1 Metadata for Joined-up Government Paul Miller Interoperability Focus UK Office for Library & Information Networking (UKOLN) UKOLN is funded by the Library and Information Commission, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the Higher and Further Education Funding Councils, as well as by project funding from the JISC and the EU. UKOLN also receives support from the Universities of Bath and Hull where staff are based.

2 me.gov “Not me, ‘Gov”

3 my.gov my.schools.gov my.health.gov my.environment.gov my.library.gov my.trains.gov my.farming.gov

4 The Vision thing Vision is two–fold: Access to government for the Citizen –me.gov –NELfH –People’s Network, etc. Access to government by government –Information Asset Register –GSI –Joined–up Government.

5 The Premise Government needs to be visible on the Internet Use of metadata will increase recall from the major commercial search engines –Not really… Use of metadata will increase recall from customised search engines deployed on government Portal sites –Absolutely.

6 What is ‘Metadata’? –meaningless jargon –or a fashionable, and terribly misused, term for what we’ve always done –or “a means of turning data into information” –and “data about data” –and the name of an author (‘William Golding’) –and the title of a book (‘The Name of the Rose’).

7 The Portal mentality Portals are becoming very common… …but what are they? In HE and FE’s DNER, we distinguish between Portals and Gateways; –A Portal is ‘deep’, and provides access to the contents of a set of resources –A Gateway is ‘shallow’, and provides descriptions of the contents of a set of resources.

8 The Portal mentality In the wider Web world, they might be defined more as: “Portal: a Web-based network service that provides access to a range of heterogeneous network services, local and remote, structured and unstructured. Such network services might typically include resource discovery services, access and online discussion fora. Portals are aimed at human end-users using common Web 'standards' such as HTTP, HTML, Java and JavaScript.” (DRAFT RDN definition)

9 Portals and Government There need not be only one government portal: me/y.gov –General public face of Government me/y.schools.gov –Interface tailored to primary and secondary education ‘customers’, drawing information from DfEE, DSS (?), Benefits Agency, etc. etc. All presenting information drawn from a common data pool, according to common — or interoperable — standards…

10 A little language... Semantics Structure Syntax “Let’s talk English” Standardisation of content Standardisation of form “Here’s how to make a sentence” Standardisation of expression “These are the rules of grammar” “cat milk sat drank mat ” “Cat sat on mat. Drank milk.” “The cat sat on the mat. It drank some milk.”

11 Semantics: the Dublin Core An attempt to improve resource discovery on the Web –now adopted more broadly Building an interdisciplinary consensus about a core element set for resource discovery –simple and intuitive –cross–disciplinary — not just libraries!! –international –open and consensual –flexible. See

12 15 elements of descriptive metadata All elements optional All elements repeatable The whole is extensible –offers a starting point for semantically richer descriptions Interdisciplinary –libraries, government, museums, archives… International –available in more than 20 languages, with more on the way... Semantics: the Dublin Core

13 Title Creator Subject Description Publisher Contributor Date Type Format Identifier Source Language Relation Coverage Rights Semantics: the Dublin Core

14 Syntax: XML eXtensible Markup Language World Wide Web Consortium recommendation Simplified subset of SGML for use on Web Addresses HTML’s lack of evolvability Easily extended Supported by major vendors Increasingly used as a transfer syntax, but capable of far more…. See

15 Structure: RDF Resource Description Framework W3C Recommendation Improves upon XML, HTML, PICS… Machine understandable metadata! Usually XML as syntax Locally defined semantics Supports structure Increasing interest. See dc/datamodel/WD–dc–rdf/ See dc/datamodel/WD–dc–rdf/ See

16 What do we need? Common Semantics Definitely. –Without these, we cannot be sure that different sets of metadata are describing the same concept. Common Syntax Almost certainly. –Although data need not always be stored this way; simply converted for transfer. Common Structure Almost certainly. –Although RDF might not be ready for this. A conceptual structure (a model) might be enough.

17 Issues Dublin Core Qualification mechanisms not fully finalised yet… XML XML Query specification probably a year away RDF Few real–world implementations or applications. Query specification not even begun.

18 The need for Guidelines Many standards are flexible and permissive. Dublin Core, for example, actually does little more than define 15 optional free–text fields. We can usefully specify –Minimum set of required fields –Controlled term lists –Language, Type, etc. –Best practice Without this, we probably won’t do much good…

19 The need for tools Tools can… Ensure enforcement of Cataloguing Guidelines Automate aspects of the process Incorporate agreed term lists Facilitate the update process.

20 The need for tools See

21 The Z thing Seen as a cornerstone of the DNER Widely used by GILS services Part of most modern library systems Used in the NGDF Gateway Useful across Government when/if we want to provide access to the current contents of diverse distributed databases. See

22 What is Z39.50? ANSI/NISO Z39.50–1995, Information Retrieval (Z39.50): Application Service Definition and Protocol Specification ISO 23950:1998, Information and Documentation — Information Retrieval (Z39.50) — Application Service Definition and Protocol Specification. See

23 What is Z39.50? “This standard specifies a client/server based protocol for Information Retrieval. It specifies procedures and structures for a client to search a database provided by a server, retrieve database records identified by a search, scan a term list, and sort a result set. Access control, resource control, extended services, and a ‘help’ facility are also supported. The protocol addresses communication between corresponding information retrieval applications, the client and server (which may reside on different computers); it does not address interaction between the client and the end-user.” (Z39.50–1995, page 0). See

24 Some gory details… Z39.50 follows client/server model But calls them Origin and Target Client/origin Server/target

25 Client/Server architecture

26 Client/Server architecture

27 Using Z39.50 Z39.50 widely deployed in the library sector and elsewhere, although often invisibly The Origin can be either a human user or a second Origin computer –e.g. Z39.50 portals, summing resources from multiple targets Users access Z39.50 Targets using proprietary clients or, increasingly, via web interfaces –e.g. WinWillow, ZNavigator, many WOPACs.

28 Using Z39.50 © Arts & Humanities Data Service

29 Using Z39.50 © Arts & Humanities Data Service

30 Using Z39.50 © University of California

31 Using Z39.50 © University of California