Presentation on theme: "DC2001, Tokyo DCMI Registry : Background and demonstration DC2001 Tokyo October 2001 Rachel Heery, UKOLN, University of Bath Harry Wagner, OCLC"— Presentation transcript:
DC2001, Tokyo DCMI Registry : Background and demonstration DC2001 Tokyo October 2001 Rachel Heery, UKOLN, University of Bath Harry Wagner, OCLC email@example.com http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org www.dublincore.org
DC2001, Tokyo DCMI Registry WG Chartered post-DC7 Frankfurt - late 1999 Working Group has had two aspects defining functionality of registry seeking software solution First prototype DC8 Ottawa - 2000 Further work on functionality, software what content?
DC2001, Tokyo Definitions... Schema Names terms in a particular vocabulary (element set) Declares definitions for a particular vocabulary Expresses structure and relationship between terms Can be expressed in different syntaxes RDFS, XMLS, HTML, Word document etc
DC2001, Tokyo Definitions.. Schema Registry Provides access to schema declaration and adds value in some way. Examples of added value might be : Ease of navigation Access to several related schemas Mapping between schemas Quality control (e.g. ISO11179 compliance)
DC2001, Tokyo Prototype schema registries Meta-Form http://www2.sub.uni-goettingen.de – - local usage of Dublin Core Metadata for Education Group registry http://desire.ukoln.ac.uk/registry/ - schemas related to education SCHEMAS registry http://www.schemas-forum.org/ - application profiles and related metadata activity reports ….. DCMI registry
DC2001, Tokyo Who uses a registry? People Publishers of standards Implementers seeking appropriate schemas Developers comparing schemas Metadata creators for assistance Functions Search for schemas, elements Browse and navigate schemas View annotations etc evaluate
DC2001, Tokyo Who uses registries? Software tools Metadata instance editor Metadata instance validator Metadata transformation tool Application profile development tool … etc! Functions Identify terms Retrieve definitions of terms Retrieve usage recommendations (e.g. recommended schemes) Perform mappings
DC2001, Tokyo Purpose of DCMI registry? Assisting DCMI To manage evolution of DCMI vocabulary To provide authoritative names and identifiers for terms To provide authoritative definitions To express relationship between terms To manage multilingual aspects of the vocabulary … in machine readable and human readable mode
DC2001, Tokyo User categories Information seekers : looking for up to date information on the semantics of DCMI terms Computer specialists : developers using RDF/XML Applications : software using the registry Administrators : who may add, edit and delete entries
DC2001, Tokyo Some design principles Registry will give user full information at level of individual terms, schema, and full vocabulary – Semantics – Structure of DCMI vocabulary –DCMI elements –DCMI qualifiers - element refinements and schemes –DCMI controlled vocabulary(s) - dcmitype – ISO 11179 full descriptions as in reference documents
DC2001, Tokyo Details of DCMI schemas Infused by the three RDFS schemas which express DCMI vocabulary http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ –Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 http://purl.org/dc/terms/ –all otherDCMI elements and DCMI qualifiers http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/ – DCMI Type Vocabulary
DC2001, Tokyo For each term Name Identifier Registration Authority Language Definition Obligation Datatype Maximum Occurrence Comment Class Relation to other terms Version Status …...
DC2001, Tokyo Phase 1 requirements Browse all terms elements element refinements encoding schemes controlled vocabularies Search string to match terms string within description, definition or comment Display full summary
DC2001, Tokyo Phase 1 additional requirements Multilingual Manage translations of definitions Translate user interface Why? Currently DC term definitions have several languages in translation Need to manage translations To promote their use
DC2001, Tokyo Choice of display mode Provide simple interface replacing RDFS jargon with more accessible terms – Retain choice of RDFS style interface too Ensure DCMI grammar is reflected in simple interface e.g. –use schemes instead of sub-classes –use elements instead of properies –use element refinements instead of sub- properties
DC2001, Tokyo Details of prototypes Prototype 1 Based on EOR software Full indexing Toolkit RDF model pervasive in software Heavyweight Prototype 2 Based on parser approach Shallow functionality Lightweight
DC2001, Tokyo Issues Use of RDFS reveals tension – standard schema language contributes to interoperability – building block for semantic web – but immature technology, bits missing Need for clarity of expression within schema(s) –structure and relations between terms – level of detail in schemas
DC2001, Tokyo Phase 2 requirements Suggestions…. Include application profiles –raises issues of scope, what profiles are in scope? How to deal with non-DCMI terms? Facilitate approval process – proposed, recommended, under review – enable proposers to submit terms for approval Integrate information from usage guidelines Mappings
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.