D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues

[D2.5] Object model and metadata: Open issues

Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009

Julie Verleyen

Open issues [1/2]

1. Objects and their surrogates

• Which types of objects?

• Which relations?

2. Object description

• How are object types described?

• How to improve ingestion of existing descriptions

surrogate model? How to improve existing

descriptions?

Open issues [2/2]

3. Other Surrogate Elements

• What kind of abstractions do we receive from content

providers?

• What kind of abstractions do we need to produce?

• How do we get use/access license info?

• Annotations

4. Required cross-domain functionalities

Europeana prototype experience

• Illustration of issues through real-world examples:

1. Types of objects

2. Relation between object types

3. Objects descriptions

4. Abstractions

5. Access/use license info

1. Types of objects

“DIGITISED OBJECTS”

• Typically: metadata describing an object which is the result of the digitisation process from all domains

•Maps•Novels•Newspapers•Videos•Paintings•Music sheets•Theses•Postcards•Photographic plates

•Historical, art, archeological, decorative items•Poems•TV programs•Audio recordings•Music instruments•Letters•Atlasses•Posters•Etc…etc…

1. Types of objects

“MIXED OBJECTS”

• Metadata related to digitised objects and physical objects are mixed

Digital Object metadata Physical Object metadata

1. Types of objects

“DIGITAL BORN OBJECT”

• Not many + Difficult to identify…

1. Types of objects

“HIERARCHICAL OBJECT”

•Case of archival material with problem of granularity

• Ex: “Archim” collection

2. Relations between objects

• At the moment: “Related items”

• Automatic terms extraction from title, description, creator, what,

when, who fields + weighting parameters new search related

items

• Not always straightforward:

• Ex: <dc:relation>

• Ex: Find the differences!!....

2. Relation between object types

3. Objects descriptions

•Schemas dealt with so far:

• dc, qdc, dc-based (tel, oai_va, …), ead, museumdat, local

(pico, ), ese

•More are available (mods, mets, other local flavours,

etc…) but were not exploited

•Metadata (fields & values) in different languages

Collect Britain

local

Scran

localIcelandic maps

dcCIMEC

ese

Maps NL Archive

ead

NO Museums

museumdat

4. Abstractions

•Footage of video, thumbnails, table of contents….? • Thumbnails (were requested)

• TOC• Ex: Hungarian Electronic Library: <dc:description>


•Analysis of metadata: • <dc:rights> field:

• Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:




• <setSpec> field (OAI-PMH header):• Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection





• Multilingual challenge:• Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection





• Multilingual challenge:• Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection

•Provided info is often not enough (intellectual property doesn’t indicate access status) • Test search in the portal:

• Ex: search on “Picasso”

http://216.139.227.103/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/ZE9CA/95-024000.jpg

Picasso family rights + rights of photograph

6. Foreseen issues related to copyright

•Case of 2 images (different resolutions) of physical object provided by 2 different institutions.

• Example: :• Image of painting provided by Museum • Another image of same painting provided by

Reproduction agency

<end>

Julie Verleyen

Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009

Education

D2.5 Object model and metadata: Open issues