User Working Group Yannis Ioannidis University of Athens, Greece DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 2010

Overview Interoperability Framework Discussion Critical Interoperability Framework Issue Interoperability Scenario 1 Interoperability Scenario 2 Interoperability Scenario 3 DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 20102

Interoperability Framework Discussion Focus on IEEE definition “the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged” Skeptical about – Use of provider and consumer (integration aspect is not there) – Organizational, semantic, technical boundaries useful but not critical DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 20103

Critical Framework Issue DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May F OI U P Q A DL F O’I’ U’ P’ Q’ A’ DL’ Task-dependent additional items for interoperability U OP,

Critical Framework Issue User “U” to be transferred and used in DL’ For appropriate interpretation, has to carry necessary information for all other env parts Most general case: mapping carries entire environment Typical case: mapping carries subset of env needed for particular resource mapped DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 20105

Abstract Solutions “Smallest common denominator”: Simplest user model defines what is available within set of DLs “Component architecture”: Libraries jointly use the richest user model available as pluggable component Mediator approach: External module implements join of two user models and provides additional functionality to DL that does not support it natively 6DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 2010

Square 1 Two DLs not interoperating DL1DL2 DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 20107

Component Approach (cont.) Two DLs interoperating by sharing a component DL1DL2 DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 20108

Mediator Approach DL1Mediator DL2 DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May

Interoperability Scenario 1 Overview – Producing summary versions of compound multimedia historical documents – Each compound object consists of several parts: text, video, 3d models, etc. – Each compound object has links to other compound objects – Various policies are governing every object Content & User Domain Issues – What actor information must be known to access and process a document? – User profile and group membership DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May

Analysis of Scenario 1 Resource – Compound object with user rights and group membership Individual rights or group rights Rights objects are special cases of policy objects User Interoperability Issue – User rights and group membership of DL1 users should be mapped to DL2 Polices might be expressed at the group level or individual level DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May

Solution of Scenario 1 No existing user-level solution What to do – Possibly incorporate policy WG solutions for the transfer of rights – Possibly propose abstract solution 12DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 2010

Interoperability Scenario 2 Overview – Integrating the DLs of two News Agencies that preserve articles and reports on a daily basis with the aim to provide a portal that will support the search in past issues and reports in both archives a new service to their end-users by enabling them to retrieve reports on the same subject produced by both agencies 13DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 2010

Functionality & User Domain Issues Should user roles be related to groups of functions? – Not necessary for end-users – Important for Digital Librarians, Administrators,... What is the dependency between user interoperability and function interoperability? – They are often independent DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May

Additional User Interoperability Issue DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May DL1 Mediator Portal DL2 U1 + F1 U2 + F2

Interoperability Scenario 3 Overview – Two DLs (e.g. an academic and a research one) aim to interoperate in a way that their users can access them as if they were a single DL Users should have access to the content provided by both DLs Both DLs should collaborate in order to serve not only as a source of information and knowledge but also as a meeting and interaction place 16DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 2010

User Interoperability Issue DL A: simplified user model, no significant personalization DL B: rich user model, captures user preferences, offers personalization How can user characteristics in both DLs be harmonized for user to have a personalized experience in both DLs? DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May

Possible Solution DL.org 1 st Review, Luxemburg, 20 January Possible Concrete Solution for Users: Generic User model Component Not complete: Need functionality, policy, and quality items to be mapped as well

Information to be Mapped Two DLs interoperating by sharing a component DL1DL2 DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May U + F,P,Q

Next Steps Pretty much no comprehensive solution for user interoperability in the literature or existing systems Close dependency of user interop with other domains Refine solutions for cookbook based on 3 scenarios Clarify concept of context DL.org 1 st Review, Luxemburg, 20 January

21 Thank you! DL.org All Working Groups Meeting, Rome, May 2010