1 / 17

ADN Framework Overview

ADN Framework Overview. A Collaboration of ADEPT, DLESE and NASA (2002 Nov. 7). Meeting Purpose. Take steps toward a draft version of ADN item-level metadata. If there are missing parts, the plug-n-play concept of ADN can be used to develop new category schema that can be plugged in later.

haley
Download Presentation

ADN Framework Overview

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. ADN Framework Overview A Collaboration of ADEPT, DLESE and NASA (2002 Nov. 7)

  2. Meeting Purpose • Take steps toward a draft version of ADN item-level metadata. • If there are missing parts, the plug-n-play concept of ADN can be used to develop new category schema that can be plugged in later.

  3. Framework Purpose Capture resource information in a structured format for discovery emphasizing: • Plug-n-play vocabs and framework components • Enforcement of vocabs and required metadata • Geospatial, time, educational standards, concepts • The ability to handle offline resources • The use of XML schemas for OAI interoperability with NSDL

  4. Constructing the Framework • Use the main categories from IMS (e.g. general, lifecycle, metaMetadata etc.) • Add other categories to account for time and geospatial components • Each main category is an XML framework schema • Each vocabulary is an XML schema (NOTE: plug-n-play feature of the framework and vocab schemas is used by in other DLESE frameworks… e.g. our news and opportunities framework uses the general and metaMetadata sections)

  5. The XML of the Framework • 1 overarching schema: record.xsd calls • general.xsd (mandatory) • lifecycle.xsd (optional) • metaMetadata.xsd (mandatory) • technical.xsd (mandatory) • educational.xsd (mandatory) • rights.xsd (mandatory) • relations.xsd (optional) • geospatial.xsd (optional) • temporal.xsd (optional) • space.xsd (optional) • commonfields.xsd (does not appear; used by the above schemas)

  6. XML Schema Development 1 • Namespaces • Use chameleon approach • Means only record.xsd has an explicit target namespace. • Other schemas use the namespace of any schema that calls them. • Root element • Is <itemRecord> and is ADNmetadataType

  7. XML Schema Development 2 • Approach • Uses the Venetian Blind approach… means… • Fields are defined as built-in, complex or simple types (facilitates for re-use) • Elements occuring more than once use wrapper tags (<keyword> is wrapped by <keywords>) • Elements and Attributes • Schema elements are generally ADN fields • Attributes are used for required additional information or if two bits of info. are required

  8. XML Schema Development 3 • Vocabularies • Hierarchal controlled vocabularies appear in an element as a colon separated “restricted” text • Some elements have default vocabs • commonfields.xsd • Used when metadata fields (elements or attributes) appear in multiple schemas. • For example, title is used in general.xsd and relations.xsd. Thus, title is defined in commonfields.xsd

  9. Use Concepts 1 • Required metadata w/o contr. vocabs • Element must appear even if content is null • Required metadata with contr. vocabs • Element must appear with a vocab choice OR • Values like MISSING, NOTAPPLICABLE or UKNOWN should be present • The tag cannot be empty

  10. Use Concepts 2 • Non-required metadata with contr vocabs • Element only appears if it has content • The content must be from the controlled vocab • MISSING etc. is not allowed • <bbVert> is not required. But if vertical info, is entered then <vertBase> becomes required • Non-required metadata w/o a contr vocab • Element only appears if it has content • Generic description field for all categories

  11. Fields: <general> tag set • Subjects: Required metadata from vocabs • Keywords: Non-required, free text terms or short phrases • Concepts: Non-required metadata from vocabs • MoreInfoIDs: Non-required metadata that use a ID # and a URL to reference terms and short phrases • Simple Place & Time: defer to geospatial

  12. Fields: <lifecycle> tag set • Person info • Name (first, last, middle) • Institutional name and department • Primary and alternate email • Reference number (if one) to an LDAP directory • Organization info • Institutional name and department • Institutional URL or generic email • Reference number (if one) to an LDAP directory

  13. Fields: <technical> tag set • Online • Primary url and mirror urls • Medium (mime type) • Size, Duration • Browser and other requirements • Offline • Description • Access information • Object type (rock, book, videotape)

  14. Fields: <educational> tag set • Expanded audience • Uses GEM vocabs (toolFor, beneficiary, teaching methods) • Educational standards (content, process, and teaching) that are from NSES, NCGE, NCTM • Interactivity level and type • Old learning context is now gradeRange • Audience repeats while gradeRange is the only required audience field

  15. Fields: <geospatial…> tag set • 1 big bounding box with multiple det. geos as discussed Jan to Jun 2001 • Made XML implementation adjustments • Made place and event separate • Added projection type (used in qualified DC which NSDL will use) • Added simple place and event when bounding box coordinates are unknown

  16. Fields <temporal> tag set • Completely independent of geospatial • 1 time allowed with multiple period names • Choose between • timeAD - 2002-11-07 • timeBC - 2500 • timePast - 30 days ago, 100 million years ago

  17. Summary Questions • What’s missing? • Is the serialization of vocabs okay? • How should we proceed on ADN collection level metadata? • How and should we agree on vocab terms?

More Related