INLS 520 - Schedule and readings

DEADLINE: 2009-01-16 Fri 17:00
SCHEDULED: 2009-01-12 Mon

• The next project component is to develop a draft of an informal conceptual model of your document type/topical area.
  
• With this in mind, pick one of the following topics to explore in more depth. Read the item(s) listed for that topic.
  
  • Functional requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Authority Data (FRAD)
    
    • An entity relationship model of the bibliographic universe. Not limited to books—can be applied or modified to apply to many document types. Especially recommended if you are interested in libraries. This model is driving changes in the way library information will be organized, displayed, searched, and browsed.
      
      • Carlyle, Allyson. (2006) "Understanding FRBR as a conceptual model: FRBR and the bibliographic universe." Library resources and technical services 50(4): 264-273.
        
      • (Optional) Hourclé, Joseph A. (2008) "FRBR applied to scientific data." Proceedings of ASIST 2008. 1–4.
        
    • Look over the diagrams, tables, and some definitions in the reports below. No need to read them closely; just get an idea of what entities, attributes, and relationships get represented in these interconnected models.
      
      • FRBR
        
      • FRAD (draft used in the second worldwide review of the model)
        
  • International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) Conceptual Reference Model
    
    • Object oriented semantic model expressing the logic and structure of heterogeneous cultural heritage information held by cultural institutions. Better fit for individual unique artifacts than FRBR.
      
    • If you read in depth on another model, you may want to check out the CIDOC CRM property hierarchy (p. xxv–xxvii) for relationships that may inspire you in modeling your own collection.
      
    • If interested in CIDOC, read p. i–xxi. Examine the CIDOC CRM property hierarchy (p. xxv–xxvii). Read p. 1 and some of the CIDOC CRM class declarations (p. 2–35). Read p. 36 and some of the CIDOC CRM property declarations (p. 36–76)
      
      • Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model. (5.0) Crofts, Nick, Doerr, Martin, Gill, Tony, Stead, Stephen and Stiff, Matthew, eds., ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, online (2008).
        
      • (OPTIONAL) Doerr, Martin; Ore, Christian-Emil & Stead, Stephen. (2007) "The CIDOC conceptual reference model: a new standard for knowledge sharing, ER2007 tutorial." In Grundy, J.; Hartmann, S.; Laender, H.F. & Roddick, J.F. (ed.) 26th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2007). Vol. 83: 51-56.
        
  • indecs metadata framework
    
    • Model representing e-commerce: "stuff," commercial transactions, and intellectual property rights. DOI and ONIX (publishing industry metadata standard) are based on indecs
      
      • Metadata framework: principles, model and basic dictionary
        
• If you would like more examples of conceptual data models, see the following:
  
• C. Lagoze, J.Hunter, "The ABC Ontology and Model", (Version3), Journal of Digital Information, Special Issue - selected papers from Dublin Core 2001 Conference
  
  • Gamper, Johann & Knapp, Judith. (2003) "A data model and its implementation for a web-based language learning system." In Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'03): 217-225. (model on p. 5)
    
  • Repeated cross-national study data model diagram (For research data)
    
  • Search Google Scholar for "conceptual data model"
    

:520project:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:rec="http://www.infomuse.net/recipes/">

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.food.com/pizza">
         <rec:ingredient>        
            <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ingredients.org/onion" />
         </rec:ingredient>
         <rec:ingredient>        
            <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ingredients.org/cheese" />
         </rec:ingredient>
    </rdf:Description>

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ingredients.org/onion">
        <rec:quantity>1</rec:quantity>
        <rec:size>large</rec:size>
        <rec:prep>sliced</rec:prep>
    </rdf:Description>

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ingredients.org/cheese">
        <rec:quantity>1.5</rec:quantity>
        <rec:unit>cup</rec:unit>
        <rec:prep>grated</rec:prep>
    </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

• Reading guide
  

• Focus on the following sections:
  
  • The framework
    
  • Beyond RDA and ONIX
    
• For additional practical examples of the framework and how it might work in an information system, see the slides on pp. 7 and 8 in this 2008 presentation by Dunsire
  

• Notes:
  
  • As this paper is by now quite old, its reports of "new technologies" are now outdated.
  • Also, I argue with the author in my head about half of the time I'm reading the article.
  • HOWEVER, I am giving this as an optional reading because I like: a) the presentation of ideas about the separation of information (content) and form; (b) the historical situation of the relationships among technologies, form, and content; and (c) the foregrounding of the tools used to create content that is then consumed, used, and of course, organized.
  • On that last point, personal information management research has found that some users think of .doc files as only existing and available for manipulation through the interface of MS Word—no concept of copy/pasting the file in the computer's directory structure, opening the file in another tool, etc. All of these people's digital information is thus organized first based on what tool was used to create it or first access it: organization is by form, where form = tool.
  • p. 7 - Consider the quote from Chiariglione in terms of objectives for an information system (or systems)
  • p. 9 - 2nd paragraph of Sec. 7 - This idea is something I think about a lot, since I study personal information management: we must all do the work of "information professionals" for ourselves on top of our own work in order to get things done efficiently. Information work is labor. While some of it can and has been automated, usually the labor just gets shifted around.

• Reading guide
  

You have already read about many of the ideas in this chapter in the other readings. Please read the sections below:

• Methods of Semantic Disambiguation, p. 148 – Automation, p. 155
• Definition of equivalence, p. 158 – Automation, p. 159–160
• Related terms–Lack of rigor, p. 161 – Automation, p. 162