1 / 35

OAI Overview

OAI Overview. Bioinformatics Seminar ODU CS 791/891 Feb 3 2003. Michael L. Nelson Old Dominion University Norfolk Virginia, USA mln@cs.odu.edu http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/. The Rise and Fall of Distributed Searching.

nell
Download Presentation

OAI 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. OAI Overview Bioinformatics Seminar ODU CS 791/891 Feb 3 2003 Michael L. Nelson Old Dominion University Norfolk Virginia, USA mln@cs.odu.edu http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/

  2. The Rise and Fall of Distributed Searching • wholesale distributed searching, popular at the time, is attractive in theory but troublesome in practice • Davis & Lagoze, JASIS 51(3), pp. 273-80 • Powell & French, Proc 5th ACM DL, pp. 264-265 • distributed searching of N nodes still viable, but only for small values of N • NCSTRL: N > 100; bad • NTRS/NIX: N<=20; ok (but could be better)

  3. The Rise and Fall of Distributed Searching • Other problems of distributed searching (from STARTS) • source-metadata problem • how do you know which nodes to search? • query-language problem • syntax varies and drifts over time between the various nodes • rank-merging problem • how do you meaningfully merge multiple result sets? • Temptations: • centralize all functions • “everything will be done at X” • standardize on a single product • “everyone will use system Y”

  4. Universal Preprint Service • A cross-archive DL that that provides services on a collection of metadata harvested from multiple archives • based on NCSTRL+; a modified version of Dienst • support for “clustering” • support for “buckets” • Demonstrated at Santa Fe NM, October 21-22, 1999 • http://ups.cs.odu.edu/ • D-Lib Magazine, 6(2) 2000 (2 articles) • http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february00/02contents.html • UPS was soon renamed the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) http://www.openarchives.org/

  5. Data and Service Providers Even if these are done by the same DL, these are distinct roles • Data Providers • publishing into an archive • providing methods for metadata “harvesting” • provide non-technical context for sharing information also • Service Providers • harvest metadata from providers • implement user interface to data • Self-describing archives • Much of the learning about the constituent UPS archives occurred out of band…

  6. Metadata Harvesting • Move away from distributed searching • Extract metadata from various sources • Build services on local copies of metadata • data remains at remote repositories all searching, browsing, etc. performed on the metadata here user individual nodes can still support direct user interaction search for “cfd applications” local copy of metadata metadata harvested offline metadata harvested offline metadata harvested offline metadata harvested offline each node independently maintained . . .

  7. Result… OAI • http://www.openarchives.org/ • The OAI was the result of the demonstration and discussion during the Santa Fe meeting • Initial focus was on federating collections of scholarly e-print materials… • …however, interest grew and the scope and application of OAI expanded to become a generic bulk metadata transport protocol • Note: • OAI is only about metadata -- not full text! • OAI is neutral with respect to the nature of the metadata or the resources the metadata describes • read: commercial publishers have an interest in OAI too...

  8. nature experimental experimental stable Dienst verbs OAI-PMH OAI-PMH requests HTTP GET/POST HTTP GET/POST HTTP GET/POST responses XML XML XML transport HTTP HTTP HTTP unqualified Dublin Core unqualified Dublin Core metadata OAMS document like objects resources about eprints metadata harvesting metadata harvesting metadata harvesting model Santa Fe convention OAI-PMH v.1.0/1.1 OAI-PMH v.2.0

  9. Dublin Core • Dublin Core Metadata Initiative • http://www.dublincore.org/ • from 1994-1995, recognizing the need for simple, interoperable metadata for resource discovery • good overview of metadata & DC: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january01/lagoze/01lagoze.html • 15 elements (qualifiers possible)

  10. Overview of OAI Verbs archival metadata harvesting verbs most verbs take arguments: dates, sets, ids, metadata formats and resumption token (for flow control)

  11. Argument Summary

  12. Error Summary Generate badVerb on any input not matching the 6 defined verbs this is an inversion of the table in section 3.6 of the OAI-PMH specification

  13. Flow Control • ListSets, ListIdentifiers, ListRecords are all allowed to return partial responses, via a combination of: • resumptionToken – an opaque, archive-defined data string that when passed back to the archive allows the response to begin where it left off • each archive defines their own resumptionToken syntax; it may have visible semantics or not • 503 http status code – “retry after” • up to the harvester to understand this code and respect it, and up to the archive to enforce it

  14. ListRecords harvester RDBMS Records 1-100, resumptionToken=AXad31 Records 101-200, resumptionToken=pQ22-x ListRecords, resumptionToken=AXad31 ListRecords, resumptionToken=pQ22-x Records 201-277 scenario: harvesting 277 records in 3 separate 100 record “chunks” resumptionToken

  15. OAI Links & Demos • Data providers • not really meant for end-user interaction, but Suleman’s “Repository Explorer” is an excellent tool • http://purl.org/net/oai_explorer • ~100 registered data providers • http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl • many being used for internal purposes; not registered • Service providers • Arc, the first known SP harvesting from OAI data providers • http://arc.cs.odu.edu/ • ~20 registered service providers • http://www.openarchives.org/service_provider/oai_sp.htm • several more known to be in testing or creation

  16. Field of Dreams • It should be easy to be a data provider, even if it makes more work for the service provider. • if enough data providers exist, the service providers will come (DPs >> SPs) • Open-source / freely available tools • “drop-in” data providers: • industrial strength: http://www.eprints.org/ • personal size: http://kepler.cs.odu.edu/ • tools to make your existing DL a data provider: • http://www.openarchives.org/tools/tools.htm • also: OAI-implementers mailing list / mail archive! • service providers: • only bits and pieces currently publicly available...

  17. OAI Observation: Front-End Only • No input/registry mechanism • OAI harvesting protocol is always a front-end for something else • filesystem, Dienst, RDBMS, LDAP, etc. • convenient for pre-existing DLs, but does not address “new” DLs • e.g., “we want to do OAI” • Bounds the scope of OAI • responsibilities and domain of OAI are still be discussed • tension between functionality and simplicity

  18. OAI Observation: No T&C • No terms & conditions provisions in protocol • assumes all metadata has uniform access rights • how to restrict metadata to certain hosts? • introducing T&C would increase the scope of application, but at the expense of simplicity • how expensive do we want to make a “just-a-front-end protocol” ? • maybe T&C is a good application for sets?

  19. OAI Observation: No T&C • Possible to use multiple OAI servers in a DMZ-like configuration… OAI requests from trusted hosts OAI requests from arbitrary hosts Public OAI Server Private OAI Server Source database could even use a separate copy of the database…

  20. OAI Observation: No T&C • Possible to use OAI harvesting protocol in closed, restricted systems OAI 1 OAI 2 OAI 4 OAI 3 all OAI requests originate from these 4 DLs

  21. OAI Observation: Monolithic • An OAI server has no protocol-defined concept of “other” OAI servers • backups, mirrors, etc. have to be resolved outside of the scope of OAI • scope vs. complexity again • fully connected graph of DLs harvesting from each other is unnecessary • cf. web crawlers vs. “gathers” in U of Colorado’s Harvest System • 3rd party harvesting interfaces raise more T&C and data coherency issues

  22. if load > 0.05 redirect request http://blah/oai/?verb=ListIdentifiers HTTP Status Code 302 http://blah/oai/?verb=ListIdentifiers <?xml version=“1.0” encoding=“UTF-8”?> … <ListIdentifiers> … </ListIdentifiers> OAI Server buckets.dsi.internet2.edu/naca/oai/ 302 Load Balancing • Interactive users on main DL machine should not be impacted by metadata harvesting • don’t take deliveries through the front door • not part of the protocol; defined outside the protocol OAI Server harvester naca.larc.nasa.gov/oai/

  23. OAI Observation: Data Coherency • In the interest of OAI implementer simplicity, several issues are left for the service provider to interpret • what is an update vs. addition? • in the NACA OAI interface, they are reported as the same and its up to the harvesting system to figure it out • deletions? • it is currently optional for OAI systems to mark records as deleted or not… • still left to the harvester to interpret

  24. OAI Observation: Harvest Model • Frequency of harvests • all-at-once harvests? • initial harvest • resolving data coherency • frequent incremental harvests? • far more efficient for both service and data providers • Webcrawling vs. digital library models • webcrawlers: little to no a priori information about target • DLs: frequent harvesting of a small number of known targets • Realization: we know very little about how harvesting behavior… • are we optimizing for all-at-once, when incremental will be more common?

  25. Other Uses For the OAI-PMH • Assumptions: • Traditional DLs / SPs will continue on their present path of increasing sophistication • citation indexing, search results viz, personalization, recommendations, subject-based filtering, etc. • growth rates remain the same (5x DPs as SPs) • Premise: OAI-PMH is applicable to any scenario that needs to update / synchronize distributed state • Future opportunities are possible by creatively interpreting the OAI-PMH data model

  26. set-membership is item-level property resource all available metadata about David item Dublin Core metadata MARC metadata SPECTRUM metadata records OAI-PMH Data Model item = identifier record = identifier + metadata format + datestamp

  27. Typical Values • repository • collection of publications • resource • scholarly publication • item • all metadata (DC + MARC) • record • a single metadata format • datestamp • last update / addition of a record • metadata format • bibliographic metadata format • set • originating institution or subject categories

  28. Repositories… • Stretching the idea of a repository a bit: • contextually sensitive repositories • “personalization for harvesters” • communication between strangers, or communication between friends? • OAI-PMH for individual complex objects? • OAI-PMH without MySQL?! • Fedora, Multi-valent documents, buckets • tar, jar, zip, etc. files

  29. Resource • What if resource were: • computer system status • uptime, who, w, df, ps, etc. • or generalized “system” status • e.g., sports league standings • people • personnel databases • authority files for authors

  30. Item • What if item were: • software • union of versions + formats • all forms of metadata • administrative + structural • citations, annotations, reviews, etc. • data • e.g., newsfeeds and other XML expressible content • metadataPrefixes or sets could be defined to be different versions

  31. Record • What if record were: • specific software instantiations / updates • access / retrieval logs for DLs (or computer systems) • push / pull model inversion • put a harvester on the client behind a firewall, the client contacts a DP and receives “instructions” on how to submit the desired document (e.g., send email to a specified address)

  32. Datestamp • semantics of datestamp are strongly influenced by the choice of resource / item / record / metadataPrefix, but it could be used to: • signify change of set membership (e.g., workflow: item moves from “submitted” to “approved”) • change datestamp to reflect access to the DP • e.g., in conjunction with metadataPrefixes of “accessed” or “mirrored”

  33. metadataPrefix • what if metadataPrefix were: • instructions for extracting / archiving / scraping the resource • verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=extract_TIFFs • code fragments to run locally • (harvested from a trusted source!) • XSLT for other metadataPrefixes • branding container is at the repository-level, this could be record- or item-level

  34. Set • sets are already used for tunneling OAI-PMH extensions (see Suleman & Fox, D-Lib 7(12)) • other uses: • in aggregators, automatically create 1 set per baseURL • have “hidden” sets (or metadataPrefix) that have administrative or community-specific values (or triggers) • set=accessed>1000&from=2001-01-01 • set=harvestMeWithTheseARGS&until=2002-05-05&metadataPrefix=oai_marc

  35. Interesting Services • DP9 • gateway to expose repository contents in HTML suitable for web crawlers • Celestial • OAI “cache”, also 1.1 -> 2.0 converter • Static (mini-) repositories • XML files, based on OLAC work • OpenURL metadata format registries • record = metadata format

More Related