’ collections

– Dynamic clumping (narrow the focus); And?

– In-depth characteristics of a collection?

Other Dimensions…

• Granularity (as ever) complicates things:– At which level of subject granularity do we measure a

collection strength (or element)?– How can we ‘telegraph’ (describe) a strength measured

at one level at a higher level?– Does a strength cascade down to a subject sub-division?

• Further aspects of ‘strength’:– Aggregation ‘type’? (e.g. Granular characteristics?

Passive or active collecting? Pre-formed or dynamic? Levels of ‘cohesion’?) ; Can the ‘strength elements’ of dynamic aggregations be dynamically generated?

Collection strength: Reusability

• Barriers to reusability:– Need agreement on ‘strength’ elements, how measured

and described, what their valid uses and limitations are

– Need a common subject scheme or at least a common spine for a terminology mapping (HILT; Consensus)

– A HILT2 would involve terminology mapping but ask:• Does ‘map’ need single hierarchical scheme as a ‘spine’

• Which is best long-term option – mapping or single scheme?

• Consensus still the key – service staff must be convinced

– More on HILT at next workshop

Thank you!

• g.dunsire@napier.ac.uk• d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk• http://scone.strath.ac.uk/• http://scone.strath.ac.uk/service/index.cfm• http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/rslp/model/• http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/