1 / 19

The Vocabulary Mapping Framework matrix: background ... and application

The Vocabulary Mapping Framework matrix: background ... and application. Gordon Dunsire Presented to the Vocabulary Mapping Framework seminar 9 Nov 2009, British Library, London. Vocabulary Mapping Framework. Funded by UK’s Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Only first stage funded

marge
Download Presentation

The Vocabulary Mapping Framework matrix: background ... and application

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. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework matrix: background ... and application Gordon Dunsire Presented to the Vocabulary Mapping Framework seminar 9 Nov 2009, British Library, London

  2. Vocabulary Mapping Framework • Funded by UK’s Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) • Only first stage funded • Major expansion of the RDA/ONIX framework • To create a tool to support the automated mapping of vocabularies from metadata standards of use to the JISC community • Research, teaching, learning • Project conducted during second half of 2009

  3. A starting point: RDA outreach • RDA outreach to other communities • RDA/ONIX framework • DCMI (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative) RDA Task Group • Members from Dublin Core, IEEE-Learning Object Metadata, RDA, and W3C communities • Expressing RDA element set and value vocabularies in Resource Description Framework (RDF)

  4. RDA alignment • RDA alignment with recent metadata models developed by IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) • Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) • Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) • Statement of International Cataloguing Principles • Stimulated IFLA project to develop RDF representation of FRBR • Expected end of 2009

  5. IFLA 2009 • Further discussion at IFLA’s World Library and Information Congress 2009 (Milan, Italy) • Study group to consider RDF/XML representation of International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) • Model underpinning many national cataloguing schema, including MARC21 • Task group to consider general support for RDF/XML namespaces for IFLA “standards” • Consolidation of “FR” family of models, including Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) when finalised (2010+)

  6. Linked data (2009, mostly) • Increasing presence of “expert” metadata in the linked data pool • Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) • With relators to Rameau (French subject heading scheme) terms • Top-level Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) notations and captions (1000+) • In 9 languages • Top-level Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) notations and captions real soon now

  7. Opportunities and possibilities • If metadata schema (MARC21, UNIMARC, RDA, ISBD) in RDF • Then easier to parse instance data (catalogue records) into RDF • If very large quantities of legacy instance data available in RDF • Then latent associations (relationships) can be identified using statistical inferencing • E.g. Mapping of DDC notations to LCSH (WebDewey) • If critical mass of rich (diverse) RDF triples • Then utility of Semantic Web increases

  8. Threats and vulnerabilities • Redundancy • Same relationship/property expressed multiple times in multiple ways makes inferencing more complex • Gaps • Relationship/property not expressed at all so classes/entities remain isolated • Authority and authenticity • Who says this? Professional expert, end-user, machine? • Currency and version • When was this said? Is it deprecated?

  9. VMF requirements • Scalable and extensible to accommodate new and changing vocabularies • Flexible to allow engagement by different communities in various stages of vocabulary development and mapping • Non-prescriptive to encourage uptake • And allow use beyond VMF (and RDF) environment • ... Goto: How the VMF matrix works / Godfrey Rust

  10. Applications • Metadata cross-walks • Between different vocabularies • E.g. Publisher metadata (ONIX) and library metadata (RDA) • Mapping of local, bespoke metadata schemes • From local scheme to global framework • Local metadata often specialised, specific, and unique

  11. Application: Complex term mapping • Different domains may have very different views on resource categorization and identification • E.g. Institutional repositories may distinguish draft versions of scholarly articles while publishers need only “see” the final version • Conversely, publishers may distinguish the components of a monograph for rights assignment (text, illustrations, binding, etc.), while libraries want to treat it as a single resource • Good relator mappings can improve metadata exchange across differing granularities

  12. Translations • Translation of the VMF matrix is unnecessary • Intended for machine use only • Several ways of handling translations of mapped vocabularies • Declare translations within the term (@en, @de, etc.) • Same term URI already mapped to VMF • Declare translations as a separate vocabulary • Then map term URIs to original vocabulary • Original URIs already mapped to VMF • Or map term URIs directly to VMF

  13. Modes of use • RDF properties/relators vs Roles • Role (contextual): writer • Property/Relator pair: writes; isWrittenBy • Formal vs Remote vs Informal • Term mapping contained within “official” version of the VMF • Time  Authenticity  Reliability  Utility  • Term mapped to term within official version • Time  Authenticity ? Reliability ? Utility  • Copy of VMF • Time  Authenticity ? Reliability  Utility ?

  14. Concept family • Accommodates terms for roles, bi-directional relator pairs, uni-directional relators (properties), classes and attributes • FRBR class “Choreography” • vmf:ChoreographedDance • RDA role “choreographer” • vmf:ChoreographedDance_DanceChoreographer • RDA/ONIX attribute “language” • vmf:LexicalWork • DDEX role “Author” • Vmf:LexicalWork_Writer

  15. Roles vs relators • Vocabularies of role terms are popular • DDEX, MARC, ONIX, RDA ... • Role definitions can be extracted from VMF • Hub (vmf) and spoke (mapped) • From a local copy • May aid development of role vocabularies by other communities • With possible subsequent incorporation in VMF • (VMF as guidance on good (shared) practice)

  16. Identification • VMF namespace URI for every mapped vocabulary term • Linked to published (scheme) URI for term • Scheme URI to be used as external referent • VMF is a black box • If term not mapped within VMF • Add to VMF • Forces review of internal VMF mappings • If no scheme URI, use VMF URI as referent? • Map to term already mapped within VMF • owl:equivalentClass; owl:equivalentProperty • Nature of equivalence?

  17. Sticking to VMF VMF

  18. Semantic (fractal) soup?

  19. Thank you • Questions?

More Related