2001
DOI: 10.1045/december2001-blanchi
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distributed Interoperable Metadata Registry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These characteristics distinguish our scheme‐based conception of views from various database or XML view mechanisms that simplify the integration of heterogeneous data4, 53–58. In addition, our scheme‐based distinction of application‐pertinent and DVO‐pertinent compositions draws a significant difference between our composition schemes and disseminator‐based approaches 21, 59, 60. In the latter, storage artifacts are directly associated with repository‐pertinent executable code and consequently, there is explicit coupling.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These characteristics distinguish our scheme‐based conception of views from various database or XML view mechanisms that simplify the integration of heterogeneous data4, 53–58. In addition, our scheme‐based distinction of application‐pertinent and DVO‐pertinent compositions draws a significant difference between our composition schemes and disseminator‐based approaches 21, 59, 60. In the latter, storage artifacts are directly associated with repository‐pertinent executable code and consequently, there is explicit coupling.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More specifically, metadata interoperability refers to the ability to exchange and interpret data across two or more metadata standards by minimizing syntactic, structural, and semantic inconsistencies and thereby maximizing opportunities for sharing and reusing information (Blanchi and Petrone 2001;Miller 2000). Central to this definition is the potential for metadata stand-ards to cross the boundaries between different metadata contexts by removing any heterogeneity, thus facilitating the unambiguous exchange of metadata records (Arms et al 2002;Oltmans 2001, 2).…”
Section: Theoretical Foundationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our approach is also aligned with the well-documented goal to offer a unified foundation for digital libraries; this objective has been articulated in a number of efforts including the definition of digital object repositories [89], the 5S formal model of digital libraries [90], the formal model for annotating digital content [91] and the OAIS [92] and DELOS [93] reference models. In addition, our scheme-based realization of virtual object behavior draws a significant difference compared to disseminator-based approaches [94,95,96] used in digital repositories. In the latter, storage artifacts are directly associated with repository-pertinent executable code and consequently there is explicit coupling.…”
Section: Digital Librariesmentioning
confidence: 97%