Representation patterns for cultural heritage resources

Abstract

The universe of available cultural heritage metadata schemas grows more complex every day. Existing schemas are optimized for use in the library, archive, or museum domains and to fit the needs of shared services and applications. Emerging Linked Data approaches introduce additional challenges for metadata designers and creators responsible for implementing these standards. In other domains, design patterns are used to clearly articulate problems, their contexts, and available solutions. This poster introduces preliminary research to identify such patterns in cultural heritage metadata standards using content analysis and a participatory design methodology.

Preserving Bibliographic Relationships in Mappings from FRBR to BIBFRAME 2.0

“…Then, the target representation pattern should be compared with the representation pattern resulted from the transformation mappings. Representation patterns have been studied by other scholars in terms of identifying good practices for the representation of specific bibliographic cases using a model's semantics [9][10]. It should be clarified that a representation pattern does not express uniquely a bibliographic description case, because there exist alternatives of expressing the same semantics using the terms of a model.…”

Study of library data models in the semantic web environment

“…In this context, the existence of a systematic record regarding the available representation approaches in the bibliographic and cultural heritage domains would be an important interoperability asset. This is aligned with R.Urban's vision for creating a Linked Open Data Patterns database for the Libraries, Archives, and Museums domain (LODLAM Patterns) (Urban, 2014) that could also serve as a crosswalking tool (Urban, 2013). If these canons are considered as representation constraints, then the thesis agrees with Baker, Coyle, and Petiya claiming in (Baker et al, 2014) that interoperability may be achieved as long as models share common views in terms of constraints, and proposes the adoption of more common views in the library domain.…”

“…The sole publication about the project included one prototype pattern (the author used the term "protopattern") as evidence of the method (Urban, 2013). The "proto-pattern" dealt with the Surrogate identity problem, that is the problem of differentiating between the metadata about an original resource and the metadata about a surrogate resource.…”

“…The "proto-pattern" dealt with the Surrogate identity problem, that is the problem of differentiating between the metadata about an original resource and the metadata about a surrogate resource. The description of the proto-pattern used a specific structure, i.e., Problem, Context, Solution, Related Pattern, and Examples (Urban, 2013). The project received a little feedback and insufficient participation.…”

“…A significant finding in the thesis has been that models enable different representations for the same bibliographic description case using their constructs and without their semantics being violated. The identification and the recording of these patterns by scholars and models' development teams in a common infrastructure, similar to the LODLAM Patterns project envisioned by Professor Urban (Urban, 2013(Urban, , 2014, could further contribute to the semantic interoperability in the library linked data domain.…”