D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues
description
Transcript of D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues
[D2.5] Object model and metadata: Open issues
Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009
Julie Verleyen
Open issues [1/2]
1. Objects and their surrogates
• Which types of objects?
• Which relations?
2. Object description
• How are object types described?
• How to improve ingestion of existing descriptions
surrogate model? How to improve existing
descriptions?
Open issues [2/2]
3. Other Surrogate Elements
• What kind of abstractions do we receive from content
providers?
• What kind of abstractions do we need to produce?
• How do we get use/access license info?
• Annotations
4. Required cross-domain functionalities
Europeana prototype experience
• Illustration of issues through real-world examples:
1. Types of objects
2. Relation between object types
3. Objects descriptions
4. Abstractions
5. Access/use license info
1. Types of objects
“DIGITISED OBJECTS”
• Typically: metadata describing an object which is the result of the digitisation process from all domains
•Maps•Novels•Newspapers•Videos•Paintings•Music sheets•Theses•Postcards•Photographic plates
•Historical, art, archeological, decorative items•Poems•TV programs•Audio recordings•Music instruments•Letters•Atlasses•Posters•Etc…etc…
1. Types of objects
“MIXED OBJECTS”
• Metadata related to digitised objects and physical objects are mixed
Digital Object metadata Physical Object metadata
1. Types of objects
“DIGITAL BORN OBJECT”
• Not many + Difficult to identify…
1. Types of objects
“HIERARCHICAL OBJECT”
•Case of archival material with problem of granularity
• Ex: “Archim” collection
2. Relations between objects
• At the moment: “Related items”
• Automatic terms extraction from title, description, creator, what,
when, who fields + weighting parameters new search related
items
• Not always straightforward:
• Ex: <dc:relation>
• Ex: Find the differences!!....
2. Relation between object types
3. Objects descriptions
•Schemas dealt with so far:
• dc, qdc, dc-based (tel, oai_va, …), ead, museumdat, local
(pico, ), ese
•More are available (mods, mets, other local flavours,
etc…) but were not exploited
•Metadata (fields & values) in different languages
Collect Britain
local
Scran
localIcelandic maps
dcCIMEC
ese
Maps NL Archive
ead
NO Museums
museumdat
4. Abstractions
•Footage of video, thumbnails, table of contents….? • Thumbnails (were requested)
• TOC• Ex: Hungarian Electronic Library: <dc:description>
5. Access/use license info
•Analysis of metadata: • <dc:rights> field:
• Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
5. Access/use license info
•Analysis of metadata: • <dc:rights> field:
• Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
• <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):• Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection
5. Access/use license info
•Analysis of metadata: • <dc:rights> field:
• Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
• <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):• Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection
• Multilingual challenge:• Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection
5. Access/use license info
•Analysis of metadata: • <dc:rights> field:
• Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:
• <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):• Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection
• Multilingual challenge:• Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection
•Provided info is often not enough (intellectual property doesn’t indicate access status) • Test search in the portal:
• Ex: search on “Picasso”
http://216.139.227.103/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/ZE9CA/95-024000.jpg
Picasso family rights + rights of photograph
6. Foreseen issues related to copyright
•Case of 2 images (different resolutions) of physical object provided by 2 different institutions.
• Example: :• Image of painting provided by Museum • Another image of same painting provided by
Reproduction agency
<end>
Julie Verleyen
Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009