Metadata Interoperability Assignment 5 LIS 688-04 Dr. Fatih Oguz Brandon Lewter
Transcript
1. Metadata Interoperability Assignment 5 LIS 688-04 Dr. Fatih
Oguz
2. a qualitative property of metadata information objects
thatenables systems and applications to work with or use these
objects across system boundaries
3. Interoperability is the ability of metadata standards to
communicate with other metadata standards
4. To prevent inaccuracies when sharing metadata.
5. - Controlled vocabulary- Heterogeneities (structural and
semantic)
6. Should be consistent and from a standard set of terms
7. These differences occur because of inconsistency between
standard models. For example, the differences that may occur
between a schema thats created to describe a digital image and a
schema designed to describe a book.
8. These differences occur because of an inconsistency between
schema definition languages or the interpretation of the items
themselves.For example, one standard may have an element field
labeled creator where as another may use author to mean the same
thing.
9. Metadata Interoperability between MARC and FRBR
10. - MARC, or Machine-Readable Cataloging, is inherently
linear in structure- FRBR, or Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records, was created to overcome the limits of MARC
with its non-linear approach
11. Seungmin Lee and Elin Jacob set out to make MARC andFRBR
interoperable.This was a challenge because of the inherent
differences instructure between the two standards.
12. - Didnt focus on element names- Focused and categorized the
elements based on their attributes and entities- Categorized into
four groups: exact matching, analogous matching, partial matching,
and non-matching- Within those four categories they identified four
groups: main class, class, subclass, and instance
13. - Finally they used the new categories to form a new
structure based on the semantic relationships they identified.-
This left them with seven core categories that can be mapped
between both standards: author, title, subject, description,
identifier, publication, and format- The end result is a standard
that can represent both single-layer and hierarchical structures,
i.e. interoperability between the two standards.
14. - Interoperability can save time- Controlled vocabularies
are important and should be chosen wisely- A metadata standard that
would be suitable for all items would be ideal, but is unlikely-
Interoperability should be of high importance when creating new
metadata standards
15. ReferencesHaslhofer, B., & Klas, W. (2010). A Survey of
Techniques for Achieving Metadata Interoperability. ACM Computing
Surveys, 42(2), 7.Hedden, H. (2009). Reviews. Metadata for digital
resources: implementation, systems design and interoperability. Key
Words, 17(1), 3334.Hodge, G. (2008). Toward interoperability: a
report from the 11th Open Forum on Metadata Registries and related
standards. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
& Technology, 35(1), 2530.Jung-ran Park, & Tosaka, Y.
(2010). Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and
Collections: Schemata, Selection Criteria, and Interoperability..
Information Technology & Libraries, 29(3), 104116.
doi:ArticleSeungmin Lee, & Jacob, E. K. (2011). An Integrated
Approach to Metadata Interoperability: Construction of a Conceptual
Structure between MARC and FRBR. Library Resources & Technical
Services, 55(1), 17.Zeng, M. L., & Qin, J. (2004). Metadata.
New York: Neal-Shuman Publishers, Inc. doi:ISBN
978-1-55570-635-7