1. Breaking down the walls Moving libraries from collectors to portals Carl Lagoze Cornell University lagoze@cs.cornell.edu

2. The Library should selectively adopt the portal model for targeted program areas. By creating links from the Library’s Web site, this approach would make available the ever-increasing body of research materials distributed across the Internet. The Library would be responsible for carefully selecting and arranging for access to licensed commercial resources for its users, but it would not house local copies of materials or assume responsibility for long-term preservation. LC21: Digital Strategy for the Library of Congress page 5

4. Some of the most fundamental aspects of library operations entail the existence of a border, across which objects of information are transferred and maintained. Such a parameter, demarcating a single, distributed digital library (the "control zone"), needs to be created and managed by the academic library community at the earliest opportunity. Ross Atkinson Library Quarterly, 1996 Towards a Virtual Control Zone

5. Why distributed collections? Scale of the Web Prevalence of new publishing models and agents Increasing complexity of licensing and access management Dynamic nature of content

6. Towards Hybrid Portals Traditional portal (e.g., Yahoo!) –linkage without responsibility Hybrid Portal –assertion of (some semblance) of curatorial role over linked objects

7. New models have cultural/organizational ramifications… Performance and ranking metrics – "bigger is better" Levels of confidence Trust

8. …that can be assisted by new technical foundations Digital object architectures –that enable aggregating and customizing content for local access and management Metadata frameworks –that model changes of objects and their management over time OAI Harvesting Protocol –for exchange of structured information Preservation models –that enable non-cooperative and cooperative offsite monitoring

9. Digital Object Architectures: aggregating & localizing distributed content Acknowledgements: – Naomi Dushay – Sandy Payette – Thorton Staples (U. Va.) – Ross Wayland (U. Va.)

10. From Mediators to Value-Added Surrogates Wiederhold – mediators between raw data and end-user applications for integration and transformation Paepcke – mediators as foundation for digital library interoperability Payette and Lagoze – mediators (V-A surrogates) to aggregate and create a localized service layer for distributed resources

11. FEDORA Digital Object Model

12. Establishing a Virtual Control Zone

13. V-A Surrogate Applications Access management –Shared responsibility among trusted partners Enhanced and customized functionality –Examples: reference linking, format translation, special needs Preservation –Monitoring "significant" events and acting on them

14. Context Broker A DigitalObject A Structural Characteristics Realaudio video Powerpoint presentation SMIL synchronization metadata Tool DigitalObject A: View Slides View Video View synchronized presentation using applet Tool Context Broker B DigitalObject A: Get Transcript of Audio Search for keyword Get Slides translated to French

15. Digital Object Structural Metadata Context Broker A Tool 8 Tool 93 Context Broker B User requests DigitalObject from ContextBroker 1 DigitalObject presented to user with contextually bound behaviors 4 Tool 5 Tool 27 Find/Retrieve tools 3 Get DigitalObject Structural Metadata 2

16. Where we are now… Ongoing FEDORA reference prototype –http://www.cs.cornell.edu/cdlrg/FEDORA.html –Policy enforcement research –Content mediation Proposed joint deployment with University of Virginia –Open source scalable implementation of FEDORA architecture –Testing and deployment with a number of research library partners.

17. Event-Aware Metadata Frameworks: describing changes over time Acknowledgements: – Dan Brickley (ILRT, Bristol) – Martin Doer (FORTH, Crete) – Jane Hunter (DSTC, Brisbane)

18. Distributed Content The Metadata Challenge From fixed, contained physical artifacts to fluid, distributed digital objects Need for basis of trust and authenticity in network environment Decentralization and specialization of resource description and need for mapping formalisms

19. Multi-entity nature of object description Photographe r Camera type Software Computer artist

20. Attribute/Value approaches to metadata… Hamlet has a creator Shakespeare subjectimplied verbmetadata nounliteral Playwright metadata adjective The playwright of Hamlet was Shakespeare R1 “ Shakespeare ” “ Hamlet ” dc:creator.playwright dc:title

21. …run into problems for richer descriptions… Hamlet has a creator Stratford birthplace The playwright of Hamlet was Shakespeare, who was born in Stratford “ Stratford ” R1 “ Shakespeare ” dc:creator.playwright dc:creator.birthplace

22. …because of their failure to model entity distinctions R1 “ Stratford ” creator R2 name “ Shakespeare ” birthplace title “ Hamlet ”

23. ABC/Harmony Event-aware metadata model Recognizing inherent lifecycle aspects of description (esp. of digital content) Modeling incorporates time (events and situations) as first-class objects –Supplies clear attachment points for agents, roles, occurrent properties Resource description as a “story-telling” activity

24. Resource-centric Metadata TitleAnna Karenina AuthorLeo Tolstoy IllustratorOrest Vereisky TranslatorMargaret Wettlin Date Created1877 Date Translated1978 Description Adultery & Depression BirthplaceMoscow Birthdate1828 ?

25. “translator” “Margaret Wettlin” “Orest Vereisky” “illustrator” “Anna Karenina” “Tragic adultery and the search for meaningful love” “English” “author” “creation” “1877” “1978” “translation” “Russian” “Leo Tolstoy” "Moscow" “1828”

26. Queries over descriptive graphs List details of events where Lagoze is a participating agent SELECT ?title, ?type, ?time, ?place, ?name FROM http://ilrt.org/discovery/harmony/oai.rdf WHERE (web::type ?event abc::Event) (abc::context ?event ?context) ….. AND ?name ~ lagoze USING web FOR http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# Rudolf Squish – http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/rdfquery

27. Where we are now Stabilization of model Collaboration with museum/CIDOC community for joint modeling principles Plans –RDF api for model elements –UI for metadata creation –Query engine testing

28. Open Archives Initiative: facilitating exchange of structured information Acknowledgements: – Herbert Van de Sompel – OAI Steering and Technical Committees

29. Open Archives Initiative Testing the hypotheses –exposing metadata in various forms will facilitate creation of value-added services –key to deployable DL infrastructure is low- entry cost –Individual communities can/will customize common infrastructure

30. Where we’ve come from Late 1999 Santa Fe UPS meeting – increase impact of eprint initiatives through federation Santa Fe Convention – metadata harvesting among eprint archives Increasing interest outside the eprint community –Research libraries –Museums –Publishers

31. Progress over the past year OAI workshops at US and EC DL conferences Organizational stability –Executive committee and steering committee September 2000 technical meeting –Reframe and rethink technical solutions for broader domain Extensive testing and refinement of technical infrastructure

32. Technical Infrastructure – key technical features Deploy now technology – 80/20 rule Two-party model – providers and consumers Simple HTTP encoding XML schema for some degree of protocol conformance Extensibility –Multiple item-level metadata –Collection level metadata

33. OAI protocol requests Supporting protocol requests: Identify ListMetadataFormats ListSets Harvesting protocol requests: ListRecords ListIdentifiers GetRecord repositoryrepository harvesterharvester service providerdata provider

34. Where we are now “Stable” 1.0 protocol specification Hopefully, self-documenting infrastructure –http://www.openarchives.org 27 registered data providers Increasing number of tools available Research initiatives –NSF-funded NSDL –EC-funded Cyclades –Andrew W. Mellon service proposals –EC-funded community building

35. Where do we go from here Controlling the stampede Maintaining the organizational model – lean and mean while encouraging community-specific exploitation Encouraging testing especially through deployment and especially service development Encouraging metadata diversification – this isn’t just above Dublin Core!!! –Preservation –Document access –Authentication

36. OAI & Metadata Research Dictionary of metadata terms (Tom Baker) Mandating usage rules has only limited effectiveness Compiling usage of those terms is vital to machine understanding and interoperability –Provide context heuristics for search engine and indexer processing Large-scale deployment of OAI and web crawling enables (partial) automation of usage compilation (e.g., data mining of term usage)

37. Preservation Models: monitoring threats to distributed content Acknowledgements: – Bill Arms – Peter Botticelli (CUL) – Anne Kenney (CUL)

38. Preservation & Remote Control Organization Issues –“assured preservation” may not be possible without direct custodial control. –what are the levels of acceptability and for which types of resources? Technical Issues –what are the technologies for remote control at the various levels of assurance deemed acceptable by the library? –what is the probability of a reasonable level of preservation in the context of such technologies?

39. Cost vs. Functionality

40. Leveraging Current Work Event-based metadata Metadata harvesting Longevity and threats to digital resources

41. Level 0 Experiment

42. Level 1 Experiment

43. One of Six Core Integration Demonstration Projects for the NSDL

44. How Big might the NSDL be? The NSDL aims to be comprehensive -- all branches of science, all levels of education, very broadly defined. Five year targets: 1,000,000 different users 10,000,000digital objects 100,000independent sites Requires: low-cost, scalable, technology automated collection building and maintenance

45. Levels of Interoperability: Metadata Harvesting Agreements on simple protocol and metadata standard(s) Example: Metadata harvesting protocol of the Open Archives Initiative (MHP) Moderate-quality services Low cost of entry to participating sites Moderately large numbers of loosely collaborating sites Promising but still an emerging approach

46. Levels of Interoperability: Gathering Robots gather collections automatically with no participation from individual sites Examples: Web search services (e.g., Google) CiteSeer (a.k.a. ResearchIndex) Restricted but useful services Zero cost of entry to gathered sites Very large numbers of independent sites Only suitable for open access collections