Bernhard Haslhofer
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Achieving uniform access to media objects in heterogeneous media repositories requires dealing with the problem of metadata interoperability. Currently there exist many interoperability techniques, with quite varying potential for resolving the structural and semantic heterogeneities that can exist between metadata stored in distinct repositories. Besides giving a general overview of the field of metadata interoperability, we provide a categorization of existing interoperability techniques, describe their characteristics, and compare their quality by analyzing their potential for resolving various types of heterogeneities. Based on our work, domain experts and technicians get an overview and categorization of existing metadata interoperability techniques and can select the appropriate approach for their specific metadata integration scenarios. Our analysis explicitly shows that metadata mapping is the appropriate technique in integration scenarios where an agreement on a certain metadata standard is not possible.
- ADL. 2007. Sharable Content Reference Model (SCORM). Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL). http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/index.aspx.Google Scholar
- ALCTS CC:DA. 2000. Task force on metadata: Final report. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS). http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/tf-meta6.html.Google Scholar
- Allinson, J., Johnston, P., and Powell, A. 2007. A Dublin Core application profile for scholarly works. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue50/allinson-et-al/.Google Scholar
- Ambler, S. 2003. Agile Database Techniques: Effective Strategies for the Agile Software Developer. Wiley, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arms, W. Y. 2000. Digital Libraries. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Atay, M., Chebotko, A., Liu, D., Lu, S., and Fotouhi, F. 2007. Efficient schema-based XML to-relational data mapping. Inform. Syst. 32, 3, 458--476. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. F. 2003. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baker, T., Blanchi, C., Brickley, D., Duval, E., Heery, R., Johnston, P., Kalinichenko, L., Neuroth, H., and Sugimoto, S. 2002. Principles of metadata registries. White paper, DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries.Google Scholar
- Baker, T., Dekkers, M., Heery, R., Patel, M., and Salokhe, G. 2001. What terms does your metadata use? Application profiles as machine-understandable narratives. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. National Institute of Informatics, 151--159. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benitez, A. B., Zhong, D., Chang, S.-F., and Smith, J. R. 2001. MPEG-7 MDS content description tools and applications. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns (CAIP'01). Springer, Berlin, 41--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bernauer, M., Kappel, G., and Kramler, G. 2004. Representing XML schema in UML—A comparison of approaches. In Web Engineering, N. Koch et al. eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, vol. 3140. Springer, Berlin, 440--444.Google Scholar
- Berners-Lee, T. 1998. Notation 3. Design note. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.Google Scholar
- Bernstein, P. A., Halevy, A. Y., and Pottinger, R. A. 2000. A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Rec. 29, 4, 55--63. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bizer, C. and Seaborne, A. 2004. D2RQ—Treating non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004). http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/D2RQ/.Google Scholar
- Bracha, G. and Ungar, D. 2004. Mirrors: Design principles for meta-level facilities of object-oriented programming languages. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'04), ACM, New York, 331--344. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Buxmann, P., Weitzel, T., Westarp, F. V., and König, W. 1999. The standardization problem—An economic analysis of standards in information systems. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT99), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 157--162.Google Scholar
- Cardelli, L. and Wegner, P. 1985. On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism. ACM Comput. Surv. 17, 4, 471--523. Google ScholarDigital Library
- CCSDS. 2002. Open archival information systems. OAIS. Council of the Consultative Commitee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf.Google Scholar
- Chan, L. M. and Zeng, M. L. 2006. Metadata interoperability and standardization: A study of methodology. D-LIB Magazine 12, 6. Parts I + II. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/chan/06chan.html.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chen, P. P.-S. 1976. The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 1, 1, 9--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Codd, E. F. 1970. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Comm. ACM 13, 6, 377--387. Google ScholarDigital Library
- DC. 2007. Dublin Core Collections Application Profile. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DC). http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/.Google Scholar
- DC. 2006. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.Google Scholar
- DNB. 2007a. Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken. German National Library. Expert group for data formats. http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/formate/mab.htm.Google Scholar
- DNB. 2007b. Personennormdatei (PND). German National Library. http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/normdateien/pnd.htm.Google Scholar
- EDitEUR. 2007. Online Information Exchange (ONIX). The EDItEUR Group. http://www.editeur.org/onix.html.Google Scholar
- ETSI. 2006. TV Anytime: TS 102 822:1-7. European Telecommunications Standards Instititute (ETSI). http://www.etsi.org/etsisite/website/technologies/tvanytime.aspx.Google Scholar
- Fong, J. 1997. Converting relational to object-oriented databases. SIGMOD Rec. 26, 1, 53--58. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Franklin, M., Halevy, A., and Maier, D. 2005. From databases to dataspaces: A new abstraction for information management. SIGMOD Rec. 34, 4, 27--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V., and Damjanovi, V. 2004. Converting UML to OWL ontologies. In Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers and Posters (WWW Alt.'04). ACM, New York, 488--489. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gilliland, A. J. 2005. Introduction to metadata: Pathways to digital information. http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/index.html.Google Scholar
- Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G., and Bracha, G. 2005. The Java Language Specification (3rd Ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gruber, T. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquisit. 5, 199--220. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Halevy, A. Y. 2001. Answering queries using views: A survey. VLDB J. 10, 4, 270--294. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Halevy, Y., Ives, G., Suciu, D., and Tatarinov, I. 2005. Schema mediation for large-scale semantic data sharing. VLDB J. 14, 1, 68--83. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haslhofer, B. 2008. A comparative study of mapping solutions. Tech. Rep., University of Vienna. http://www.cs.univie.ac.at/publication.php?pid=3886.Google Scholar
- Heery, R. and Patel, M. 2000. Application profiles: Mixing and matching metadata schemas. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/app-profiles/.Google Scholar
- Hunter, J. and Lagoze, C. 2001. Combining RDF and XML schemas to enhance interoperability between metadata application profiles. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'01), ACM, New York, 457--466. Google ScholarDigital Library
- IEEE WG-12. 2002. IEEE standard for learning object metadata: 1484.12.1-2002. IEEE, Washington, D.C. http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12.Google Scholar
- IFLA. 1997. Functional requirements for bibliographic records. Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm.Google Scholar
- ISO TC 154. 2004. Data elements and interchange formats--Information exchange--Representation of dates and times. ISO 8601:2004. International Standardization Organization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874.Google Scholar
- ISO TC 211. 2003. Geographic information metadata. ISO 19115:2003. International Standardization Organization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26020.Google Scholar
- ISO TC 46. 2006a. CIDOC conceptual reference model (CRM). ISO 21127:2006. International Standardization Organization (ISO).Google Scholar
- ISO TC 46. 2006b. Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions.Part 1: Country codes. ISO 3166-1:2006. International Standardization Organization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39719.Google Scholar
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29. 2007a. MPEG-21 multimedia framework. ISO 21000-17:2003-2007. International Standardization Organization (ISO).Google Scholar
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29. 2007b. MPEG-7 multimedia content description interface. ISO 15938-1-11:2002-2007. International Standardization Organization (ISO).Google Scholar
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32. 2003. SQL - ISO/IEC 9075-1:2003. International Standardization Organization (ISO).Google Scholar
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32. 2005. Common logic (CL). A framework for a family of logic-based languages. ISO/IEC 24707:2007. International Standardization Organization (ISO).Google Scholar
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. 2006. Topic maps. Part 2: Data model. ISO/IEC 13250-2:2006. International Standardization Organization (ISO).Google Scholar
- Java Community Process. 2006. JSR 269: Pluggable annotation processing API. http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=269.Google Scholar
- Johnston, P. 2004. Minerva—Technical guidelines for digital cultural content creation programs. Tech. Rep., UKOLN, University of Bath. MLA The Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives. http://www.minervaeurope.org/structure/workinggroups/servprov/documents/techguid1_0.pdf.Google Scholar
- Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. 2003. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18, 1, 1--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karampiperis, P., Kastradas, K., and Sampson, D. 2003. A schema-mapping algorithm for educational metadata interoperability. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA'03). D. Lassner and C. McNaught (Eds.), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
- Kensche, D., Quix, C., Chatti, M. A., and Jarke, M. 2007. Gerome: A generic role-based metamodel for model management. J. Data Semantics 8, 82--117. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kosch, H. 2003. Distributed Multimedia Database Technologies Supported by MPEG-7 and MPEG-21. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
- Lagoze, C. and de Sompel, H. V. 2001. The open archives initiative: Building a low-barrier interoperability framework. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM, New York, 54--62. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, D., Mani, M., and Chu, W. W. 2003. Schema conversion methods between xml and relational models. In Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, IOS. Press, 1--17.Google Scholar
- Lethi, P. and Frankhauser, P. 2004. XML data integration with OWL: Experiences and Challenges. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT'04). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 160--170.Google Scholar
- LOC. 2007a. Library of Congress Authorities. Library of Congress (LOC). http://authorities.loc.gov/.Google Scholar
- LOC. 2007b. Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/.Google Scholar
- LOC. 2007c. MARC 21 concise format for bibliographic metadata. Library of Congress (LOC) Network Development and MARC Standards Office. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html.Google Scholar
- LOC. 2007d. Metadata object description schema. Library of Congress (LOC) Network Development and MARC Standards Office. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/.Google Scholar
- LOC. 2007e. METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard). Library of Congress (LOC) Network Development and MARC Standards Office. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets.Google Scholar
- Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P. A., Domingos, P., and Halevy, A. Y. 2002. Representing and reasoning about mappings between domain models. In Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial intelligence. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 80--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McParland, A. 2002. TV-Anytime: Using all that extra data. Tech. rep., BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP050.pdf.Google Scholar
- Mena, E., Illarramendi, A., Kashyap, V., and Sheth, A. P. 2000. Observer: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies. Distrib. Para. Datab. 8, 2, 223--271. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miller, P. 2000. Interoperability. What is it and why should i want it? http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/interoperability/intro.html.Google Scholar
- Motik, B., Horrocks, I., and Sattler, U. 2007. Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'07). ACM, New York, 807--816. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Niles, I. and Pease, A. 2001. Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS'01), ACM, New York, 2--9. Google ScholarDigital Library
- NISO. 2004. Understanding metadata. National Information Standards Organization (NISO). http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf.Google Scholar
- NLM. 2007. Medical subject headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/.Google Scholar
- Noy, N. F. 2004. Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Rec. 33, 4, 65--70. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noy, N. F. and Klein, M. 2004. Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution. Knowl. Inform. Syst. 6, 4, 428--440. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A. 2004. Ontology versioning in an ontology management framework. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19, 4, 6--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- NWG. 1995. A format for bibliographic records (RFC 1807). Network Working Group (NWG). http://rfc.net/rfc1807.html.Google Scholar
- OCLC. 2007. Dewey decimal classification (DDC). Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). http://www.oclc.org/dewey/.Google Scholar
- OGC. 2004. Geography markup language. Tech. rep., Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=4700.Google Scholar
- OMG. 2006a. Meta Object Facility (MOF) core specification—Version 2.0. Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?formal/06-01-01.pdf.Google Scholar
- OMG. 2006b. Ontology definition metamodel specification (ODM). Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-10-11.pdf.Google Scholar
- OMG. 2006c. UML 2.0: Infrastructure specification. Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-09-15.pdf.Google Scholar
- OMG. 2007a. MOF 2.0 /XMI Mapping Specification, V2.1.1. Object Management Group (OMG).Google Scholar
- OMG. 2007b. Unified Modelling Language (UML). Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.uml.org/.Google Scholar
- Ouksel, A. M. and Sheth, A. 1999. Semantic interoperability in global information systems. SIGMOD Rec. 28, 1, 5--12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pierre, M. S. and LaPlant, W. P. 1998. Issues in crosswalking content metadata standards. Tech. rep., National Information Standards Organization (NISO). http://www.niso.org/press/whitepapers/crsswalk.html.Google Scholar
- Powell, A., Nilsson, M., Naeve, A., and Johnston, P. 2005. DCMI abstract model. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DC). http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/.Google Scholar
- Rahm, E. and Bernstein, P. A. 2001. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10, 4, 334--350. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Seidewitz, E. 2003. What models mean. IEEE Softw. 20, 5, 26--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sheth, A. and Klas, W. 1998. Multimedia Data Management: Using Metadata to Integrate and Apply Digital Media. McGraw-Hill, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sheth, A. P. and Larson, J. A. 1990. Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 22, 3, 183--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sintek, M. and Decker, S. 2002. Triple—A query, inference, and transformation language for the semantic web. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. I. Horrocks and J. A. Hendler (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2342. Springer, Berlin, 364--378. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Spaccapietra, S., Parent, C., and Dupont, Y. 1992. Model independent assertions for integration of heterogeneous schemas. VLDB Journal 1, 1, 81--126. Google ScholarDigital Library
- TEI. 2007. TEI P5: Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. TEI Consortium. http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/.Google Scholar
- Tillett, B. 2004. What is FRBR: A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe. http://www.loc.gov/cds/FRBR.html.Google Scholar
- Tolk, A. 2006. What comes after the semantic web: PADS implications for the dynamic web. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS'06), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 55. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Visser, P. R. S., Jones, D. M., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Shave, M. J. R. 1997. An analysis of ontological mismatches: Heterogeneity versus interoperability. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering.Google Scholar
- VRA. 2007. VRA Core 4.0. Visual Resources Association's (VRA) Data Standards Committee. http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/index.html.Google Scholar
- W3C. 2004a. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C semantic web activity—RDF Core Working Group. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.Google Scholar
- W3C. 2004b. Web Ontology Language (OWL). W3C semantic web activity. Web Ontology Working Group. http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/.Google Scholar
- W3C. 2006. XML schema 1.1 Part 1: Structure. W3C XML Core Working Group. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/.Google Scholar
- Wache, H. 2003. Semantische mediation für heterogene informationsquellen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bremen.Google Scholar
- Westermann, U. and Klas, W. 2003. An analysis of XML database solutions for the management of MPEG-7 media descriptions. ACM Comput. Surv. 35, 4, 331--373. Google ScholarDigital Library
- WonderWeb Consortium. 2003. DOLCE: A descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering. http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A survey of techniques for achieving metadata interoperability
Recommendations
Interoperability in digital electrocardiography: harmonization of ISO/IEEE x73-PHD and SCP-ECG
The ISO/IEEE 11073 (x73) family of standards is a reference frame for medical device interoperability. A draft for an ECG device specialization (ISO/IEEE 11073-10406-d02) has already been presented to the Personal Health Device (PHD) Working Group, and ...
Data standards quality measured for achieving enterprise interoperability: the case of the SETU standard for flexible staffing
Data standards should play an important role in achieving inter-organizational interoperability. Millions are spent on development and adoption of these standards, but does it lead to interoperability? This important question is often not addressed. In ...
Practical Problems of Implementing Metadata Standards in Official Statistics
SSDBM '96: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database ManagementMetadata are information standards. In the era of the globalization of information systems there is a need for metadata-driven standardization of infrastructural information systems. An effective strategy for the standardization of official information ...
Comments