Intermediary XML schemas

The methodology of intermediary XML schemas is introduced and its application to complex metadata environments is explored. Intermediary schemas are designed to mediate to other ‘referent’ schemas: instances conforming to these are not generally intended for dissemination but must usually be realized by XSLT transformations for delivery. In some cases, these schemas may also generate instances conforming to themselves. Three subsidiary methods of this methodology are introduced. The first is application-specific schemas that act as intermediaries to established schemas which are problematic by virtue of their over-complexity or flexibility. The second employs the METS packaging standard as a template for navigating instances of a complex schema by defining an abstract map of its instances. The third employs the METS structural map to define templates or conceptual models from which instances of metadata for complex applications may be realized by XSLT transformations. The first method is placed in the context of earlier approaches to semantic interoperability such as crosswalks, switching across, derivation and application profiles. The second is discussed in the context of such methods for mapping complex objects as OAI-ORE and the Fedora Content Model Architecture. The third is examined in relation to earlier approaches to templating within XML architectures. The relevance of these methods to contemporary research is discussed in three areas: digital ecosystems, archival description and Linked Open Data in digital asset management and preservation. Their relevance to future research is discussed in the form of suggested enhancements to each, a possible synthesis of the second and third to overcome possible problems of interoperability presented by the first, and their potential role in future developments in digital preservation. This methodology offers an original approach to resolving issues of interoperability and the management of complex metadata environments; it significantly extends earlier techniques and does so entirely within XML architectures.

[1]  Jerome McDonough,et al.  Aligning METS with the OAI-ORE data model , 2009, JCDL '09.

[2]  Jennifer Bunn.  Developing descriptive standards: a renewed call to action , 2013 .

[3]  Elizabeth H. Dow.  Encoded Archival Description as a Halfway Technology , 2009 .

[4]  Pedro Rangel Henriques,et al.  XCSL: XML Constraint Specification Language , 2003, CLEI Electron. J..

[5]  Gerard Briscoe,et al.  Digital Ecosystems: Evolving Service-Orientated Architectures , 2006, 2006 1st Bio-Inspired Models of Network, Information and Computing Systems.

[6]  Richard Gartner.  Metadata for digital libraries: state of the art and future directions , 2008 .

[7]  Yan Han,et al.  A RDF-based digital library system , 2006, Libr. Hi Tech.

[8]  Ralph Hodgson,et al.  Adaptive information - improving business through semantic interoperability, grid computing, and enterprise integration , 2004, Wiley series in systems engineering and management.

[9]  Christopher J. Prom.  Does EAD Play Well with Other Metadata Standards? , 2002 .

[10]  Peter Mork,et al.  A rule driven bi-directional translation system for remapping queries and result sets between a mediated schema and heterogeneous data sources , 2002, AMIA.

[11]  C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,et al.  TEI Lite: An Introduction to Text Encoding for Interchange , 2001, WWW 2001.

[12]  Manolis Gergatsoulis,et al.  Interoperability Between Archival and Bibliographic Metadata: An EAD to MODS Crosswalk , 2009 .

[13]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  The Xyleme project , 2002, Comput. Networks.

[14]  Michael J. Carey,et al.  XPERANTO: Publishing Object-Relational Data as XML , 2000, WebDB.

[15]  Sheila Anderson,et al.  Taking the Long View: From e-Science Humanities to Humanities Digital Ecosystems , 2012 .

[16]  Keith G. Jeffery,et al.  Comparative Study of Metadata for Scientific Information: The Place of CERIF in CRISs and Scientific Repositories , 2002 .

[17]  Joshua Lubell.  Architectures in an XML World , 2001, Extreme Markup Languages®.

[18]  Jean-Yves Vion-Dury,et al.  On the Preservation of Evolving Digital Content - The Continuum Approach and Relevant Metadata Models , 2015, MTSR.

[19]  Tova Milo,et al.  Views in a large-scale XML repository , 2002, The VLDB Journal.

[20]  Tobias Blanke,et al.  Integrating Holocaust Research , 2013 .

[21]  Andy Powell,et al.  A Dublin Core Application Profile for Scholarly Works , 2007 .

[22]  Jerome McDonough,et al.  METS: standardized encoding for digital library objects , 2006, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[23]  Sören Auer,et al.  Mapping XML to OWL Ontologies , 2005, Leipziger Informatik-Tage.

[24]  Michael J. Carey,et al.  XPERANTO: Middleware for Publishing Object-Relational Data as XML Documents , 2000, VLDB.

[25]  G. Sayeed Choudhury,et al.  The Archive Ingest and Handling Test: The Johns Hopkins University Report , 2005, D Lib Mag..

[26]  Michael K. Buckland,et al.  What is a digital document , 1998 .

[27]  Mark Hedges,et al.  FISHNet: encouraging data sharing and reuse in the freshwater science community , 2012, J. Digit. Inf..

[28]  Denilson Barbosa,et al.  ToX - the Toronto XML Engine , 2001, Workshop on Information Integration on the Web.

[29]  M. Hascoet,et al.  Xyleme, a dynamic warehouse for XML data of the Web , 2001, Proceedings 2001 International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium.

[30]  Richard Gartner,et al.  CENDARI: Establishing a digital ecosystem for historical research , 2013, 2013 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST).

[31]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Aggregation and Accumulation of XML Data. , 2001 .

[32]  Gail E. Kaiser,et al.  Retrofitting Autonomic Capabilities onto Legacy Systems , 2006, Cluster Computing.

[33]  Manjula Patel,et al.  Application Profiles: Mixing and Matching Metadata Schemas , 2000 .

[34]  David L. Giaretta.  The CASPAR Approach to Digital Preservation , 2007, Int. J. Digit. Curation.

[35]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Piazza: data management infrastructure for semantic web applications , 2003, WWW '03.

[36]  Gail E. Kaiser.  Coping With Complexity: A Standards-Based Kinesthetic Approach to Monitoring Non-Standard Component-Based Systems , 2004 .

[37]  E. Shekita,et al.  XPERANTO : Br idging Relational Technology and XML , 2022 .

[38]  Ccsds Secretariat,et al.  Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) , 1999 .

[39]  M. Buckland.  What is a “document”? , 1997 .

[40]  Marcia Lei Zeng.  Introducing FRSAD and Mapping it with Other Models , 2009 .

[41]  Eric Childress,et al.  Two paths to interoperable metadata , 2003 .

[42]  Zohra Bellahsene,et al.  PORSCHE: Performance ORiented SCHEma mediation , 2008, Inf. Syst..

[43]  Keith G. Jeffery,et al.  A CERIF-based schema for recording research impact , 2013, Electron. Libr..

[44]  Mingyu Chen,et al.  Implementing METS, MIX, and DC for Sustaining Digital Preservation at the University of Houston Libraries , 2011 .

[45]  H. Boley,et al.  Digital Ecosystems: Principles and Semantics , 2007, 2007 Inaugural IEEE-IES Digital EcoSystems and Technologies Conference.

[46]  Karen Cariani,et al.  Developing a flexible content model for media repositories: a case study , 2009, JCDL '09.

[47]  Thomas G. Habing,et al.  Using the open archives initiative protocols with EAD , 2002, JCDL '02.

[48]  Sandra Payette,et al.  Fedora: an architecture for complex objects and their relationships , 2005, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[49]  Rebecca S. Guenther.  Battle of the Buzzwords: Flexibility vs. Interoperability When Implementing PREMIS in METS , 2008, D Lib Mag..

[50]  Richard Gartner.  Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web , 2016 .

[51]  James Coleman,et al.  SGML as a Framework for Digital Preservation and Access. , 1997 .

[52]  Adam Farquhar,et al.  Planets: Integrated Services for Digital Preservation , 2007, Int. J. Digit. Curation.

[53]  Richard Gartner.  Intermediary schemas for complex XML applications: an example from research information management , 2011, J. Digit. Inf..

[54]  Elizabeth J. Shaw,et al.  Rethinking EAD: Balancing flexibility and interoperability , 2001 .

[55]  Richard Gartner.  METS as an 'Intermediary' Schema for a Digital Library of Complex Scientific Multimedia , 2012 .

[56]  David Taniar,et al.  Schema Mediation for Heterogeneous XML Schema Sources , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops.

[57]  Peter Gorman,et al.  Beyond the Tutorial: Complex Content Models in Fedora 3 , 2009 .

[58]  Heike Neuroth,et al.  Metadata Mapping and Application Profiles. Approaches to providing the Cross-searching of Heterogeneous Resources in the EU Project Renardus , 2001, Dublin Core Conference.

[59]  Bauman Syd.  Interchange vs. Interoperability , 2011 .

[60]  Dan Suciu,et al.  SilkRoute: trading between relations and XML , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[61]  Jaroslav Pokorný,et al.  A Mediation Layer for Heterogeneous XML Schemas , 2005, Int. J. Web Inf. Syst..

[62]  Desmond Schmidt,et al.  Towards an Interoperable Digital Scholarly Edition , 2014 .

[63]  Carl Lagoze,et al.  The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting Protocol , 2002 .

[64]  Manolis Tsiknakis,et al.  Standardized Data Sharing in a Paediatric Oncology Research Network - A Proof-of-Concept Study , 2015, eHealth.

[65]  John Azzolini.  Business Planning for Digital Libraries: International Approaches , 2011 .

[66]  Rebecca Guenther,et al.  Archiving Web Sites for Preservation and Access: MODS, METS and MINERVA , 2007 .

[67]  Evangelos Pournaras,et al.  From metaphor towards paradigm — A computing roadmap of digital ecosystems , 2012, 2012 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST).

[68]  Martin Doerr,et al.  Semantic interoperability in digital library systems. , 2005 .

[69]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  XML-QL: A Query Language for XML , 1998 .

[70]  Kim H. Veltman,et al.  Syntactic and semantic interoperability: New approaches to knowledge and the semantic web , 2001 .

[71]  René van Horik,et al.  The European Holocaust Research Infrastructure Portal , 2017, ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage.

[72]  Michael Dulock,et al.  Providing Metadata for Compound Digital Objects: Strategic Planning for an Institution's First Use of METS, MODS, and MIX , 2009 .

[73]  Stephen Grace,et al.  Modelling national research assessments in CERIF , 2010, CRIS.

[74]  Scott Phillips,et al.  Adding OAI--ORE Support to Repository Platforms , 2010, J. Digit. Inf..

[75]  Shigeo Sugimoto,et al.  A Metadata Framework for Cloud-Based Digital Archives Using METS with PREMIS , 2011, ICADL.

[76]  Denilson Barbosa,et al.  ToXgene: a template-based data generator for XML , 2002, SIGMOD '02.

[77]  Eric Childress,et al.  Toward element-level interoperability in bibliographic metadata , 2008 .

[78]  Gary Simons,et al.  Using Architectural Forms to Map TEI Data into an Object-Oriented Database , 1999, Comput. Humanit..

[79]  Arlene G. Taylor,et al.  The Organization of Information , 1999 .

[80]  Ioannis Kompatsiaris,et al.  PERICLES – Digital Preservation through Management of Change in Evolving Ecosystems. , 2015, SIMULTECH 2016.

[81]  Erik Duval,et al.  Application Profiles for Learning , 2006 .