2nd Concertation Day 18 February 2000 The Charity Centre RSLP Collection Description

2nd Concertation Day

18 February 2000

The Charity Centre

RSLP Collection Description

RSLP Collection Description - Feb 2000

2

Aims

• Update you on progress and solicit feedback...• (Model)• Schema• Tool• Data entry guidelines

• Plug any gaps in the above!• Validate the schema• Consider implementation issues


3

Overview of model

• Background• eLib Collection Description work• Summary of the RSLP model• Relation to other work

• Other collection description work• Dublin Core• Resource Description Framework


4

Background environment

• Within libraries (in particular)…• item level description widespread• little or no collection level description• existing CLD is often unstructured or

semi-structured (Web pages)...• …or limited to particular kinds of

collections - e.g. OPACs• difficult to disclose existence of collections

- e.g. The Pitman Collection at Bath


5

Project aims...

• consistent collection description across RSLP as a whole

• minimise duplicated effort across RSLP• develop collection descriptions that are

• fairly high-level• fairly simple• broadly aligned with similar work

elsewhere (e.g. Dublin Core)• demonstrate benefits of approach through

a cross-RSLP search service


6

What this schema is not!

• NOT a replacement for existing detailed collection description formats (e.g. EAD)

• NOT a replacement for MARC• NOT a replacement for Dublin Core• clearly NOT the answer to all collection

description problems!


7

eLib Collection WG

• October 1989 meeting ==> WG• Collection Description eLib supporting study• broad view of ‘collection’• simple model based on ‘collections’ and

‘services’• based on review of DC, GILS, ISAD(G),

ROADS and others• 22 attribute set (largely Dublin Core)• no syntax• some eLib deployment (Riding, AGORA)


8

RSLP Model

• more detailed model than the eLib one• largely (though not exclusively) based on

a library and archival view of ‘collection’• developed by Michael Heaney at Oxford

(with funding from OCLC)• is functionally concerned with

• finding• identifying (describing sufficiently well)


9

• deals with all types of material• not just digital• not tied to an implementation• models collections and their ‘catalogues’

• relationships between collections and their descriptions

• different kinds of descriptions• Note: the schema we have developed is

what the Model document calls a Unitary Finding Aid (UFA)

RSLP Model (2)


10

Model (simplified view)

Collection

Item

Content

Collector

Owner

Producer

Creator

Administrator Location


11

What is a collection?

"an aggregation of physical and/or electronic items"• natural objects• created objects• digital objects• substitutes for objects

– surrogates– metadata!


12

What is a location?

“the physical or digital place where a collection is held”

• physical location - e.g. a library or museum• postal address

• digital location - e.g. an online service• URL, Z39.50 target details, ...


13

What is an agent?

“a person or corporate body related to the collection or location”

• agents... • initiate actions• have rights• rights are important

• collector, owner, contributor, administrator• note: may also be what the collection is

“about”


14

Owners and administrators

• Agents can have many roles at once• Who controls access?

• access to location• access to collection

• Who controls use?• copyrights• ownership


15

Other work...

• Museums• Cornucopia (24-Hour museum)

• NPO• Register of Collection Strengths and

Preservation Status

• UK HE• RDN and DNER (JISC CCC), Archive Hub

• Dublin Core• Public libraries

• Futures Together, Full Disclosure, NOF


16

RSLP Schema

• Concerned with the description of• Collections• Locations• Agents

– collectors– owners– contributors– administrators

• Based on Dublin Core where possible


17

Model (simplified view)

Collection

Item

Content

Collector

Owner

Producer

Creator

Administrator Location


18

Collection attributes• General attributes

• title, identifier, description, strength, physical characteristics, language, type, access control, accrual status

• Subject attributes• concept(s), object(s), name(s), place(s),

time(s)

• Date attributes• contents date range, accumulation date

range


19

Location attributes

• General attributes• name, identifier, access conditions

• Location• place, locator


20

Agent attributes

• General attributes• name, organisation, phone, fax, email


21

Relation attributes

• Relations between collection and location• hasLocation/isLocationFor

• Relations between collection and agent• collector (creator), owner, contributor

• Relations between location and agent• administrator

• Relations between collections (external)• hasPart/isPartOf,

hasDescription/isDescriptionOf


22

RDF representation

• Resource Description Framework (RDF)• W3C recommendation for metadata on

the Web• resource discovery, content rating, e-

commerce, personal profiles, ...• XML syntax - tagged language• Dublin Core involvement• but…

...not huge uptake yet!


23

RDF representation (2)

• Simple “resource, property, value” model…

• …used to build complex descriptions

R1

“Pitman Collection”

R2

dc:title

cld:hasLocation

dc:title

“University of Bath

Library”


24

RDF representation (3)

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/”> <rdf:Description about="urn:x-rslpcd:950783065-29150">  <dc:title> The Pitman Collection </dc:title> </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>


25

Implementation issues

• Aim - to build a central database of RSLP collection descriptions

• Issues from our point of view...• how to create descriptions?• how to share descriptions?

• Issues from your point of view…• integration with project?


26

Creation options• use the Web-based tool

• centrally mounted service• slow?• may not integrate with workflow well?

• use project database (e.g. MS-Access or ROADS database)

• currently not possible to generate RDF from example MS-Access database

• use something else within project - export as RDF

• Issue: effort to develop mapping and conversion tools?


27

Sharing options

• exchange of records between projects and the central database

• three possible models:

1. Pull model

2. Push model

3. Centralised model


28

1. Pull model

• you create descriptions in RDF using one of the methods outlined

• you store them somewhere on your Web-site• you tell us the URL of the place where you

are storing them• we gather them into the central database

using a Web-robot• easy… flexible…• manual notification of updates not required


29

2. Push model

• You create descriptions in RDF using one of the methods outlined

• You store them locally• You email them to us (on creation or

update)• We store them in the central database• easy… flexible…• manual notification of updates required


30

3. Centralised model

• You create descriptions using the Web-based tool

• descriptions are entered directly into the database

• no need to store descriptions locally at your site

• central development required• access control and maintenance

becomes harder


31

Search demonstrator

• Central database based on one or more of the sharing options (1 and/or 2 preferred!)

• Searchable by• collection title• location name• subject (topic, object, agent, place, time)• type• everything (full-text)! ??

Documents

2nd Concertation Day 18 February 2000 The Charity Centre RSLP Collection Description