> InteroperabilityLevels

The following 377 words could not be found in the dictionary of 550 words (including 550 LocalSpellingWords) and are highlighted below:

about   above   Abstract   abstract   according   addresses   All   an   An   and   any   applicable   Application   application   applications   appropriate   are   as   aside   assumptions   At   attachment   automatic   automatically   Baker   based   basis   be   been   benefits   between   bounded   build   but   by   can   captured   choices   combinations   come   communities   community   compatible   complete   concept   concepts   conclusions   conformance   Conformance   conforming   conforms   consensus   considerations   consistent   constraint   constraints   constructs   Conventions   Core   correct   corresponds   costs   could   covering   creating   data   Data   dc   decade   defined   definition   definitions   degrees   described   describes   description   Description   Descriptions   designing   determining   Diagram   discussion   distinguishing   document   documentation   documents   does   Domain   domains   draw   dsp   Dublin   dublincore   each   element   elements   embedded   embodied   encode   encoding   Encoding   entity   Eprints   etc   even   evolving   example   Examples   exchange   expectations   explicit   explicitly   Expressing   expression   expressions   extended   felt   fifteen   For   for   Formal   formal   formally   format   formed   framework   Framework   from   Functional   graph   graphs   groups   guidelines   has   have   helpful   here   higher   Historically   how   identification   identity   ietf   if   If   implicit   in   includes   increased   infer   inferences   inferrability   informal   informally   information   intention   interoperability   Interoperability   interoperable   involved   is   Is   it   its   Johnston   jpg   lacking   ladder   language   layered   layers   Learning   Leaving   led   legacy   level   Level   Levels   levels   library   literal   litmus   logical   lossy   machine   managed   many   mapping   mappings   maximum   meanings   meant   meta   Metadata   metadata   Mikael   Model   model   multiple   must   native   natural   need   needed   needs   Nilsson   no   not   notion   notions   Object   of   On   on   one   only   or   order   other   outlines   over   Over   package   partial   past   people   per   Pete   point   position   possible   precise   present   presented   principle   processability   profile   Profile   Profiles   progress   project   projects   properties   property   provide   provided   provides   providing   published   purposes   Question   ranges   Rather   recent   record   records   refer   reference   referenced   refers   Regardless   related   relations   relationships   repeatable   repository   representation   representing   require   requirement   Requirements   resource   reusability   reuse   reuses   rfc   rfc2413   rules   said   Scheme   Scholarly   scope   seen   semantic   Semantic   semantically   Semantics   semantics   sense   serve   Set   set   Sets   Shared   sharing   Simple   simple   singapore   Singapore   single   so   speaking   specific   specification   specifications   specified   specifying   standards   stated   Statements   statements   Strings   strings   structural   structure   structured   sub   such   supply   syntactic   syntax   tags   term   terminology   Terms   terms   Test   tests   that   The   the   their   there   Therefore   These   these   this   This   Thomas   those   though   Thus   to   together   top   traditionally   transform   transforms   triples   unbounded   underlying   usage   use   used   users   using   validation   Value   value   various   via   vocabularies   Vocabulary   vocabulary   wants   way   well   were   what   which   While   wider   with   within   word   Works   yes  

Clear message

Interoperability levels for Dublin Core metadata

Mikael Nilsson, Thomas Baker, Pete Johnston

The evolving assumptions which over the past decade have led from [WWW]fifteen elements to the [WWW]Singapore Framework can be captured in a layered model of interoperability. The model of levels presented here addresses the need felt in many communities to position various projects with various degrees of interoperability with Dublin Core but lacking an appropriate terminology.

The intention is to provide a "ladder of interoperability", specifying the choices, costs, and benefits involved in designing applications for increased levels interoperability.

This document describes the possible levels of interoperability with Dublin Core metadata of a specification (or application). These levels are helpful for determining the scope of a project that wants to be "Dublin Core-compatible" and to set expectations for users of "Dublin Core-compatible" specifications.

The levels come with simple litmus tests that serve as guidelines for determining the level of interoperability. The levels build on each other, so a level 3 conforming specification automatically conforms to level 1 and 2, etc.

At this point there is no wider consensus on these levels. Therefore, this document is for discussion purposes only.

attachment:InteroperabilityLevelsDiagram.jpg

Level 1: Shared term definitions

The fifteen-element Dublin Core (as in the NISO, ISO, and IETF standards) provides a vocabulary of concepts with natural-language definitions. Leaving aside considerations of machine-processability ("formal" semantics), such vocabularies provide a basis for sharing meanings within and between groups of people -- an "informal" interoperability which does not require the use of URIs to reference terms, formally specified domains and ranges, or higher-order constructs such as the DCMI Abstract Model. For example, the reuse of DCMI term definitions and mappings to DCMI terms provided by IEEE Learning Object Metadata could be seen as providing "informal conformance" with Simple Dublin Core.

This level corresponds to using Dublin Core terms together with their natural language definitions.

Test

Examples

Level 2: Formal semantic interoperability

"Semantic" interoperability is based on a precise and correct use of the formal RDF semantics embodied in the RDF graph data model and in RDF-based vocabularies such as DCMI Metadata Terms. "Semantics" in this sense does not refer to well-formed natural-language definitions (which is how the word "semantics" has traditionally been used in the Dublin Core community). Rather, it refers to formally stated relationships between terms and rules for using such statements to draw automatic conclusions (logical inferences). This includes use (or inferrability) of URIs and conformance with formally specified domains, ranges, and sub-property relations. Regardless of its native encoding format, a specification could be said to be "semantically interoperable" if it were to supply a complete mapping to RDF triples, for example via a GRDDL transform.

This level corresponds to implicit or explicit use of the RDF semantics underlying DCMI terms. Thus, any usage of the terms needs to be precise in its conformance with the RDF model and the domains and ranges of terms.

Test

Examples

Level 3: Description Set syntactic interoperability

On top of the unbounded graphs specified by RDF, the DCMI Abstract Model layers the notions of bounded Descriptions and Description Sets, providing a basis for the validation and exchange of metadata records. Metadata structured according to the DCMI Abstract Model -- for example, data creating using recent syntax guidelines from DCMI -- could be said to be "DCAM-interoperable". Over and above the RDF abstract syntax, DCAM provides:

This level corresponds to explicit use of the DCMI Abstract Model in the metadata.

Test

Examples

Level 4: Description Set Profile interoperability

The specification [WWW]Description Set Profiles: A constraint language for Dublin Core Application Profiles provides an information model and XML expression of structural constraints on a Description Set. An application such as the Scholarly Works (Eprints) Application Profile can be said to be "DSP-interoperable" if it provides formal constraints on a Description Set that are compatible with those in the Description Set Profile specification.

A related specification, Singapore Framework for Dublin Core Application Profiles outlines a package of documentation elements needed in order to present a metadata application for maximum interoperability and reusability -- elements such as Functional Requirements, a Domain Model, and a Description Set Profile covering the complete metadata set.

Test

Examples