SCONE: reusability, granularity and collection strength Gordon Dunsire & Dennis Nicholson Presented 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 Name Address Town … [Key] Is Administered By [Location Key] [Agent Key] Opening Hours … [Key] Agent Name History … [Key]

Collection Level Description CollectionLocation Agent A Agent B Catalogue (Collection)

Granularity Entity (Collection, Agent, Location) Parent/Super Entity Parent/Super Entity Child/Sub Entity Child/Sub Entity

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 Collection A Collection B Collection C Location A Location C

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!