1. UKOLN is supported by: Bridget Robinson and Ann Chapman From analytical model to implementation and beyond CD Focus Schema Forum, CBI Conference Centre Point, London 12 th February 2004 A centre of expertise in digital information management www.ukoln.ac.uk

2. From analytical model to implementation and beyond RSLP Schema & the Analytical Model Implementations The User Viewpoint The Management Viewpoint RSLP and beyond Standards The Future

3. The Model Is an abstract view of collections and their catalogues Is not tied to any specific implementation Has been translated into schemas –SCONE –RSLP Dublin Core Collection Description Application Profile

4. Schemas Are sets of data elements that describe –The collection –Agents connected with the collection –Location of the collection –Associated resources –Relationships of the above entities Are used by implementations SCONE and RSLP developed at same time Common core as based on Heaney model

5. Implementations Use schemas in one of two ways –Unmodified –Modified Modifications can be –Elements added –Elements omitted –Elements relabelled (usually for display)

6. RSLP implementations - 1 Rascal (NI) –Used full element set –Subject terms for searching, not displayed Backstage (Performing arts) –Used full element set –11 elements relabelled –1 element added (copyright) –1 element qualified into 4 sub-elements

7. RSLP implementations - 2 EnrichUK.net (Digital materials) –9 elements omitted –5 elements relabelled –1 element added (project details) Cecilia (Music collections) –8 elements omitted –8 elements relabelled –2 elements added (Tradition, Provenance)

8. Non-RSLP Implementations 1 Reveal (accessible formats for VIP) –6 elements omitted –5 elements relabelled –5 elements added (Audience, Level, 3 x admin) Cornucopia (currently museums only) –Version 1 was not based on RSLP –Some equivalent elements due to nature of data –Version 2 is based on RSLP and uses all elements

9. Non RSLP Implementations 2 JISC Information Environment Service Registry –Collection description uses most RSLP elements 4 elements added (copyright, use, licence, service) –Service description 14 elements –Agent data (uses RSLP elements) –Admin metadata creator, modifier, dates, language, source

10. The user viewpoint Enable collection provider to –disclose information about collections to users Enable user to –discover/locate collections –select collections to explore/search on basis of summary description –compare collections –understand conditions of use & access

11. The user viewpoint Enable software agents to –select collections to search on behalf of user –control searches across collections

12. The management viewpoint Enable collection provider to manage own collections –control/audit/review holdings internally –identify collections at risk –assess priorities for item-level cataloguing

13. The management viewpoint Enable collection provider to –Manage in collaboration with other providers Identify, record, share information on strengths and weaknesses –Inform strategic planning Institutional, cross-institutional, regional, sectoral, national and international

14. RSLP and beyond - 1 Legacy of RSLP “A great benefit was the discovery of resources. Working together to make these assorted collections known to, and available to the user community.” Report to the RSLP - Colin Harris Full Disclosure Prioritisation Study Stresses the role of collection description as a first step towards prioritisation. Impact and value of collection-level description projects e.g. RASCAL

15. RSLP and beyond - 2 Resource – Preserving the Past for the Future –National Framework for Collection Management –Cornucopia CURL/RSLP Collection Mapping –Concentrates on the automated mapping collection strength

16. Who else? National Initiatives –Common Information Environment –Culture Online –Curriculum Online/College Online –National Grid for Learning –National Electronic Library for Health Institutional Initiatives –Virtual Learning Environments & Managed Learning Environments –Collections of Learning Objects –ePrints

17. Standards CLD are metadata records –used by multiple applications/services –machine to machine exchange Re-usability –Keep modification minimal Standards –schema, thesauri, controlled vocabulary etc

18. The Future One schema fits all –Is this feasible or realistic? Two (related) schemas in use –How to maintain them in parallel –Interoperability issues from possible divergence Two schemas plus modified versions –Interoperability issues - wider divergence Issues are both strategic and technical