semantic metadata interoperability in digital libraries
TRANSCRIPT
Getaneh Alemu
Penny Ross
Brett Stevens
A Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach to
Semantic Metadata Interoperabilityin
Digital Libraries
The 3rd Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference, Athens, Greece
24th-27th May 2011
BACKGROUND
• Describes, explains, locates, collocates
• Facilitates retrieval, use, management
(Chan & Zeng, 2006; Day, 2003a, 2003b; Duval, Hodgins, Sutton, & Weibel, 2002; Nilsson, 2010; NISO, 2004; Weinberger, 2007)
BACKGROUND
THE IRONY ABOUT STANDARDS
http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/meta/english/metamap.html
METADATA INTEROPERABILITY
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html
METADATA INTEROPERABILITY
• Sharing semantically compatible information
• Managing in semantically compatible ways
• Enabling users to perform desired tasks
(Rothenberg, 2008)
CAUSES OF INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS
•Naming
• Identification
• Constraints
•Terminological
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/apple/clusters/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adam-mange.jpg
(Haslhofer & Klas, 2010)
CAUSES OF INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS
ARBITRARINESS IN „OBJECTIVE‟ SYSTEMS
Dewey Decimal Classification
INTEROPERABILITY LEVELS
Based on (Haslhofer & Klas, 2010)
INTEROPERABILITY SOLUTIONS
USING SINGLE STANDARD
• Very good for technical interoperability
• Good for structural interoperability
• Not feasible for semantic interoperability
METADATA MAPPING
(Based on Chan & Zeng, 2006)
• Deriving lighter schema from a complex one
Problem: Retains the requirements of the original schema
SCHEMA DERIVATION
MODS MARC-
Lite
MARC-
XML
(Chan & Zeng, 2006)
APPLICATION PROFILES
• Mix and match solution
• Reusing metadata elements
• Schema level solution
• Requires to adopt specifications of original schema
(Baker, Dekkers, Heery, Patel, & Salokhe, 2008; Chan & Zeng, 2006; Heery & Patel, 2000; Hillmann & Phipps, 2007)
• Publishing/exposing metadata schemas
• Schema level solution
• Does not deal with metadata values
METADATA REGISTRIES
(Chan & Zeng, 2006)
XML
http://www.futerra.co.uk/blog/336
SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES
• RDF
• RDFS
• OWL
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What are the views and experiences of LIS researchers, librarians
and users in using metadata?
• What solutions do they consider practical for facilitating information
exchange, information sharing, and data integration?
• How much useful do they consider top-down vs bottom up
approaches and Semantic Web and Web 2.0 technologies in relation
to semantic metadata interoperability?
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Crotty, 1998, p. 42)
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD
• Glaserian
• Straussian
• Constructivist
( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 2001; Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD FOR SEMANTIC
INTEROPERABILITY
• Scant use of theories in LIS
• Semantic interoperability is a qualitative concern
(Andersen & Skouvig, 2006; Floridi, 2000; Hjorland, 2000; Allan, 2007; Lehmann, 2010; Haslhofer & Klas, 2010, p.17)
DATA COLLECTION
• Unstructured, in-depth interviews
• Three categories of participants
• Choice of Research Site (Phase-I study)
• 2 lecturers, 1 PhD researcher and 8 MSc students
DATA ANALYSIS USING NVIVO 8
Metadata simplicity versus complexity
PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS FROM PHRASE-I
http://www.arkshelving.com/Picsed/pages/SOUTH%20COUNTRY%20OPAC_jpg.htm
ASSUMPTION OF USER KNOWLEDGE
PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS: OPAC
“OPAC is the biggest innovation for libraries that ever happened” participant
THE PROBLEMS
• By their very nature, cultural information objects convey different meanings for
diverse user groups, and hence, can be interpreted variously
• Human beings are highly unlikely to agree on a singular, top-down and
hierarchical classification of objects
• Unfortunately, most current standards tend to adhere to what is known as the
ontologically and objectively true viewpoint which substantially fails to capture
and represent local and/or regional perspectives and interpretations.
“The way Asians describe Asian art is quite different from the way a Westerner does.”
participant
CONCLUSION
Due to the very nature of the diversity inherent in institutional
and cultural interpretations as well as differences in the usage of
terms in metadata vocabularies, semantic metadata
interoperability issues can better be addressed by adopting a
social constructivist philosophical approach and by utilising a
constructivist grounded theory methodology.
Thank You!Questions?