Difference between revisions of "DCMI Registry Community"
m (→DCMI Registry Task Group)
|Line 64:||Line 64:|
recently been completed.
recently been completed.
Revision as of 11:29, 15 March 2011
|DCMI Registry Community|
|Dublin Core Metadata Initiative|
DCMI Registry Community/Task Group meeting 2010
At the upcoming Dublin Core conference DC-2010, to be held 20-22 October 2010 in Pittsburgh, there will be a meeting of the DCMI Registry Community and Task Group.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday 20 October, 9:00am-12:30pm.
This meeting is intended to be accessible to all, including those who have not previously attended DCMI events. The schedule below is provisional. If you would like to propose additional items for the meeting, please contact the organisers. We will send out an updated schedule nearer to the time.
- Short status reports relating to ongoing activity in the registry area.
- Presentation and discussion: Registries in a Linked Data context.
- Landscape review: the distributed registry -- Diane Hillmann.
- Further items TBC
If you have any immediate questions about the meeting, please contact Emma Tonkin (email@example.com) or Diane Hillmann (firstname.lastname@example.org).
DCMI Registry Community Projects
DCMI Registry Task Group
There are now many metadata registry projects in existence, under the aegis of groups such as the DCMI, TEL, NSDL, DART, and UKOLN, each of which has explored various aspects of registry development and use. Partially as a result of this work, there is renewed interest in learning from existing registry developments, and moving some aspects of the work forward together. For example, projects such as the Terminology Registry Scoping Study (TRSS)  aim to gain an overview of existing developments in this area and define common interests. It is felt that the DCMI Registry community is an important forum for this discussion.
This work is primarily designed to support knowledge sharing between initiatives with an interest in metadata schema registry work, and to address communication between established registries. This work focuses on metadata schema, vocabulary, and terminology registries.
The DCMI Registry Task Group will:
- Develop a set of functional requirements common to current registries, based on the experience and findings of current registry implementers and stakeholders. As part of this, investigate the dissemination functionality considered desirable in a registry, and appropriate use cases associated with this functionality; common requirements
- Draft a set of use cases for inter-registry interactions, taking into consideration interoperability concerns (reporting, notification, versioning, etc.) between registries and other applications sharing related goals; inter-registry use cases
- Draft a set of functional requirements related to the inter-registry transfer language or languages, including interoperability concerns related to sharing information between registries and with other applications such as vocabulary management applications that share related aims. inter-registry functional requirements
- March-April 2008: Recruit/select Task Group members
- April 2008: Review existing Registry documentation
- May-July 2008: Data collection regarding use cases, first draft of functional requirements.
- Late Summer 2008(DC/ECDL/NKOS): Reporting back with findings, and gathering comments from implementers. At DC-2008 determine dissemination and publication of findings and recommendations, or further activity required prior to publication. Consultation with possible standards bodies will be explored as well.
Reports on TG activities and findings will be presented to the community via the Registry Community Wiki at the end of each phase of activity. Full discussion of the work and its further development will be planned for the DC-2008 meeting of the Community.
Current status: (Winter 2009)
Corey Harper is working with us on the Registry Task Group work, and has recently completed a survey of the area, which he is now writing up into a report. We have also made good progress on the specific subject of interoperability, having successfully implemented a 'rough and ready' three-way transform between DCMI Registry, NSDL Registry and IEMSR RDF formats.
In the next period we hope to look at the practical proposals that have been brought up both by the recent survey and by participants at the York event (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/events/rcw-2009/), in order to use them as use cases for practical development based on the work that has recently been completed.
Template:Anchor 2011 Workplan:
The following work plan for the DCMI Registries Task Group is based on discussions at the DC2010 meeting in Pittsburgh as well as other conversations.
- December-February: Complete report from survey of Registry developers, administrators and end users (Corey). Versions of report to be prepared for both publication and posting on JISC/DCMI Web Sites.
- January-April: Review current Use Case and Functional Requirements documents. [1,2,3] Invite discussion on Task Group and Community Lists as to how to move these documents forward. Consider separating general functional requirements and use cases from documents specific to NSDL Registry (now Open Metadata Registry). Instead, focus on general functional requirements as determined in survey results and DC2010 face-to-face meeting in Pittsburgh.  Additionally, identify most desirable inter-registry interoperability functions such as automatic cross-registry updates and metadata schema / value vocabulary harvesting (Corey, Diane, Emma, Jon).
- March-July: Begin planning for test implementations of inter-registry interoperability functionality. Initially, focus testing on interoperability between the Open Metadata Registry and the JISC IEMSR. As work wraps up on the Metadata Information Infrastructure Project at Infocom and University of Tsukuba, extend testing to Dublin Core Registry and Japanese Metadata Infrastructure Project Registry (Corey, Emma, Jon, Mitsuharu). Most pre-DC2011 work will be test planning, with testing continuing into 2012.
- August-September: Before DC2011, invite additional participants to interoperability testing through follow-up with Survey Respondents and via Community & Task Group listserves.
Two to three conference calls should be held in the spring for planning and assessment of tasks 2 and 3.
Adrian Dale of Creatifica
Christine Frodl of the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Mitsuharu Nagamori of the University of Tsukuba
Andrew Kitchen on behalf of BECTA
Kora Golub / Doug Tudhope of the TRSS project
Sally Chambers of the KB/The European Library
Jane Hunter of the University of Queensland
Ian McKinnell of the NHS
Registry list - A list of developments that may arguably be considered metadata schema, terminology or ontology registries