Document 7216130
Download
Report
Transcript Document 7216130
Dublin Core for Museums
Day 1
Paul Miller
UK Office for Library &
Information Networking
[email protected]
CIMI
Thomas Hofmann
John Perkins
[email protected]
[email protected]
Australian Museums OnLine
Overview for Thursday March 25
Introduction to Metadata
Introducing the Dublin Core
CIMI DC Guidelines - Dublin Core for Museums
Break
DC for museums continued...
Lunch
Practicalities of Implementing DC
Break
Introduction to MICI
What’s the Problem
?
Need to serve a Web audience
Demand for content
Uncertain quality
Expectations for rapid easy access
Need to be visible on the Web
Two million web sites
Half a billion addressable pages
Many communities with the same problem
What’s the Problem
?
Manage and organise interconnected data
Different types
Different repositories
Packages
Interoperate with other communities
Interoperate with other applications
Need a way to:
Express meanings in rich and complex data
Express the structure of our data
Encode the transfer of data
What’s the Solution ?
Communities address their own needs
Do so in a way that works across communities
Standards based
Collaborative
What is a Community?
A resource description community is
characterised by agreed semantic,
structural and syntactic conventions for
exchange of descriptive information
Libraries
MARC
Museums
AACR2
SPECTRUM
MICI
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
Communities working together
Home
Pages
Scientific
Databases
Libraries
Geo
Commerce
‘Internet
Commons’
Museums
Whatever...
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
Communities working together
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Museums
Metadata
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
What is Metadata?
Meaningless jargon
or
a fashionable term for what we’ve always done
or
“a means of turning data into information”
and
“data about data”
and
the name of a film director (‘Luc Besson’)
and
the title of a book (‘The Lord of the Flies’).
What is Metadata?
Metadata exists for almost anything
People
Places
Objects
Concepts
Databases
Web pages
What is Metadata?
Metadata fulfils three main functions:
description of resource content
“What is it?”
description of resource form
“How is it constructed?”
description of issues behind resource use
“Can I afford it?”.
What is Metadata?
Many structures have evolved at different
levels, and to meet different requirements...
MICI
For human communication we need...
Semantic
Interoperability
Standardisation of
content
“Let’s talk English”
“cat milk sat drank mat ”
Structural
Interoperability
Standardisation of
form
“Here’s how to
make a sentence”
“Cat sat on mat. Drank
milk.”
Syntactic
Interoperability
Standardisation of
expression
“These are the rules “The cat sat on the mat.
of grammar”
It drank some milk.”
Challenges
Opportunities
Many flavours of metadata
which one do I use?
Managing change
new varieties, and evolution of
existing forms
Tension between functionality and simplicity,
extensibility and interoperability
Functions, features, and cool stuff
Simplicity and interoperability
Introducing the Dublin Core
An attempt to improve resource discovery
on the Web
now adopted more broadly
Building an interdisciplinary consensus about a
core element set for resource discovery
simple and intuitive
cross–disciplinary
international
flexible.
Introducing the Dublin Core
15 elements of descriptive metadata
All elements optional
All elements repeatable
The whole is extensible
offering a starting point for semantically richer
descriptions
Interdisciplinary
libraries, museums, government, education...
International
available in 20 languages, with more on the way.
Introducing the Dublin Core
Title
Format
Creator
Identifier
Subject
Source
Description
Language
Publisher
Relation
Contributor
Coverage
Date
Rights
Type
http://purl.org/dc/
Extending DC (semantic refinement)
Improve descriptive precision by adding
sub–structure (subelements and schemes)
Element qualifier
Value qualifier
Greater precision = lesser interoperability
Should ‘dumb down’ gracefully
Creator
First Name
Affiliation
Surname
Contact Info
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
Extending DC (a modular approach)
Modular extensibility...
additional elements to support local needs
complementary packages of metadata
…but only if we get the building blocks right
Terms & Conditions
Description
Archival Management
Based on a slide by Stu Weibel
Extending DC?
DC offers a semantic framework
through use of further substructure,
meaning can often be clarified
“John”
<Creator>
<Creator>
<fore name>
“John”
John Inc. ?
John xyz ?
xyz John ?
John Inc.
John xyz
xyz John.
Extending DC?
DC offers a semantic framework
Use of domain–specific schemes greatly
increases precision
“Washington”
<Coverage>
<Coverage>
<TGN>
“Washington”
Washington State ?
Washington DC ?
Washington monument ?
Washington State
Washington DC
Washington monument
“North and Central America, United States, Washington”
http://gii.getty.edu/tgn_browser/
Dublin Core in the physical world
Dublin Core originally designed
with electronic resources in mind
Physical resources are fundamentally
different
Issues of surrogacy become more important
Genre, Type, and Format models vary greatly
Difficult to remember what is being described, and
which characteristics of the resource and its
surrogates are ‘correct’.
Introducing Physical Objects
Aspects of the real world are key
to much of what museums do
Physical objects have dimensions
23 x 46 cm
12 x 52 x 18 in
18.6 cm3
823 pages
Physical objects have a form
oil on canvas
Tadcaster limestone
stainless steel.
Introducing Physical Objects
Physical objects change over
time
constructed between AD524
and 873
repaired in AD1270
incorporated into ornamental arch in AD1320
Physical objects move
cast in Beijing
used in Shanghai
taken to Hong Kong
on display in Macau.
Introducing Physical Objects
Physical objects are associated with people
written by William Shakespeare
acquired by Lord Elgin
decreed by the Emperor Hadrian
associated with Prince Charles Edward
Stuart
Physical objects are contextualised
fired at the Battle of Trafalgar
carried on Apollo 11 from the moon
printed on the first printing press
salvaged from the Titanic.
Introducing Collections
Museum objects, whether original or
surrogate, are normally part of a
collection
Collections may be ‘real’...
the Sutton Hoo hoard
the Terracotta Warriors
...an aspect of the process by which objects enter the
museum...
the Burrell Collection
Solomon Guggenheim’s art collection
…or simply practical
coins at the British Museum
the Tate Gallery’s collection of works by Da Vinci.
Introducing Surrogacy
Many of the resources we describe are,
in reality, surrogates for something else
a photograph of King Tutankhamen’s
death mask
a photograph of a statue of
George Washington
a film of President Kennedy’s assassination
a sound recording of Neil Armstrong’s “One
small step for man…” speech on the moon
a copy of the Mona Lisa
a model of the Great Wall of China
a reproduction of the Terracotta warriors.
Issues of Surrogacy
Many of the resources we describe are,
in reality, surrogates for something else
we need to be clear whether we are
describing the resource or its surrogate
the sculptor of a statue is often not the
person who made its photographic surrogate
the model of the Forbidden City is unlikely
to have been created at the same date as
the Forbidden City itself
the format of a computer image of the Mona
Lisa (image/jpeg ?)is not the same as the
format of the original painting (oil on canvas ?).
Other Museum Issues
Museums need to describe real objects
and surrogates in a similar manner
guidelines/standards therefore need to encompass
both, despite their differences
Resource descriptions will often be drawn from
existing collection management systems in the first
instance, rather than created afresh
guidelines therefore need to respect existing practices
within established systems
There is often no ‘right’ answer
so practices need to allow for approximate dates,
multiple possible creators, etc.
Introducing the 1:1 Principle
The broader Dublin Core community is
tackling some of the problems relevant to museums
Their work on the ‘1:1 Principle’ is especially useful in
resolving museum issues over original versus
surrogate and item versus collection:
each Dublin Core ‘record’ should describe only one
resource, whether surrogate or original. Associated
resources should be linked together by means of the
Relation element in Dublin Core.
Introducing the 1:1 Principle
In a record describing a photo of the Mona
Lisa on a web page, for example…
Leonardo da Vinci is not the creator of the image
The image was not created during the Renaissance
…but you might include these as Subject terms, and
you could usefully provided a link to the record
describing the real painting via Dublin Core’s Relation
element
Equally, in describing the painting itself…
http://www.louvre.fr/…/monalisa.jpg is not the Identifier
of the painting
but you might link to this image via Relation, just to
show people what the painting looks like.
The primacy of ‘Type’
In describing museum objects,
it is often most useful to first decide what
you are describing and why, rather than
beginning with ‘who made it’ and
‘what is it called’, as is often the case with books
if you know you’re describing a surrogate of the Mona
Lisa, then you know Leonardo da Vinci is not the
Creator; whoever made the surrogate is
if you know you’re describing a collection of 20th
century paintings, then you know that Picasso,
Hockney et al are not the Creators; the collector is.
The primacy of ‘Type’
if you know you’re describing the
Sutton Hoo helmet, then the fact that
it was added to a particular museum
collection in 1939 perhaps doesn’t matter;
that information is better placed in the collection record
if you know you’re describing a natural specimen, then
perhaps it has no Creator; there may be a ‘creator’
associated with its identification or collection, though.
Dublin Core for Museums: Assumptions
In applying Dublin Core to museums, we are
making certain basic assumptions, many of
which were tested by CIMI
DC is appropriate for use in describing both physical
and digital resources
DC is easy to learn and simple to use
Information can be meaningfully and efficiently
extracted from existing museum systems in order to
populate DC records
the creation of a DC record to describe a museum
object is cost–effective, and aids the discovery of
resources more than simply allowing access to the
underlying Collection Management system might.
Practicalities of Implementing
Dublin Core
Paul Miller
Thomas Hofmann
Uk Office for Library & Information
Networking
Australian Museums On-Line
[email protected]
[email protected]
Overview
Creation and Maintenance
Harvesting and Distribution
Retrieval
Implementation Models
Case Study
Dublin Core - Refresher
15 simple elements
Focus on Resource Discovery not Resource
Description
One Dublin Core record per resource
Interoperable across communities
Can be easy populated from existing
databases
Can be formatted in XML/ RDF or HTML
When should I use Dublin Core?
You have a rich standard, need simpler one
You want to disclose your data to other
communities using commonly understood
semantics
You want to provide unified access to
databases with different underlying schemas
You need core description semantics and don’t
feel compelled to invent them anew
Considerations
Creation and Maintenance
tools
educate
Harvesting/ Distribution
tools
Retrieval
tools
consensus
interface design
Creating and Maintaining
Dublin Core Metadata
Encoding Dublin Core
HTML
Unqualified
Easy
Qualified
Overloaded Content (HTML 3.2)
Additional Attribute (HTML 4)
RDF
Based on XML
Sophisticated
More complex
Encoding Dublin Core - Unqualified
<HEAD>
<META
NAME="DC.TITLE"
CONTENT="My Web Page">
<META
NAME="DC.Subject"
CONTENT="Computers,Metadata">
</HEAD>
Encoding Dublin Core - Qualified (HTML 3.2)
<HEAD>
<META
NAME="DC.Subject"
CONTENT="(SCHEME=AAT)(LANG=EN)
Statue, Granite">
</HEAD>
Encoding Dublin Core - Qualified (HTML 4)
<HEAD>
<META
NAME="DC.Subject"
SCHEME="AAT"
LANG="EN"
CONTENT="Statue, Granite">
</HEAD>
Encoding Dublin Core - Sub-Elements
<HEAD>
<META
NAME="DC.Date.Created"
CONTENT=" (SCHEME=ISO8601)
1999-03-01">
<META
NAME="DC.Date.Modified"
SCHEME="ISO8601"
CONTENT="1999–03–25">
</HEAD>
Encoding Dublin Core - RDF
...
<?xml:namespace href="http://iso.ch/8601/" as="ISO"?>
<RDF:RDF>
<RDF:Description …>
<DC:Date>
<RDF:Description>
<ISO:date>1999–03–25</ISO:date>
</RDF:Description>
</DC:Date>
<RDF:Description>
</RDF:RDF>
Example Tool: DC Dot
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot/
Semi-automated generation of Dublin Core
Cut and past into document
Conversions to HTML, SOIF, XML, WHOIS++,
USMARC, GILS
Example Tool: DC Dot
Screenshot of http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dc-dot/
Example Tool: DC Dot
Screenshots of DC Dot output
Example Tool: Reggie
http://metadata.net
Generic creation tool for any metadata schema
published to metadata.net
Currently supports: Dublin Core in 5 languages
Syntax: HTML META tags (V3.2 and 4.0), RDF
Example Tool: Reggie
Screenshot of Reggie
Example Tool: Site Generator
http://www.dstc.edu.au/RDU/MetaWeb/
Tool which parses local web site and automatically
creates Dublin Core metadata
Syntax: HTML
JAVA based tool which requires JDK 1.1
Further Information - Creation and Maint.
Metadata Creation Tools
General METADATA PAGE AT UKOLN
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/software-tools/
METAWEB
http://www.dstc.edu.au/RDU/MetaWeb/
TagGen SE
http://www.hisoftware.com/fact_sheetcc.htm
User Guides
Official User Guide for Simple Dublin Core
http://purl.org/dc/core/documents/working_drafts/wd-guide-current.htm
CIMI Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core
Harvesting and Distributing
Dublin Core Metadata
Harvesting / Distribution
Tools
Z39.50 Gateway
Metadata Harvester
Full-text Search Engine
Resources
Indexing, harvesting tools
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/
http://www.searchtools.com/
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/software-tools/
http://www.dstc.edu.au/RDU/MetaWeb/
Z39.50
http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/z3950/resources/
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/dlis/z3950/resources/
Searching and Retrieving
Dublin Core Metadata
Retrieval
Tools
HTML - search forms
HTML - predefined queries
Z39.50 clients/ Java applets
Standalone applications
Interface design
Assist users:
-help them to understand what they are looking for
-give them an idea what terminologies you are using
-use commonly understood design language
Bringing it all together:
Implementation Models
Implementation Models
Harvesting DC into a repository (database)
Distributed Database Search
Full-text indexing with metadata extraction
Implementation Models
Harvesting DC into a repository (database)
Query
Repository
Harvester
retrieve resource
HTML
XML
Other types
Dynamic document
creation from database
Implementation Models
Distributed Database Search
Z39.50 Server
Query
Z39.50 Gateway
Z39.50 Server
Z39.50 Server
retrieve resource
Implementation Models
Full-text indexing with metadata extraction
Query
Index DB
Indexer
retrieve resource
HTML
XML
Other types
Dynamic document
creation from database
Questions before implementation
Do I really need Dublin Core?
What is my budget?
What type of resources do I want to describe?
Which encoding format for which resource?
Do I have community support?
Can I provide creation tools?
Challenges of implementing Dublin Core
Intellectual
Education of information creators
Community consensus
Resistance against sharing information
Technical
Efficient tools
Infrastructure
Economical
Automatic generation vs. manual creation
Cost of training
Cost of tools
Dublin Core for Masses?
Dublin Core for the masses
Why Dublin Core hasn’t hit the consumer market yet
No killer application
Lack of standardisation
No support in public search engines
No support in mass market applications
Non transparent applications
Inefficient handling in HTML
Further Information
Projects
Official Dublin Core web site
http://purl.oclc.org/dc/projects/index.htm
Mailing lists
Dublin Core Implementors workgroup Mailing list
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-implementors/
Case Study: AMOL
Case Study AMOL (1)
Gateway to Australian Museums and Galleries
Initial idea: One central access point for all Australian
collections
Creation of AMOL standard record for object data due to
lack of common standards
8 basic field with focus on resource discovery and easy
deployment from within existing databases
Fields: Object Title, Object Name, Creator, Description,
Item ID, KeySearchTerms, Date/DateRange, Associated
Places
Case Study AMOL (2)
AMOL search/ system architecture - current system
User queries search
engine and gets records
delivered to web browser
Mapped metadata exported
HTML documents
Legacy DB
AMOL index server
Remote web server
storing HMTL documents
Case Study AMOL (3)
Lessons Learned
Data and technology related
Lack of consistent use of controlled vocabularies, quality of
data recorded
Performance of indexing software, lack of metadata support
in public search engines
high administration efforts
Intellectual
Users have problems with “empty text box” approach
Limited information in record to see context with larger picture
General
Large institutions: bureaucratic machinery, complex collection
systems designed without interoperability in mind
Small institutions: concerned about security issues,
fear of larger institutions
Case Study AMOL (4)
New perspectives
New resource types: Information about institutions,
Images, Video, Audio, general HTML pages - goes
beyond capabilities of standard AMOL record
Need to provide easier access for users
New cross community projects require interoperable
metadata standards for cross domain searching
Strong move in Australia towards Dublin Core based
metadata schemas driven by government
Strong move towards interpretation of objects through
stories
Search Architecture and extended AMOL metadata
standard
Case Study AMOL (5)
NEW AMOL search/ system architecture
User queries search
engine and gets records
delivered to web browser
Legacy databases
AV resources
Textual resources
Information mapped
to DC based
metadata plus index
text, images
AMOL index server
Remote web server
Providing dynamic access
to ODBC databases
Case Study AMOL (6)
Future Directions
Implementation of RDF for dynamically served
databases and text style resources
Consensus of community: Metadata Forum
Further education of users: Metadata
Workshops
Creation of multi-type metadata schema
based on Dublin Core
Creation of mapping tools for easier database
implementation
Case Study AMOL (7)
Recommendations
Prepare good user guides
Run workshops and educate museum professionals
Get consensus from community
Plan with interoperability in mind
Evaluate tools and plan for future additions
Biggest Problem still remaining:
what is the benefit to the individual institution other
than being interoperable for networked resources
Dublin Core for Masses?
Dublin Core for the masses
Why Dublin Core hasn’t hit the consumer market yet
No killer application
Lack of standardisation
No support in public search engines
No support in mass market applications
Non transparent applications
Inefficient handling in HTML
Further Information
Projects
Official Dublin Core web site
http://purl.oclc.org/dc/projects/index.htm
Mailing lists
Dublin Core Implementors workgroup Mailing list
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-implementors/
http://www.cimi.org/
For Machine Communication we need..
Semantic
Interoperability
Standardisation of
content
“Let’s talk Resource
Description”
Structural
Interoperability
Standardisation of
form
“Lets use MICI”
Syntactic
Interoperability
Standardisation of “Here’s how to say it in
expression
HTML”
“Creator,
Publisher..,”
“Field # 1 Element Name
“<Meta name=
Element Name=
“….”>”