Lagoze, C.: Keeping Dublin Core simple : Cross-domain discovery or resource description? (2001)
0.00
5.565012E-4 = product of:
0.0063997637 = sum of:
0.0027776978 = product of:
0.0055553955 = sum of:
0.0055553955 = weight(_text_:1 in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0055553955 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.09595714 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0036220662 = product of:
0.0072441325 = sum of:
0.0072441325 = weight(_text_:international in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0072441325 = score(doc=1216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.09214154 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
- Abstract
- Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.
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.
- Source
- D-Lib magazine. 7(2001) no.1, xx S
