1. Moving from a locally-developed data model to a standard conceptual model Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Indiana University Digital Library Program

2. I’m a practitioner. And a librarian. But I work in a department whose mission is to advance the state of the art in digital libraries, and I’m particularly interested in innovative discovery systems. Therefore, I often act as a bridge between the researcher and the implementer. August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 2

3. Libraries’ metadata focus Practical! Element sets and the records that implement them Metadata element sets tend to be defined by their encodings ▫Rarely do element sets from this community have multiple encodings ▫Rarely is there an externally defined model on which the encoding is based Only recently has this community started thinking about conceptual models August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 3

4. Some conceptual models FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 1998 report from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) CIDOC CRM: International Committee for Museum Documentation Conceptual Reference Model, ISO 21127:2006 DCMI Abstract Model, 2007 ▫“Information model” ▫At a higher level of abstraction than the first two August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 4

5. What’s the connection? Significant literature on both topics, but they rarely reference one another Should also note that the categories “element set” and “conceptual model” don’t have strict boundaries Does a metadata element set need to be explicitly based on a conceptual model? What does it even mean for an element set to conform to a conceptual model? August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 5

6. What the community has realized An element set necessarily instantiates an underlying conceptual model ▫Even if it’s not explicitly defined ▫Even if it’s internally inconsistent, or not really what was intended The conceptual model has a profound effect on what can be done with the metadata, and what can be described with it Mapping between element sets easier when they use the same conceptual model August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 6

7. DCMI leading work in this area DCMES, 1995 Warwick Framework (format-independent container architecture) and slight revisions, 1996 Introduction of qualifiers in 2000 DCMI Abstract Model ▫First draft 2004 ▫Current version June 2007 Encodings ▫Have changed over time ▫DCMI has long presented several options ▫Now will be explicitly connected to the Abstract Model Libraries should learn from this development August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 7

8. Applying these principles to Variations @ Indiana University Variations Digital Music Library in operation since 1995 ▫Streaming audio ▫Scanned scores, and a few encoded scores Work-based data model developed in 2001 ▫Defined as a human-readable data dictionary ▫Data structured as XML inside the system ▫XML Schema for Java classes to interact with not developed until 2005 Current work focused on long-term sustainability ▫Locally-developed data model is a liability ▫FRBR gaining real traction in the library community ▫It became obvious we needed a change, and one based on conformance to a standard conceptual model August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 8

9. Original Variations data model August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 9

10. Variations vs. FRBR Variations 2/3 EntityFRBR Group 1 Entity Work (more concrete than FRBR Work) Work Instantiation (can only appear on one Container) Expression Container (includes some copy-specific data) Manifestation Media Object (defined as a digital file) Item August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 10

11. Current status of our work Reports analyzing FRBR/FRAD as applied to music ▫Music-specific entity definitions ▫Attributes needed/not needed ▫Relationships needed/not needed ▫Additions to FRBR/FRAD needed Currently investigating encodings ▫No data structure from IFLA, and other library bodies haven’t stepped up ▫Internal data representation vs. export formats Pending grant application for development work to perform the switch – stay tuned! August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 11

12. Encodings under consideration (1) FRBR in RDF ▫Researcher-driven ▫No stable body behind it ▫Only covers entities and relationships, not attributes FRBRoo ▫“Harmonization” of FRBR and CIDOC/CRM ▫Limits Events to those for Group 1 entities ▫“Electronic publishing” model doesn’t include a Manifestation ▫No OWL ontology for FRBRoo yet, only for CIDOC/CRM August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 12

13. Encodings under consideration (2) Music Ontology ▫Scope considerably wider than what Variations needs ▫Lacks model for FRBR Group 3 entities DCMI/RDA Vocabularies ▫Because RDA is FRBR-based ▫But likely not close enough to FRBR for us So we may have to make our own ▫But would still export some of these other alternatives August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 13

14. Thank you! Let’s find more ways for researchers and practitioners to work together. Questions? For more information: ▫jenlrile@indiana.edu ▫These presentation slides: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/ isko2008/isko2008.ppt August 6, 2008International Society for Knowledge Organization 14