1 / 6

Metadata vocabulary alignment: opportunities and challenges

Metadata vocabulary alignment: opportunities and challenges. Gordon Dunsire Presented to Workshop: Vocabularies and the potential for linkage, at Making metadata work, Joint Meeting of ISKO UK, IRSG and DCMI, London, England, 23 June 2014. Overview. Failure of centralized, top-down standards

sondra
Download Presentation

Metadata vocabulary alignment: opportunities and challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metadata vocabulary alignment: opportunities and challenges Gordon Dunsire Presented to Workshop: Vocabularies and the potential for linkage, at Making metadata work, Joint Meeting of ISKO UK, IRSG and DCMI, London, England, 23 June 2014

  2. Overview • Failure of centralized, top-down standards • IFLA UBC Programme • Result is a mix of long-established and new standards for resource description • Overlap considerable, and inevitable • The resource remains the same • RDF supports interoperability at finest common level of dumbness • A matter of relative granularity • Infrastructure required to maintain maps • Protocols, version control, provenance

  3. Universal Bibliographic Control KOS++ Confusing tongues? RDF FR: Functional Requirements BIBFRAME: Bibliographic Framework ISBD: International Standard Bibliographic Description Say what we mean DC: Dublin Core BibO: Bibliographic Ontology RDA: Resource Description and Access CRM: Conceptual Reference Model MARC21 schema.org UNIMARC

  4. Map of “Audience” Element sets (schema) Unconstrained versions Value vocabularies (KOS) Broader/narrower/same? rdfs:subPropertyOf “adult” schema: “audience” rdaw: “Intended audience” m21: “Target audience” frbrer: “has intended audience” isbd: “has note on use or audience” isbdu: “has note on use or audience” dct: “audience” rdau: “Intended audience” pbcore: adult MPAA: NC-17? umarc: m umarc: k BBFC: 18? m21: e “adult” “adult, general” m21: “Target audience of …” “adult, serious”

  5. Management infrastructure • What happens if an element or concept changes? • Protocol for change notification and re-mapping • Who are the parties to such a protocol? • Registry of ownership and provenance • Self-governing or third party arbitration? • How reliable is the map? • Version control? Meta-metadata? Provenance!

  6. Thank you! • gordon@gordondunsire.com

More Related