Pete Johnston UKOLN, University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY

1. Collection-level descriptionand interoperabilitySociety of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002 Pete Johnston UKOLN, University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY Email p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk URL http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ UKOLN is supported by:

2. Collection-level description & interoperability • What is interoperability? • Archival description & “intra-domain” interoperability • Collections, collection-level description & cross-domain interoperability • Some use scenarios Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

3. What is interoperability? • “To be interoperable,one should actively be engaged in the ongoing process of ensuring that the systems, procedures and culture of an organisation are managed in such a way as to maximise opportunities for exchange and re-use of information, whether internally or externally • Miller, 2000 • Crossing of boundaries between contexts • Not only a “technical” problem • An ongoing process Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

4. Why interoperability matters • Increasing demands for access to information via digital channels • realising value of information resources • Access across repositories, across domains of information management • user not interested in functional/structural organisation of resource provider • user doesn’t want to negotiate multiple interfaces • whole is more than sum of parts • Multiple channels of access • deliver content through multiple services • support multiple device types Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

5. Why interoperability matters • Internally • more effective management of information • minimise effort in “repackaging” • added-value from “joining up” separate sources • Externally • greater visibility • meet user demands • align with developments for “portals” etc • added-value from “joining up” separate sources Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

6. Facets of interoperability • Technical interoperability • the “plumbing” behind the application • technologies develop • Semantic interoperability • terms and concepts • both “containers” and “content” • Human/organisational interoperability • ownership issues, legal issues • responding to new processes, new audiences • Inter-community interoperability • collaboration amongst resource providers • learning from others’ experience Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

7. How to interoperate • Standards • Benefit of others’ experience, expertise • Provide basis for good practice • Enforce consistency internally • Reflect consensus, so facilitate reuse, exchange, access externally • May have support in software tools, processes • “a dull but necessary reality for providing useful services to users”? • But remember… • many standards domain/community-specific Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

8. Levels of interoperability Semantic(Property/Class space) (“element sets”) Semantic(Value space) (controlled vocabularies, thesauri, taxonomies, ontologies) Representational (XML, etc) Technical (Communication protocols, Character encoding etc) • based on discussions with the DELOS metadata schemas registries group,especially Tom Baker and Erik Duval, May 2002 Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

9. Archival description & intra-domain interoperability • ISAD(G) • High-level semantics • Simple structure • Limited as “content standard” (value space) • EAD • More fine-grained semantics • (Potentially) complex structure, flexible, permissive • Limited as “content standard” • SGML/XML syntax • “Content standards” • Name rules, controlled vocabularies, community content conventions…. Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

10. Archival description & intra-domain interoperability • Elizabeth Shaw on EAD implementation, New Review of Information Networking • “retrospective v prospective” • different expectations for exchange, reuse • inherent flexibility requires implementer guidelines, but guidelines local • recommends constraining data model to realise full potential for interoperability • more reliable indexing/searching across implementations • mapping to data-centric schemas • more use of shared tools • reduce redundancy Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

11. Levels of interoperability revisited Semantic(Property/Class space) (e.g. Dublin Core MES) Semantic(Value space) (e.g. LCSH, Unesco Thesaurus) EAD ISAD(G) NCA Rules MAD Thesauri, controlled vocabularies Representational (XML, etc) Technical (Communication protocols, Character encoding etc) Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

12. What is a collection? • Collection • “an aggregation of physical and/or digital items” • Aggregates of, e.g. • natural objects: fossils, mineral samples… • created objects: artefacts, documents, records… • digital resources: documents, images, multimedia objects, data, software… • digital surrogates of physical objects: documents, images… • metadata: catalogue records, item descriptions, collection-level descriptions (!)… Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

13. What is a collection? • Various criteria for aggregation, e.g. • By location • By type/form of item • By provenance of item • By source/ownership of item • By nature of item content • …. • Permanent, temporary • Discrete, distributed Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

14. Collections in RSLP • Support for researchers • discovery of/access to collections • collaborative management of collections • Collections in RSLP • projects describing primarily (but not exclusively) collections of physical items • library, archive • RSLP CD Model & Schema • Michael Heaney (Oxford), Andy Powell (UKOLN) • means of consistent collection description in RSLP • simple, generic, high-level, “unitary” • not a substitute for ISAD(G), EAD • a “Dublin Core” for collections? Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

15. Collections across domains • Cross-domain • Different ideas of “collections” • Different ways of talking about “collections” • Different criteria for defining “collections” • Different ways of describing “collections” • But useful/possible to agree on broadly common view…? • At least within context of a service… ? • Permit user to compare broadly similar high-level objects • even where items heterogeneous Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

16. Why collection-level description? • Collection-level description might • Disclose information about collections • Provide overview of otherwise uncatalogued items • Enable user to select collections to explore/search on basis of summary description • Enable software agents to select collections to search on behalf of user • Support controlled searching of multiple collections Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

17. Scenario 1 • An archival fonds is a physical “collection” • The items within this collection are physical records • The collection is made available by a physical service • operated by the staff at the repository • The collection is described by an ISAD(G)/EAD “CLD” (<archdesc>-level) • The service is described by a record in HMC’s Archon database Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

18. Scenario 1 (continued) • That EAD CLD might be • rendered in multiple formats (HTML, PDF….) • used in local resource discovery service by repository • submitted to domain service e.g. Archives Hub • mapped/transformed to simple, high-level CLD which might be used in cross-domain service • Challenge of semantic interoperability • mapping properties • some loss of specificity but possible? • mapping “value space”: name rules, thesauri etc • “granularity” issues - comparing like with like? Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

19. Scenario 2 • The (content of the) Archives Hub is a digital collection • The items within this collection are digital metadata records • which happen to be CLDs • The collection is made available by multiple digital services • via the Hub web site • as a Z39.50 target • (potentially) as OAI repository Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

20. Content (local and remote) Web Web Web Web Authorisation Authentication End-user needs to join services together manually - as well as learning multiple user interfaces End-user The JISC Information Environment Currently…. Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

21. Content Web Web Web Web Authentication Authorisation Broker or Aggregator Collection Description End-user is “automatically” presented with relevant resources through relevant channels Portal Service Desc. Thesauri User Profiles End-user The JISC Information Environment The vision…. Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

22. Scenario 2 • The Hub collection is described by a CLD record in the JISC IE registry • The multiple services are described by service description records in the JISC IE registry • A portal can query registry to determine • which digital collections are available • what digital services available to access collections • Enables • dynamic view of the JISC “information landscape” tailored to user preferences • content “surfaced” through multiple channels Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

23. “Real world” interoperability • Not just a technical problem • Challenges of semantic interoperability • Discussions of interoperability need to be grounded in a context • Grand visions of integrated access • will be achieved within scope of a range of resources or services • nothing can be all things to all people • Raises new questions of • context • ownership, usage rights, “branding” • trust Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002

24. Acknowledgements • UKOLN is funded by Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the UK higher and further education funding councils, as well as by project funding from the JISC and the European Union. UKOLN also receives support from the University of Bath where it is based. • http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ Society of Archivists EAD/Data Exchange Group, Public Record Office, Kew, 21 May 2002