Analysis and correspondence between the entities of Europeana Data Model, IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME conceptual models

Rhuan Henrique Alves de Oliveira, Luana Carolina de Castro Gil, Ana Carolina Simionato Arakaki, Fabiano Ferreira de Castro
{"title":"Analysis and correspondence between the entities of Europeana Data Model, IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME conceptual models","authors":"Rhuan Henrique Alves de Oliveira, Luana Carolina de Castro Gil, Ana Carolina Simionato Arakaki, Fabiano Ferreira de Castro","doi":"10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92822/54068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To propose the harmonization between the EDM, BIBFRAME, and IFLA LRM models with the purpose of analyzing the equivalence of entities to enable the interoperability between systems that use these conceptual models as a basis. Method: This research is characterized as exploratory and descriptive with a qualitative approach, in which a bibliographic survey was used to identify the studies already carried out on the topic. In addition, the analysis of entities was based on the methodology substantiated by Pierre et al. (1999), Taniguchi (2018), Arakaki (2019), and Carrasco (2019). Results: From the analysis of the models, six ontological categories of entities were identified: (i) Intellectual Content, (ii) Subject, (iii) Concrete Unit, (iv) Agent, (v) Space-time, and (vi) Reification. Consistent equivalences were observed between the entities, their functionalities, and terminology in most categories, except for the entities of the Intellectual Content category and the structuring of the Concrete Unit category. Conclusions: It was concluded that the most notable difference between the models was expressed in the Intellectual Content category, and that, because they are based on the cataloging tradition, the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models have functionally equivalent entities, while the EDM model, focused on the cultural heritage object itself, does not have any entity that may be mapped in this category. Likewise, a structural difference was found in the Concrete Unit category, in which the EDM model makes a distinction between the object itself and its digital representation, whereas such a distinction occurs in the Intellectual Content category for the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models.","PeriodicalId":505727,"journal":{"name":"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92822/54068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To propose the harmonization between the EDM, BIBFRAME, and IFLA LRM models with the purpose of analyzing the equivalence of entities to enable the interoperability between systems that use these conceptual models as a basis. Method: This research is characterized as exploratory and descriptive with a qualitative approach, in which a bibliographic survey was used to identify the studies already carried out on the topic. In addition, the analysis of entities was based on the methodology substantiated by Pierre et al. (1999), Taniguchi (2018), Arakaki (2019), and Carrasco (2019). Results: From the analysis of the models, six ontological categories of entities were identified: (i) Intellectual Content, (ii) Subject, (iii) Concrete Unit, (iv) Agent, (v) Space-time, and (vi) Reification. Consistent equivalences were observed between the entities, their functionalities, and terminology in most categories, except for the entities of the Intellectual Content category and the structuring of the Concrete Unit category. Conclusions: It was concluded that the most notable difference between the models was expressed in the Intellectual Content category, and that, because they are based on the cataloging tradition, the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models have functionally equivalent entities, while the EDM model, focused on the cultural heritage object itself, does not have any entity that may be mapped in this category. Likewise, a structural difference was found in the Concrete Unit category, in which the EDM model makes a distinction between the object itself and its digital representation, whereas such a distinction occurs in the Intellectual Content category for the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Europeana 数据模型、IFLA LRM 和 BIBFRAME 概念模型实体之间的分析和对应关系
目标:建议对 EDM、BIBFRAME 和 IFLA LRM 模型进行协调,目的是分析实体的等同性,使以这些概念模型为基础的系统之间具有互操作性。方法:本研究的特点是探索性和描述性,采用定性方法,通过书目调查来确定已开展的相关研究。此外,实体分析基于皮埃尔等人(1999 年)、谷口(2018 年)、荒垣(2019 年)和卡拉斯科(2019 年)所证实的方法。结果:通过对模型的分析,确定了六个本体论实体类别:(i) 知识内容;(ii) 主体;(iii) 具体单元;(iv) 代理;(v) 时空;(vi) 再化。除了智力内容类别的实体和具体单元类别的结构之外,大多数类别的实体、其功能和术语之间都有一致的等同性。结论由于它们都是基于编目传统,IFLA LRM 和 BIBFRAME 模型在功能上具有等同的实体,而 EDM 模型则侧重于文化遗产对象本身,没有任何实体可以映射到这一类别中。同样,在 "具体单位 "类别中也发现了结构上的差异,EDM 模式对文物本身和其数字表 示形式进行了区分,而 IFLA LRM 和 BIBFRAME 模式在 "知识内容 "类别中也进行了区分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sistemas de organização do conhecimento em propriedade intelectual: análise do tesauro proposto ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Propriedade Intelectual e Inovação (PPGPI) e do glossário do Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial (INPI) The Discourse of the Collective Subject in academic publications in Brazil: bibliometric analysis: bibliometric analysis Metadados para a construção de coleções especiais: a coleção Art by Female Artists OPAC enquanto dispositivo pedagógico-cultural na formação em música: identificação e análise no contexto das instituições paulistas de ensino superior Sistema de Museus do Distrito Federal: indícios de uma trajetória em (des) articulação
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1