Create Once Use Many Times

1. Create Once Use Many Times The Clever Use of Metadata in eGovernment and eBusiness Recordkeeping Processes in Networked Environments ARC Linkage Project 2003-2005 www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg

2. Outline Proof-of-concept Prototype – First Iteration • Research question – enabling metadata interoperability • Research approach • SOA & Metadata Broker • Method • Prototype architecture • Demonstration • Outcomes of the first iteration • Key findings and challenges Directions for 2nd & 3rd iterations Time frame Feedback

3. Feedback Expert advice on: • How we have evaluated the first iteration • Outcomes of the first iteration Project Championship: • Communicating outcomes to different audiences

4. ResearchQuestion:Enabling Metadata Interoperability How can RK metadata created in one environment be reused for different purposes across different business applications and in different environments? Addressing: • Lack of integrated systems environment • Lack of supporting meta-tools to facilitate reuse

5. Example of Metadata Interoperability Business System Records Management Application Business System Gateway or Portal Archival Management Application Gateway or Portal Business System Gateway or Portal

6. Research Approach • Iteratively develop a proof-of-concept prototype that demonstrates that metadata reuse is possible • Evaluate each iteration • Demonstrate the business utility of recordkeeping metadata

7. Approaches to Interoperability • Hard wiring applications together • Database integration across applications (ERP systems) • Expensive, time-consuming, inflexible, complex, unable to cope with rate of change in business and technology, and cannot meet needs of interoperability for eGovernment and eBusiness • Interest in open standards-based component architectures to facilitate data interchange and re-use (Service Oriented Architecture)

8. SOA and Recordkeeping • Current implementations of records management applications:– • hard wired support for particular applications (e.g. TRIM and the Microsoft Office suite) • manual re-creation of recordkeeping metadata (minimal, quality issues) • many business applications creating and keeping records disconnected from official records management systems • metadata in records management and archival information systems underutilized (neglected information asset)

9. SOA Service oriented architectures to achieve flexible and sustainable system integration. Conceptualising a prototype and supporting tools as services independent of business, records management or archival applications – self contained and self describing.

10. CRKM Metadata Broker v-n Records Management Application Web Management Systems Archival Gateway Email and Desktop Applications Learning Object Portal Metadata Broker Other Portals Archival Management Application Business Information Systems

11. CRKM Metadata Broker Metadata registry Authoritative information on metadata schemas and metadata elements in human readable and machine processable forms Translation and transformation services Outgoing metadata Incoming metadata Repository Machine processable representations of metadata schemas Temporary store of metadata instances for translation and transformation

12. Method • Iterative prototyping • eGov’t Scenario based • Evaluation against criteria: • Functionality • Cost/benefit • Scalability • Flexibility • Robustness

13. eGovernment Scenario Policy Development – Recordkeeping – Publishing - Archiving Records Management Application Desktop Applications Intranet Archival Gateways Archival Management Application Learning Object Gateway Public Website Other Portals Metadata Standards – Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema, RKMSCA, AGLS, CRS, Digital Object Preservation

14. Workflow and Metadata Accumulation

15. Demonstration Scenarios: • Create a policy & capture a record • Publish the approved policy as a resource on the Web • Archive the policy

16. Metadata re-use scenario – web publishing Records Management Application Web Management Systems Archival Gateway Email and Desktop Applications Learning Object Portal Metadata Broker Other Portals Archival Management Application Business Information Systems

17. Metadata re-use scenario – archival transfer Records Management Application Web Management Systems Archival Gateway Email and Desktop Applications Learning Object Portal Metadata Broker Other Portals Archival Management Application Business Information Systems

18. Scenario Metadata Translation among diverse schemas: AGLS RKMSCA Reusing record keeping Metadata as resource discovering Metadata

19. Scenario Metadata Translation among diverse schemas: RKMSCA Policy, Email, File CRS item RKMSCA Planning File, Policy File CRS series Reusing record keeping Metadata as archival descriptive Metadata

20. Metadata Processing - XSLT XML File XML File XSLT Processor XSLT File

21. CRKM Technology Issues • XSLT - suitable approach to implement the cross walks among metadata schemas • Technology designed specifically to transform XML documents, i.e. to manipulate and process XML elements and values, generating as a result another document • Platform independent (requires XSLT processors) • Relatively faster and easier to implement

22. CRKM Technology Issues • JAXP through the DOM / SAX / Transform APIs • XALAN as the XSLT processor for Java • Free, open source and cross-platform technology available for Windows and Unix platform • Additionally it implements the W3C recommendations • Fully available in Java / C++ and builds on SAX and DOM • And finally, it comes under the Apache project

23. Interface XSLT DOM/SAX XALAN JAPX J2SE X86/UNIX/LINUX Prototype Architecture XML AGLS Policy Document XML RKMS Policy Document XML CRS Item Document

24. J-RKMS Prototype

25. Outcomes of the First Iteration • Emerging conceptualisation of the functionality of the Metadata Broker as a service(s) in a service oriented architecture. • Emerging understanding of recordkeeping in the context of a service oriented architecture. • Successful use of XML technologies providing the foundations for compliance with a service oriented architecture. • Functionality based on open and non-proprietary formats and technologies supports the case for flexibility, scalability and consequently cost/benefit. • Envisaged prototype architecture consists of an independent interface that interacts with component based services that are loosely coupled, enabling sustainability despite an evolving application or system environment.

26. Outcomes of the First Iteration • The metadata standards are not interoperable as initially assumed. • Limited functionality given the high degree of reliance of manual intervention to enable the translation of metadata values. • Identified need to move away from standards based on flat and static metadata models towards multi entity and dynamic metadata models. • Enabling metadata interoperability is contingent on the ability to manage encoding schemes that underlie the standards. • A better understanding of the scenario and limitations of the scenario that can be used to hypothesis re-engineered work processes to facilitate greater functionality.

27. Outcomes of the First Iteration • Identified the need to explore external points of authority that could be deployed within or externally to provide an exterior view of the organisation. • Fully automated reuse is an unreasonable expectation given fundamental differences between the metadata conceptual models. • Identified requirement to further develop a cost/benefit model and other criteria to evaluate the prototype.

28. Findings & Challenges • Existing metadata standards are not interoperable • Investigate value space interoperability issues • Explore the management of encoding schemes

29. Findings & Challenges • Metadata reuse is possible but sustainability is a key issue • Research case for conceptualising a Metadata Broker using a prototyping approach • Identified the need to develop the prototype within a SOA to achieve system integration

30. Findings & Challenges • Constraints of the ‘paper paradigm’ • Re-engineering processes away from the ‘paper paradigm’ and incorporate a dynamic metadata model (emerging IT21/7 national metadata standard) • Identifying requirements for mapping enterprise knowledge

31. Findings & Challenges • No concrete cost/benefit evaluation framework that can be used to assess the business case for metadata • Develop a cost/benefit model

32. Directions for further research 2nd Iteration: • Metadata Broker services – conceptualisation • Metadata Broker functionality in layers – conceptualisation • Re-engineered scenario work processes • Crosswalks between encoding schemes • Enterprise Knowledge Map – requirements • Technology requirements to automate Metadata Registry in a service oriented architecture • Further develop evaluation criteria and cost/benefit model

33. Directions for further research 3rd Iteration: • Introduce multi entity standard (emerging national standard) • Implement enterprise knowledge map • Demonstrate cross walks between encoding schemes • Implement/build automated (or semi-automated) metadata functionality • Demonstrate management of event-based metadata

34. Time Frame First Iteration May 2005 Second Iteration May – August 2005 Third Iteration September – December 2005 Demonstrator January – June 2006

35. Create Once Use Many Times Feedback & Questions