Metadata: SCHEMAS and other European projects

1
Metadata SCHEMAS and other European projects

• Michael Day
• UKOLN the UK Office for Library and Information
  Networking, University of Bath
• m.day_at_ukoln.ac.uk
• First Austrian Metadata Seminar,
• Vienna, 18 May 2001

2
Contents

• Metadata projects
• SCHEMAS project overview
• Other European metadata developments
• Dublin Core
• Subject gateways
• Structural metadata
• Preservation metadata

3
Metadata (1)
4
The SCHEMAS project

• Forum for Metadata Schema Implementers

5
Partners

• PricewaterhouseCoopers Technology Consultants
  (PwC)
• German National Research Centre for Information
  Technology (GMD)
• UK Office for Library and Information Networking,
  University of Bath (UKOLN)

6
Audience

• Who?
• Metadata schema designers
• Projects under the EUs IST programme (Multimedia
  Content and Tools) and national initiatives
• What for?
• Information, guidance and tools for the
  description of Web resources of all kinds
• Helping designers to use what is already there

7
Domains

• Industry
• Publishing and rights management
• Audio-visual production and distribution
• Cultural heritage

• Education
• Research
• Academic services
• Geospatial information
• Other (e.g. Government)

• Not just Dublin Core
• No best way of doing things

8
Needs

• General need for
• Standard methods for content description
• Multiplicity of schemas, mixing and matching
  general and specific sets
• But
• There is some duplication of effort, competition
  between standards and schemas
• Potential confusion for implementers

9
Re-use

• Why re-use existing schemas?
• Not re-inventing wheels
• Potential use of standard tools
• Higher potential interoperability
• End result
• Reduction of cost, now and in the future
• Enlarging the potential audience
• Interoperability

10
The information gap

• Metadata schemas already identified
• Over 200 implementation activities
• Around 90 standardisation activities
• Very different levels of information
• Conclusions
• Good information about schemas is badly needed
• Need for mutual understanding, hopefully leading
  to harmonisation

11
SCHEMAS provides ...

• Information provision
• Metadata Watch Reports
• Standards Framework Reports
• Guidance material
• Workshops
• Registry implementation
• Schemas, application profiles, people, projects,
  standards, tools, guidelines

12
SCHEMAS results

• Workshops
• Bath, UK, June 2000
• Bonn, Germany, November 2000
• Budapest, Hungary, May 2001
• (The Hague, Netherlands)
• http//www.schemas-forum.org/workshops/
• Metadata Watch Reports (3)
• http//www.schemas-forum.org/metadata-watch/
• Standards Framework Reports (1)
• http//www.schemas-forum.org/stds-framework/

13
SCHEMAS Registry

• Experience with prototype registry developed by
  DESIRE II project
• The registry is the place to publish metadata
  schemas
• namespace schemas
• application profile schemas
• As well as other information about schemas, e.g.
• standards, projects, people, tools, etc.

14
Thick registry
Namespace schema
App profile
Mapping
Thick Registry
Usage guide
Sample data
Software tools
Users
15
Thin registry
Namespace schema
App profile
Mapping
Sample data
Usage guide
Thin Registry
Software tools
Users
16
Registry approach

• The SCHEMAS registry will be
• a thick registry initially, with schemas
  registered at a central location
• develop into a thin registry in the future,
  with pointers to schemas on the Web
• The technical basis will be
• RDF Schemas
• EOR toolkit

17
EOR Toolkit
18
Registry functions

• Registration
• schemas from European projects and initiatives
• information and reviews from SCHEMAS domain
  correspondents
• Searching
• Finding application profiles for re-use
• Finding information and guidance

19
Application profiles

• What is an application profile?
• a schema identifying the use of elements from one
  or more namespaces in a particular application,
  with additional constraints
• What is it used for?
• To publish this information for a human audience
• To help software configure

20
Contacts

• Makx Dekkers
• mail_at_makxdekkers.com
• Rachel Heery
• r.m.heery_at_ukoln.ac.uk
• Tom Baker
• thomas.baker_at_gmd.de
• Web site
• http//www.schemas-forum.org/

21
(No Transcript)
22
An overview of European metadata projects
23
European projects

• IST projects (FP5)
• SCHEMAS Forum for Metadata Schema implementers
• Renardus Academic Subject Gateway Service Europe
• ETB The European Schools Treasury Browser
• METAe Metadata Engine
• COLLATE Collaboratory for Annotation, Indexing
  and Retrieval of Digitized Historical Archive
  Material
• COVAX ...

24

• FP4 projects
• Aquarelle
• BIBLINK
• DESIRE
• EULER (European Libraries and Electronic
  Resources in Mathematical Sciences)
• NEDLIB

25
Subject gateways

• Social Science Information Gateway
• One of the first UK gateways (1994)
• Funded as a pilot project by the ESRC
• Based at the Centre for Computing in Economics
  (now Institute of Learning and Research
  Technology), University of Bristol
• A model for the development of other gateways

26
Follett Report

• Joint Funding Councils Libraries Review Group
  (December 1993)
• JISC should fund the development of a limited
  number of top level networking tools in the UK to
  encourage the growth of local subject access
  tools and information servers
• Electronic Libraries Programme

27
eLib Programme

• Follett Implementation Group on Information
  Technology (FIGIT)
• Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib)
• 1995-2001
• Funded by Joint Information Systems Committee
  (JISC)
• 3 phases, funded 100 projects grouped together
  in various programme areas
• Programme area for Access to Networked
  Resources projects

28
eLib subject gateways (1)

• The eLib-funded projects
• ADAM - Art, Design, Architecture and Media
• Biz/ed - Business education
• EEVL - Engineering
• History (previously IHR-Info)
• OMNI - Biomedical sciences
• SOSIG - Social sciences
• ROADS - providing software and support

29
eLib subject gateways (2)

• Main functions
• Serve specific communities - usually
  subject-based
• Select Internet resources according to
  pre-defined quality criteria
• Create resource descriptions (metadata)
• Display both search and browse interfaces
• Use of subject classification schemes and
  controlled vocabularies, links to thesauri

30
ROADS project

• Resource Organisation and Discovery in
  Subject-based services
• Partners
• Department of Computer Studies, Loughborough
  University
• Institute of Learning and Research Technology
  (ILRT), University of Bristol
• UKOLN
• http//www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/roads/

31
ROADS objectives

• Main project objectives
• To develop a configurable software toolkit for
  distributed resource discovery services
• To support subject gateways (and interoperability
  between them) with other tools and guidelines
• To implement and test relevant standards
• To enable Web page authors to describe their own
  resources and supply this metadata to gateways

32
ROADS standards (1)

• Metadata format
• ROADS/IAFA templates
• A metadata format based on IAFA (Internet
  Anonymous FTP Archive) templates
• Internet-Draft
• Simple
• Text based
• Pragmatic choice

33
ROADS standards (2)

• Search protocol
• Whois search and retrieve protocol
• Internet standard (RFC)
• Simple (lightweight)
• Cross-searching across distributed services
• Query routing (centroids)

34
ROADS interoperability

• Guidelines
• Template Registry
• Cataloguing guidelines
• Metadata mappings
• IAFA templates / USMARC / Dublin Core
• Experimental Z39.50/Whois gateway
• Project involvement in wider standardisation
  initiatives
• Dublin Core
• Resource Description Framework

35
ROADS in use

• ROADS software toolkit still in use
• SOSIG
• Leeds University Library selected Web sites
• Finnish Virtual Library (FVL)
• Software still available
• Developed as an open-source software toolkit
• http//www.roads.lut.ac.uk/

36
Taking eLib forwards ...

• Towards end of eLib funding
• A recognition that gateways were useful
• ... subject gateways have embedded themselves
  into professional practice very swiftly (1997)
• A need to consider sustainability
• Most gateways are not embedded in institutions
• Most gateways operate on a project basis,
  short-term funding, research culture
• Perceived to be in competition with each other
  and with private sector suppliers

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Subject gateways

• Definition
• From Koch
• Services

40
Projects

• ROADS
• UK Electronic Libraries Programme
• DESIRE
• EELS (Engineering Electronic Library Sweden)
• DutchESS
• SSG-FI ...

41
Broker services

• Acquarelle
• EULER
• AGORA (eLib)
• RDN
• Renardus

42
RDN

• Resource Discovery Network
• Funded by the JISC
• Launched in November 1999
• Objectives
• To extend coverage to areas not covered by the
  eLib gateways
• To integrate access
• To develop subject based portals for educational
  communities
• To establish new organisational and business
  models (sustainability)

43
RDN Structure (1)

• Centre (RDNC)
• Part of JISCs DNER (Distributed National
  Distributed Resource) Office
• Roles
• Promoting and developing the network
• Establishing frameworks to ensure quality,
  consistency, and interoperability across the RDN
• Presenting gateways in various views to exploit
  their interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral value

44
RDN Structure (2)

• Hubs
• Faculty-level (higher education)
• Some based on eLib subject gateways, others newly
  established
• Made up of one or more gateways
• Catalogue resources using a variety of schema
• Offer Z39.50 targets for a central
  cross-searching service
• Maximise potential for strategic partnerships and
  commercial arrangements within subject domains

45
RDN (4)

• http//www.rdn.ac.uk/

46
RDN Hubs

• Hubs
• Biome
• PSIgate
• EEVL
• Humbul
• SOSIG

47
RDN broker service (1)

• RDN provides a central broker service that can
  access resource descriptions in all gateways
• Service currently based on Whois cross-search
• Moving to a Z39.50 based broker using the Bath
  Profile
• http//www.nlc-bnc.ca/bath/
• Experiments with new architectures
• e.g., based on sharing records through
  interoperability agreements defined by the Open
  Archives Initiative (OAI)

48
RDN broker service (2)
SOSIG
SOSIG
BIOME
RDN Broker ResourceFinder
Humbul
49
RDN interoperability

• Cataloguing guidelines
• mandatory fields, schemes and qualifiers
• Draft rules for content based on DCMES
• Minimum set includes Title, Subject,
  Description, Type, Identifier and Language.
• Shared list of types
• Ambition to provide common subject approach for
  cross-browsing
• co-operation with HILT project and Renardus

50
RDN sustainability

• RDN currently has over 20,000 manually created
  records
• 70 staff involved at about 30 UK institutions
  (many part-time)
• New hubs planned
• creative arts industries
• tourism, leisure hospitality
• environment geography
• Is the RDN model sustainable?

51
Renardus (1)

• Partners include
• http//www.renardus.org/

52
Renardus (2)
53
Renardus (3)
54
Renardus (4)
55
Other uses of metadata

• Preservation (NEDLIB, Cedars)

56
Acknowledgements

• UKOLN is funded by Resource the Council for
  Museums, Archives Libraries (the organisation
  that succeeded the Library and Information
  Commission), the Joint Information Systems
  Committee (JISC) of the UK higher and further
  education funding councils, as well as by project
  funding from the JISC and the European Union.
  UKOLN also receives support from the University
  of Bath where it is based.
• http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/