A standard for collection-level description: the RSLP Collection Description Model and Schema Collection-Level Description & NOF-digitise projects NOF-digitise

A standard for collection-level description: the RSLP Collection Description Model and

SchemaCollection-Level Description & NOF-digitise projects

NOF-digitise programme seminar,London,

22 February 2002

Pete Johnston

UKOLN, University of Bath

Bath, BA2 7AY

UKOLN is supported by:

[email protected]://www.ukoln.ac.uk/

Collection-level description & NOF-digitise projects, London, 22 Feb 2002

2

RSLP Collection Description Model and Schema

• [based on earlier presentations by Andy Powell, UKOLN]

• RSLP and the RSLP CD project• Overview of RSLP collection

description model• Overview of RSLP collection

description schema• Syntax • Implementing the RSLP schema


3

Research Support Libraries Programme

• Support for researchers– disclosure of collections– discovery of/access to collections– collaborative management of collections

• Collections in RSLP– projects describing primarily (but not exclusively)

collections of physical items– projects also describing digital catalogues (which

describe physical items) i.e. collections of metadata records

– projects creating new digital collections of collection descriptions


4

RSLP collection description project

• Project– Sept 1999 – Sept 2000– funded by RSLP, with support from OCLC– collaboration between UKOLN (Andy

Powell, Michael Day) and Michael Heaney (Oxford)

• Aims– means of consistent collection description

in RSLP– minimise duplication of effort in projects– simple, high-level, aligned with other work


5

RSLP collection description project

• Broader context– resource discovery on the Web– delivery of resources by resource

creators/owners– rather than (or as well as) by intermediary

– remote access to resources for all – (potentially…)

– emphasis on customer/user rather than provider

– user wants to work across “domains”, across physical & digital resources


6

RSLP Model

• Michael Heaney, An Analytic Model of Collections and their Catalogues

• Independent of implementation• Identifies

– Entities– Attributes/properties of entities– Relationships between entities

• Complex– “tries to get it right not make it easy”


7

RSLP Model (2)

• Functionally concerned with– finding (providing access points)– identifying (describing sufficiently well)

• Based primarily on a library and archival view of ‘collection’...

• … but applicable across wide range of collection types

– Physical or digital– All types of item– All sizes of collection


8

Content

ItemProducer

Creator

Administrator Location

RSLP Model (simplified view)

CollectionCollector

Owner


9

RSLP Model : Collection

• "an aggregation of physical and/or [digital] items“

• ...as discussed earlier!


10

RSLP Model : 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, ...


11

RSLP Model : three agents

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

• Collector – gathers items into a collection

• Owner– has legal possession of a collection

• Administrator– has responsibility for the physical or

electronic environment in which a collection is held


12

RSLP Model : three agents

• agents– initiate actions– have rights– control access

– to location– to collection

– control use– copyrights– ownership


13

External relationships

• Collection to collection– Has-Part, Has-Complement– Has-Association

• Collection to publication– Has-Publication

• Collection to collection description– Is-Described-By


14

Schema

• structured set of metadata attributes• concerned with the simple description

of subset of entities in RSLP model– Collections– Locations– Agents

– collectors– owners– administrators

• based on Dublin Core where possible


15

What RSLP 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• NOT the answer to all collection

description problems!


16

Administrator Location

Schema vs. model

Collection

Item

Content

Collector

Owner

Producer

Creator


17

Collection attributes

general attributes• title, identifier, description, strength, physical

characteristics, language, type, access control, accrual status, legal status, custodial history, note

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

time(s)

date attributes• contents date range, accumulation date

range


18

Location attributes

general attributes• name, identifier, access conditions, see also

location• postal address, postcode, country, locator


19

Agent attributes

general attributes• name, organisation, role, phone, fax, email,

agent history


20

Relation attributes

relations between collection and location• hasLocation/isLocationOf

relations between collection and agent• collector (creator), owner

relations between location and agent• administrator

relations between collections (external)• hasPart/isPartOf,

hasDescription/isDescriptionOf, hasAssociation hasPublication


21

Data entry guidelines

• Produced by RSLP CD project• Guidance for content of RSLP schema

attributes– especially “encoding schemes”– subject terminologies for CLDs?


22

XML syntax

• Collection descriptions can be encoded in XML for exchange

• Syntax uses conventions of Resource Description Framework (RDF)

– W3C recommendation for metadata on the Web

<?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/1.1/” xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/”> <dct:Collection about="urn:x-rslpcd:950783065-29150"> <dc:title> The Pitman Collection </dc:title> </dct:Collection></rdf:RDF>

<?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/1.1/” xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/”> <dct:Collection about="urn:x-rslpcd:950783065-29150"> <dc:title> The Pitman Collection </dc:title> </dct:Collection></rdf:RDF>


23

XML syntax (2)

• A single collection description record is made up of a linked set of descriptions of

– collection– location– collector(s)– owner(s)– administrator(s)

• N.B. schema and syntax are NOT a full implementation of the model


24

Collection types

• enumerated list of collection types• terms split into four areas

– type, curatorial environment, content, policy/usage

• with terms joined ‘.’s to form value• examples...• Collection.Library.Dispersed • Catalogue.Museum • Finding-Aid • Collection.Archive • Index.Internet • Catalogue.Internet.Subject

• Collection.Image


25

Extension of RSLP schema

• New “local” attributes can be added…• … but model is important, so…• Consider carefully where local

attributes added– is this an attribute of a collection?– is this an attribute of a location?– is this an attribute of a new entity?

• Consider how local attributes handled in exchanging CLDs


26

Extension of RSLP schema (2)

• e.g. RSLP CD schema says nothing about

– “administrative metadata”i.e. info about the CLD (who created/modified, when etc)

– rights information for CLD


27

Implementation

• Web-based tool–http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/rslp/tool/

– created as part of RSLP CD project– creates single collection descriptions that

conform to the model and schema– saves as XML or HTML– reloads XML for edit– also available for download


28

Implementation (2)

• Relational databases– demonstrators for download at:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/rslp/tools/

– many database implementations by RSLP projects

– mapping/exporting from other schema to RSLP CD schema

• RSLP CD schema as a “Dublin Core for collections”?


29

Implementation (3)

• Details of NOF implementation to be decided

• Projects might create CLDs locally for harvesting

• NOF might simply host central CLD database with web form for entry of project CLDs


30

Summary

• Collection as aggregate of items• Approaches to collection(-level) description• CLD as metadata

– resource discovery metadata made to be shared

• CLDs complement item-level metadata• CLDs potentially useful in wide range of

contexts– disclose collections across domains, sectors– use by human agents, software tools

• RSLP CD schema as standard for simple, generic CLDs


31

Acknowledgements

UKOLN is funded by Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, 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/

Documents

A standard for collection-level description: the RSLP Collection Description Model and Schema Collection-Level Description & NOF-digitise projects NOF-digitise