semantic metadata interoperability in digital libraries

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?

Getaneh.Alemu@port.ac.uk