1 / 22

Dublin Core Collection Application Profile Task group

Dublin Core Collection Application Profile Task group. Dublin Core Conference 2007, Singapour. muriel.foulonneau@ccsd.cnrs.fr. Members. Leads: Sarah L. Shreeves/Muriel Foulonneau Ann Apps Douglas Campbell Ann Chapman Gordon Dunsire Tom Habing Pete Johnston John Phipps

sopoline-vance
Download Presentation

Dublin Core Collection Application Profile Task group

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. Dublin Core Collection Application Profile Task group Dublin Core Conference 2007,Singapour muriel.foulonneau@ccsd.cnrs.fr

  2. Members • Leads: Sarah L. Shreeves/Muriel Foulonneau • Ann Apps • Douglas Campbell • Ann Chapman • Gordon Dunsire • Tom Habing • Pete Johnston • John Phipps • Theo van Veen • Juha Hakala

  3. DCCAP Approval in March 2007 • Comments • cld:isLocatedAt is a sub-property of dc:Relation: when dumbing down the AP to DC, it may not make sense • Cld:isLocatedAt vs cld:isAccessedVia vs dc:Identifier: traditional use of dc:Identifier to indicate the location. This could raise confusion, especially for physical vs digital collections • Usage of « metadata records » in the library –world meaning, instead of in the larger DCAM meaning

  4. NISO MetaSearch Initiative • NISO Standards Committee BB (Task Group 2): Collection & Service Descriptions developed a draft specification for collection description (see NISO Z39.91-200x, Collection Description Specification http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-91-DSFTU.pdf • is meant to be used by vendors, libraries, archives, and other organizations who are providing access to collections through metasearch applications such as Z39.50, SRU, and the NISO Metasearch XML Gateway Protocol • Objective is to align with the current version of the DCCAP

  5. What we have to do • the NISO set is very similar to the August 2005 DC Collection Description • Mandatory elements not necessarily the same • Specificities: • Completeness • XML bindings • Terminologies

  6. Future • Correct (small) inconsistencies found in DC Collections Application Profile (Oct 2007) - Sarah and Muriel • Consider Usage Board's comments in their review (Oct 2007) - Task Group • Complete alignment of the NISO Collection Description Standard with the DC Collections Application Profile (Oct 2007) - Sarah, Muriel, and Juha • Assess and align current DC Collections Application Profile with current version of Abstract Model and ongoing work on Description Set Profiles. (DC 2008) Task Group • Alignment with the current Abstract Model by the spring Usage Board meeting • Alignment with the work on Description set profiles by DC2008

  7. Virtual Collections for researchers The HAL archive and The Digital Repositories Infrastructure Vision for EuropeanResearch Dublin Core Conference 2007,Singapour muriel.foulonneau@ccsd.cnrs.fr

  8. The HAL platform

  9. INRIA HAL-SHS Deposit portals OTHER UNIV domain-dependent INRA generic institutional typological HAL TEL EXPORTS IMPORTS XML, WS haL OAI-PMH REDIF RSS Etc. Domain-specific metadata Institutional metadata Common metadata Multiple portals, multiple deposit interfaces

  10. The HAL platform hosts various portals

  11. Virtual collections in HAL • The difference with portals: • The same metadata set • the same deposit interface • Criteria for creating collections? • Laboratories/Institutions • Congresses • Project • BUT for display only • Browsing • Customizing interface

  12. A collection in HAL Stamps document 08/16/2007

  13. The DRIVER project • Objectives: • The design of an infrastructure for digital repositories • Proof of concept : National networks of institutional repositories • Partners • University of Athens (Gr) • University of Bielefeld (Ger) • CNR (It) • SURF (NL) • University of Nottingham (UK) • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Fr) • University of Bath (UK) • University de Warsaw (Pol) • University of Ghent (Be) • University of Göttingen (Ger)

  14. 5 National networks • From 5 countries with different IR networks history • UK : SHERPA • Belgium : under construction • Netherlands : DAREnet • Germany : DINI • France : Archives-Ouvertes

  15. An infrastructure to connect « digital repositories » • Distributed • OAI-PMH, including DC-based guidelines • Service oriented architecture (SOA) • To facilitate the creation of services • For access, customization etc (eg. The DRIVER demonstrator) • To support research communities

  16. The distributed architecture (SOA)

  17. The demonstrator: a portal with collections

  18. A DRIVER collection

  19. Internal description of a virtual collection

  20. Also relations between collections + for a service

  21. Problem: how do you share collection structure? • In HAL, OAI sets • But does not share set description : OAI sets are metadata collections (see DLF Forum Spring 2006 presentation M. Foulonneau, C. Arms, S. L. Shreeves) • Membership through the OAI infrastructure • DRIVER guidelines include OAI sets by service provider • Textual content in open access • Need to build a Web service access • But in DRIVER, membership is not an item property • Registries such as OpenDOAR are based on repository description

  22. References • HALhttp://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr • DRIVERprojecthttp://www.driver-repository.eu/ • An article on HAL and DRIVER : The repository jigsaw http://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=128 muriel.foulonneau@ccsd.cnrs.fr

More Related