1. [D2.5] Object model and metadata: Open issues Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009 Julie Verleyen

2. Open issues [1/2] 1. Objects and their surrogates Which types of objects? Which relations? 2. Object description How are object types described? How to improve ingestion of existing descriptions  surrogate model? How to improve existing descriptions?

3. Open issues [2/2] 3. Other Surrogate Elements What kind of abstractions do we receive from content providers? What kind of abstractions do we need to produce? How do we get use/access license info? Annotations 4. Required cross-domain functionalities

4. Europeana prototype experience Illustration of issues through real-world examples: 1.Types of objects 2.Relation between object types 3.Objects descriptions 4.Abstractions 5.Access/use license info

5. 1. Types of objects “DIGITISED OBJECTS” Typically: metadata describing an object which is the result of the digitisation process from all domains Maps Novels Newspapers Videos Paintings Music sheets Theses Postcards Photographic plates Historical, art, archeological, decorative items Poems TV programs Audio recordings Music instruments Letters Atlasses Posters Etc…etc…

8. 1. Types of objects “MIXED OBJECTS” Metadata related to digitised objects and physical objects are mixed

9. Digital Object metadata Physical Object metadata

10. 1. Types of objects “DIGITAL BORN OBJECT” Not many + Difficult to identify…

13. 1. Types of objects “HIERARCHICAL OBJECT” Case of archival material with problem of granularity Ex: “Archim” collection

17. 2. Relations between objects At the moment: “Related items” Automatic terms extraction from title, description, creator, what, when, who fields + weighting parameters  new search  related items Not always straightforward: Ex: Ex: Find the differences!!....

18. 2. Relation between object types

23. 3. Objects descriptions Schemas dealt with so far: dc, qdc, dc-based (tel, oai_va, …), ead, museumdat, local (pico, ), ese More are available (mods, mets, other local flavours, etc…) but were not exploited Metadata (fields & values) in different languages

24. Collect Britain local Scran local Icelandic maps dc CIMEC ese Maps NL Archive ead NO Museums museumdat

25. 4. Abstractions Footage of video, thumbnails, table of contents….? Thumbnails (were requested) TOC Ex: Hungarian Electronic Library:

28. 5. Access/use license info Analysis of metadata: field: Ex: Italian collection of digitised books:

31. 5. Access/use license info Analysis of metadata: field: Ex: Italian collection of digitised books: field (OAI-PMH header): Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection

34. 5. Access/use license info Analysis of metadata: field: Ex: Italian collection of digitised books: field (OAI-PMH header): Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection Multilingual challenge: Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection

37. 5. Access/use license info Analysis of metadata: field: Ex: Italian collection of digitised books: field (OAI-PMH header): Ex: Polish “Digital Polona” collection Multilingual challenge: Ex: Estonian “DIGAR” collection Provided info is often not enough (intellectual property doesn’t indicate access status) Test search in the portal: Ex: search on “Picasso”

40. http://216.139.227.103/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/ZE9CA/95-024000.jpg

41. Picasso family rights + rights of photograph

42. 6. Foreseen issues related to copyright Case of 2 images (different resolutions) of physical object provided by 2 different institutions. Example: : Image of painting provided by Museum Another image of same painting provided by Reproduction agency

43. Julie Verleyen Workgroups Kick-off meeting – 2 & 3 April 2009