ADMS Community
This ADMS mail No 1 contains:
1) List of general tasks
2) Your next steps
(Register at SEMIC.EU, find use cases, raise questions)
(Register at SEMIC.EU, find use cases, raise questions)
3) First conceptual statement from Aldo Gangemi
Thank you again for your willingness to join the ADMS community. As laid down in the community statement it is planned to develop the Asset Description Metadata Schema in a shared development process.
Currently there are quite a lot of related Repositories already connected with SEMIC.EU. ADMS shall become the milestone to improve collaboration between these initiatives, to improve benefit for users of these different platforms by facilitating a federated search across platforms to share different artefacts and assets to every user.
ADMS shall become the new metadata schema to enable the retrieval of information on semantic artefacts independent of technology and platforms, i.e. ADMS shall allow users to look for relevant resources across various repositories.
In addition to this very pragmatic use of federation, there is another challenge in a much more fundamental area: The provision and implementation of a common metadata schema for different repositories raises conceptual and semantic questions that make ADMS and endeavour into the very heart of Linked Data (in, in this context, Linked Open Data). This aspect alone makes collaboration with the leading research institutions a must in the process.
I’d like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the representatives of the scientific community and research for their open commitment to cooperation.
1. List of general tasks
This following list is just a glimpse into the issues that we will have to take care of:
· What are the artefacts and types we have to describe within the asset metadata schema?
We must ensure the necessary flexibility to describe new types and artefacts that will evolve in the future.
We must ensure the necessary flexibility to describe new types and artefacts that will evolve in the future.
· How do we handle different granularity?
This raises the questions if and how the modularisation of assets and artefacts is possible without destroying the actual structure of the original asset.
This raises the questions if and how the modularisation of assets and artefacts is possible without destroying the actual structure of the original asset.
· Preeminently, however, we will face profound issues of multilingualism
Repositories and interoperability assets have mostly been developed regionally and, in some countries, are not even available in a common national language. Not only metadata but especially the semantic concepts behind them must be explicated in a way that enables us to map them to the ADMS. This way, user from different semantic contexts can also assess the respective added value they can benefit from by using the assets.
Repositories and interoperability assets have mostly been developed regionally and, in some countries, are not even available in a common national language. Not only metadata but especially the semantic concepts behind them must be explicated in a way that enables us to map them to the ADMS. This way, user from different semantic contexts can also assess the respective added value they can benefit from by using the assets.
In our work, we will have to deal with these and other issues repeatedly.
2. Your next steps (Register at SEMIC.EU, find use cases, raise questions)
At SEMIC.EU, we have already set up a community-only forum. Community members who have not registered at www.semic.eu are requested to do so as soon as possible: http://www.semic.eu/semic/view/Account/Registration/Step1.xhtml.
Most of all, we need a conceptual discussion. To start with:
1. Use Cases
From the perspective of the SEMIC.EU project team, the first step must be the definition of use cases which illustrate possible queries as basic requirements for the new metadata schema
Our appeal: Please post your suggestions and points of discussion for such use cases / queries in the Forum „ADMS Use Cases & Requirements“
From the perspective of the SEMIC.EU project team, the first step must be the definition of use cases which illustrate possible queries as basic requirements for the new metadata schema
Our appeal: Please post your suggestions and points of discussion for such use cases / queries in the Forum „ADMS Use Cases & Requirements“
2. What are the existing metadata that have to be considered?
This targets the evaluation of metadata in existing repositories.
Our appeal: Please send us all information and addresses of registries/repositories from different countries and domains that you have at your disposal, especially those specialised in a specific artefact type (e.g. ontologies).
This targets the evaluation of metadata in existing repositories.
Our appeal: Please send us all information and addresses of registries/repositories from different countries and domains that you have at your disposal, especially those specialised in a specific artefact type (e.g. ontologies).
A standard format for asset descriptions and metadata of course must be seen as an additional incentive towards publishing machine-readable metadata for the repository owners. ADMS as a general structure of asset metadata enables the import of a large number of catalogues from different member states, in different languages and with different domains in focus. The only requirement is to support the common metadata schema.
Again, the mentioned topics are certainly only a first step. We expect input and issues that have to be taken into account as well as your positions on technical questions and solutions. Without them, a functional AMDS cannot be developed.
3. First conceptual statement from Aldo Gangemi
We are actively working on egov linked data, specially in politics and research domains. I have a suggestion to start ADMS: why don't we apply for a W3C incubator, for building AD vocabulary in RDF, instead of a metadata schema? XML versions can be designed anyway, but we are more inline with current efforts (e.g. LOD, VoID, etc.).
I declare the discussion open and look forward to your active involvement!
Best regards,
Renke
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| UseCase-Questionnaire01.docx | 262.73 KB |
| UseCase-Questionnaire02.docx | 267.64 KB |
| ADMS-Design-Concept_Final.docx | 186.36 KB |
Groups:
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
