Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020742472 = product of:
  0.08296989 = sum of:
    0.08296989 = weight(_text_:data in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08296989 = score(doc=1264,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.56033987 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Defining metadata as "data about data" provokes more questions than it answers. What are the forms of the data and metadata? Can we be more specific about the manner in which the metadata is "about" the data? Are data and metadata distinguished only in the context of their relationship? Is the nature of the relationship between the datasets declarative or procedural? Can the metadata itself be described by other data? Over the past several years, we have been engaged in a number of efforts examining the role, format, composition, and architecture of metadata for networked resources. During this time, we have noticed the tendency to be led astray by comfortable, but somewhat inappropriate, models in the non-digital information environment. Rather than pursuing familiar models, there is the need for a new model that fully exploits the unique combination of computation and connectivity that characterizes the digital library. In this paper, we describe an extension of the Warwick Framework that we call Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs provide a powerful model for representing data and metadata in digital library objects. They explicitly express the relationships between networked resources, and even allow those relationships to be dynamically downloadable and executable. The DAR model is based on the following principles, which our examination of the "data about data" definition has led us to regard as axiomatic: * There is no essential distinction between data and metadata. We can only make such a distinction in terms of a particular "about" relationship. As a result, what is metadata in the context of one "about" relationship may be data in another. * There is no single "about" relationship. There are many different and important relationships between data resources. * Resources can be related without regard for their location. The connectivity in networked information architectures makes it possible to have data in one repository describe data in another repository. * The computational power of the networked information environment makes it possible to consider active or dynamic relationships between data sets. This adds considerable power to the "data about data" definition. First, data about another data set may not physically exist, but may be automatically derived. Second, the "about" relationship may be an executable object -- in a sense interpretable metadata. As will be shown, this provides useful mechanisms for handling complex metadata problems such as rights management of digital objects. The remainder of this paper describes the development and consequences of the DAR model. Section 2 reviews the Warwick Framework, which is the basis for the model described in this paper. Section 3 examines the concept of the Warwick Framework Catalog, which provides a mechanism for expressing the relationships between the packages in a Warwick Framework container. With that background established, section 4 generalizes the Warwick Framework by removing the restriction that it only contains "metadata". This allows us to consider digital library objects that are aggregations of (possibly distributed) data sets, with the relationships between the data sets expressed using a Warwick Framework Catalog. Section 5 further extends the model by describing Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs are the explicit relationships that have the potential to be executable, as alluded to earlier. Finally, section 6 describes two possible implementations of these concepts.

0.0045723324 = product of:
  0.01828933 = sum of:
    0.01828933 = weight(_text_:data in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01828933 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.123517595 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

At the time of writing, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has clarified its commitment to the simple approach. The qualification principles announced in early 2000 support the use of DC elements as the basis for simple statements about resources, rather than as the foundation for more descriptive clauses. This paper takes a critical look at some of the issues that led up to this renewed commitment to simplicity. We argue that: * There remains a compelling need for simple, "pidgin" metadata. From a technical and economic perspective, document-centric metadata, where simple string values are associated with a finite set of properties, is most appropriate for generic, cross-domain discovery queries in the Internet Commons. Such metadata is not necessarily fixed in physical records, but may be projected algorithmically from more complex metadata or from content itself. * The Dublin Core, while far from perfect from an engineering perspective, is an acceptable standard for such simple metadata. Agreements in the global information space are as much social as technical, and the process by which the Dublin Core has been developed, involving a broad cross-section of international participants, is a model for such "socially developed" standards. * Efforts to introduce complexity into Dublin Core are misguided. Complex descriptions may be necessary for some Web resources and for some purposes, such as administration, preservation, and reference linking. However, complex descriptions require more expressive data models that differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, and the like. An attempt to intermix simplicity and complexity, and the data models most appropriate for them, defeats the equally noble goals of cross-domain description and extensive resource description. * The principle of modularity suggests that metadata formats tailored for simplicity be used alongside others tailored for complexity.