Talk:Service for Control of Named Entities

Information on this page is in stage „work in progress“ or needs to be discussed.

Other candidates

Potential other candidates for normalized metadata entries have to be discussed further and maybe to be defined with pilots.

MPG Units

Potential metadata elements

Complete name In Englisch and/or German?

Alternative name

Place

Address

Homepage

Resources

• http://www.mpg.de/english/institutesProjectsFacilities/index.html - MPG website, the authorative source?
• http://wiki.mpg.de/index.php/Alumni:ListeInstitute - list of MPG units (existing and former) provided by maxnet wiki
• http://www.biochem.mpg.de/iv/strategy_tab.html#mpg - Search queries for MPG units provided by IVS-BM
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft#Forschungseinrichtungen_der_Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Conferences/events

Potential metadata elements

Title The name of the event (e.g. Symposium on Theory of Computing)

Alternative title Any alternative name of the event

Abbreviation Abbreviated name of the event (e.g. STOC)

Start date Start date of the event

End date End date of the event

Place Place where the event took place

Invitation status The information if the creator was explicitly invited

Remark Sabine: Should this information be stored in controlled metadata record?

Remark Ulla: No, not to my understanding

To my understanding, the invitation status can only be specified for each talk individually and is therefore no generic metadata for the conference --Inga 12:19, 28 December 2007 (CET)

Keywords, classifications, thesauri

→ see cpt_pubman_classifications

Title of Source (e.g. Series titles)

Series titles may be handled via the journal authority file as well --Inga 12:19, 28 December 2007 (CET)

Potential external sources

The tables give an overview of potential sources of controlled named entities which are of interest. The information given in the tables reflects the current situation and has to be updated from time to time. The tables are in stage "work in progress" and other sources might be added.

Person

Person(s), i.e. full name of persons (authors, editors, referees, etc.)

Name of service	Scope	Info	Formats supported	Interfaces	Costs	Access
Library of Congress Name Authority Service	To be evaluated in detail (likely not to cover too many MPG authors)	Introduction WSDL http://authorities.loc.gov	MARCXML	SOAP WSDL	Records are free of charge	via web site
Personennormdatei (PND)	ca. 2,6 mio names (1 mio with individualized records) To be evaluated in detail (likely not to cover too many MPG authors)	Introduction	MAB2 USMARC SUTRS	Z39.50	PND, GKD and SWD only in combination available costs	CD-ROM (2 CDs) as cumulative new editions. Published biyearly in January and July PND is licensed in MPS, database is available via the Aleph server
Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)	First prototype covers LC and DNB personal name authority and related bibliographic records	project web site	MARC21 (?)			Prototype system available at: http://viaf.org
Computer Science Bibliography (DBLP)	Computer Science	http://dblp.uni-trier.de	HTML, XML
Wikipedia Persondata		info data dump	HTML

Corporate body

Name of service	Scope	Info	Formats supported	Interfaces	Costs	Access
Körperschaftsnormdatei (GKD)	More than 1 mio records (german&foreign corporate bodies and conferences)	Introduction	MAB2	Z39.50	see PND	see PND

Journal

Name of service	Scope	Info	Formats supported	Interfaces	Costs	Access
Zeitschriftendatenbank (ZDB)	ca. 1,3 mio records	Introduction	MAB2, UNIMARC, SUTRS	Z39.50		It has to be clarified with the GWDG if a tailored version of the ZDB (only listing MPG licensed journals) is available.
ISSN Register	1.284.413 records (2006)	http://www.issn.org	MARC21, UNIMARC	Z39.50	costs	Access via the ISSN portal or Z39.50 or via a combined web access Z39.50 and ISSN portal

Rights

Name of service	Scope	Info	Formats supported	Interfaces	Costs	Access
SHERPA/RoMEO Publishers copyright policies&self-archiving	340 publishers (July 2007)	http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php	XML	Prototype API	Conditions of re-use	Prototype API
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)	2.987 journals, 164.284 articles (5th of December 2007)	http://www.doaj.org	XML	OAI-PMH	Conditions of re-use	OAI-PMH

Potential use cases

(First ideas, needs to be discussed)

This section contains a first draft of potential use cases, described in a generic way that have to be adapted according to the respective type of authority file (e.g. journal, person, etc.):

• Create an authority record
• Use an authority record as template
• Display an authority record
• Edit an authority record
• Delete an authority record
• Link an authority record to an IR item
• Redirect an authority record
• Search an authority record

Whether the described use cases can also be applied for affiliations has to be evaluated further. The description of potential use cases is based on the assumption that the system supports the incremental build-up of internal authority files and external sources are used and integrated as a start content.

Please note: in the usage scenarios/use cases the deletion of a record should be stated as exception. Instead the deactivation of a record happens more often.

Create an authority record

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• Authority record is immediately visible and selectable (no status: pending, submitted, etc.)
• Depositor is not allowed to create, edit, delete or redirect an authority record
• Potential new role “AF-Editor” is not considered
• An authority record has no obligatory descriptive elements (=> no validation process is required)
• UC can be triggered independently or during FQA process as an extension of UC_PM_QA_XXX in case IR item has not been assigned to an authority record during submission process or has been assigned to the wrong authority record and the appropriate record is not yet available
• Nice to have: system provides interface to external authority files for inquiries and data transfer (not considered)

Actors

• Moderator, MD-Editor

Basic course of events (creation during FQA process)

• The user chooses to create an authority record
• The system creates a new authority record for the respective metadata field
• Continue with UC edit an authority record
• The system links the selected IR item with the authority record (via ID)

Alternative a (in case use case is triggered independently)

• The user chooses to create an authority record
• The system displays a list of all authority files for which the user has privileges
• The user selects an authority file and confirms the choice
• The system creates a new authority record
• Continue with UC edit an authority record

Alternative b (in case use case is triggered independently)

• If the user has rights for only one authority file, the authority file selection is automatically performed by the system

Use an authority record as template

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• Potential new role of “AF-Editor” is not considered
• UC can be triggered during FQA process or independently
• One authority record is selected

Actors

• Moderator, MD-Editor

Basic course of events

• The user chooses to use the selected authority record as template
• The system creates a new authority record and populates the new record with the metadata of the selected record
• Continue with UC edit authority record

Display an authority record

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• Potential new role of “AF-Editor” is not considered
• UC can be triggered during Submission, FQA process or independently
• One authority record is selected

Actors

• Moderator, MD-Editor, (Depositor) (authority record view for Depositor must not contain personal data, e.g. date of birth etc.)

Basic course of events

• User chooses to display the selected authority record
• The system displays the authority record

Edit an authority record

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• Depositor is not allowed to create, edit, delete or redirect an authority record
• Potential new role “AF-Editor” is not considered
• Check of correct assignment of authority record is performed during FQA process and no separate authority record quality assurance process is implemented => UC can be triggered during FQA process or independently
• UC is included by UC create an authority record and by UC use an authority record as template
• The user wants to change or provide data for an authority record

Actors

• Moderator, MD-Editor

Basic course of events

• The user chooses to edit the selected authority record
• The system displays an edit view for the selected authority record
• (Optional) the user adds new metadata values or modifies existing metadata values
• The user chooses to finalize the data
• The system stores the authority record and displays a success message

Delete an authority record

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• Deletion of authority records is important in case duplicates have been generated
• Always the newer authority record should be deleted (=> date of creation is an important information and should be displayed somewhere in the authority record view)
• Only authority records with no IR items assigned can be deleted. In case to be deleted authority record is still linked to IR items, links have to be changed manually beforehand (cf. UC redirect an authority record). Maybe an automatic “Umverknüpfungsprozess” should be implemented at a later date.
• Depositor is not allowed to create, edit, delete or redirect an authority record
• Potential new role “AF-Editor” is not considered
• One authority record is selected

Actors

• Moderator

Basic course of events

• The user chooses to delete the selected authority record
• The sytem checks if not IR items are linked with the selected authority record
• No IR items are linked with the authority record
• The system prompts the user to confirm the deletion
• The user confirms to delete the authority record
• The system deletes the authority record and displays a success message

Alternative a

• The selected authority record is still linked to one or more IR items
• The deletion fails

Alternative b

• The user does not confirm to delete the authority record
• The selected authority record is unaffected

Link an authority record

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• After selecting an authority record (and establishing a link between authority record and IR item) the user is still allowed to edit the medatata field but the established link will not remain. Incorrect links should be discovered and corrected during FQA process
• Potential new role “AF-Editor” is not considered
• Use case is part of USC submission or USC FQA an should be integrated as an include association in UC_PM_SM_XXX

Actors

• Depositor, Moderator, MD-Editor

Basic course of events

• User fills in the corresponding metadata field. During his/her typing the system automatically suggests a list of potential authority records (Wörterbuchfunktion)
• The user selects an authority record
• The system links the item with the selected authority record via AR-ID. In case a link has already been established, the system overwrites the previous AR-ID (relevant in case UC is triggered during FQA process)
• (Optional) the user edits the corresponding metadata field. The link between the item and the authority record does not remain and the item is marked as <not assigned to authority record>

Alternative

• No appropriate authority record is available. The user enters a free-text
• The item is marked as <not assigned to authority record>

Redirect an authority record

Preconditions, assumption

• IR item is self-contained
• Depositor is not allowed to create, edit, delete or redirect an authority record
• Potential new role “AF-Editor” is not considered
• UC is triggered in case duplicate has been detected or in case IR item has been assigned to the wrong authority record

Actors

• Moderator, System

Basic course of events

• Moderator triggers automatic Umverknüpfungsprozess

Search an authority record

Preconditions, assumptions

• IR item is self-contained
• Potential new role “AF-Editor” is not considered
• UC can be triggered during FQA process or independently

Actors

• Moderator, MD-Editor

Basic course of events

• The user selects one or more authority files
• The system displays a simple search field
• The user enters a search string and chooses to start the search
• The system searches in all metadata fields of authority records
• The system displays the list of items of the search result

Alternative

• No item matched the search string
• The system displays a message

Potential new role: AF-Editor

(First idea, needs to be discussed)

It has to be discussed further if a new role called AF-Editor has to be established. The idea is that the AF-Editor is responsible to provide and maintain high data quality of authority records and to ensure the consistency of the authority file databases. He/she is familiar with relevant cataloging and standardization rules and takes care of the standardization of selected data. The AF-Editor complements the area of responsibilities of the Moderator and the MD-Editor and has special privileges to authorize and to deactivate authority records. Once an authority record has been authorized it is locked and can only be edited by the AF-Editor him-/herself.

Potential new use cases

• authorize an authority record
• send an authority record back for revision (in case e.g. Moderator wants to edit an authority record which has been already authorized)
• propose an authority record for deactivation

Potential new status

• After creation authority record is either in state pending or submitted.

Potential privileges/competencies

• AF-Editor is allowed to authorize and to deactivate authority records and beyond that has privileges to all other actions connected to authority files/authority records.
• During separate AFQA process authority record gets checked and authoritzed by the AF-Editor. A list of newly created authority records is displayed in the AF-Editors’ workspace.

Open issues

• Separate AFQA process and its interaction with FQA process has to be specified. We assume that the release process of IR items is not affected by new AF workflow when IR items are self-contained and follow Autopsie-Prinzip.

Potential privileges/competencies

(First idea, needs to be discussed)

Depositor

• display an authority record
• link an authority record

Moderator

• create an authority record
• display an authority record
• edit an authority record
• deactivate an authority record
• link an authority record to an IR item
• redirect an authority record
• search an authority record

MD-Editor

• create an authority record
• display an authority record
• edit an authority record
• link an authority record to an IR item
• search an authority record

Potential web services

It has to be discussed whether part of the controlled metadata values which are stored and maintained in PubMan should be provided via web services (e.g. an interface/plugin for organizational units in order to re-use the data for instance when writing a scientific paper). The legal situation for metadata values from external sources has to be clarified in this context.

Open Issues

Metadata

• Agree on a list of potential candidates for authority files. Note: If a generic mechanism like CDS Invenio's knowledge base would be implemented no such list would be needed in advance.
• Define what kind of descriptive elements an authority record should contain. Descriptive elements may differ from authority file to authority file and should therefore be defined individually.
• Decide whether an IR-item should be self-contained or not. Question: What does self-contained mean? Even right now, IR items are not self-contained in the sense that they contain all relevant metadata values, because other repository objects like creators are only referenced.
• Define how to map authority files to a MD element in a specific MDS. Note: for every MD element the system supports authority files for, we probably need to specify a list of descriptive information available for the authority file (e.g. journal names: title, translation of title, title abbreviations, ISSN, eISSN, etc. persons: last name, first name, etc.)
• Specify linking between IR items and authority records via ID.
• Specify linking of different authority files/databases (e.g. user database - personal name authority file - affiliation authority file).
• Describe selection of authority record (Depositor during submission? Free-text field? System suggests authority record while Depositor fills in information? Depositor may search within authority file database and selects an record?).

Handling of authority files

• Specify assignment of items to an authority record and when it will take place (while submission by selecting an authority record from the selection list? While submission by accepting an authority record selected by the system? While FQA?).
• Describe administration and control of authority files (who is allowed to create, edit, delete, redirect, and authorize authority records? (see proposal of new role AF-Editor).
• Define what will happen in case no appropriate authority record is available.
• Specify if different kinds of authority files require different handling.
• Clarify dilemma between authority files and Autopsie-Prinzip (scenario: user selects an authority record. System fills in certain fields automatically. User edits one or more of the automatically selected fields afterwards) (proposal made by Inga: entry in IR item follows Autopsie-Prinzip but browse tree will be generated from authority record and standardized data. Notation of original (Vorlage) should be integrated in authority record as an alternative (e.g. alternative name).
• Specify duplicate checking for authority records. Duplicate checking should also compare e.g. name and alternative name.
• Specify users and their rights and privileges concerning authority files.
• Specify if a separate authority file workflow is required.
• Describe entry of multiple authors (via copy and paste).

Handling of new authority records

• Describe creation of new authority records (e.g. when does user create a new record? (Depositor during submission? Moderator during FQA? AF-Editor in a separate workflow? Is it possible to use an existing entry as template? Should the system generate a message to AF-Editor in case a new authority record has been created?).
• Specify a “Regelwerk” for the creation of new authority records.
• Specify if an authority record has obligatory elements.

Import of external authority files

• Specify how external authority files can be provided (licensed by MPS? Online available? CD-ROM?) and which procedures are required (includes: harvesting, data conversion (format and character set), linking to IR items, update mechanism, maintenance).
• Describe import of external authority files or subset of it.
• Where will be imports of data sets like: name authority files (e.g. PND), user/person related information; imports from MPG-IP-database hosted at GWDG, other authority files (e.g. Zeitschriftendatenbank) described and handled? – They are not described in USC_ingestion.

Build-up of internal authority files

• Describe procedure of how to create incrementally built authority files.
• Clarify integration/interaction of internal and external authority files (initial import of external authority files or harvest of authority files scheduled on a regular basis?).
• Will it be possible to extend/modify authority records in case of loading/synchronizing authority files from external source (assumption: no or by customizable fields).

Customization

• Clarify on which criteria authority files are chosen (customization of authority files on collection, user, user group level?).
• Describe setup of authority files on collection level.

Export

• Specify export of authority records/authority files
• Define what kind of descriptive elements of an authority record should be exportable in case IR item is not self-contained or in case IR item should be enriched with additional information from authority record.

Ingestion

• Specify assignment of authority records for ingested data.

Searching

• Define which elements of authority records are searchable (simple, advanced and expert search).
• Specify searching in external authority files (provide interface for AF-Editor and Moderator to external authority files for inquiries and data transfer).
• Define generation of browse trees (proposal: browse trees should be generated of standardized data of authority record).
• Specify search in internal authority files.
• Describe basket functionality for authority records (e.g. important for re-direction in batch mode or re-use of data).

Migration of eDoc data

• Specify assignment of authority records to migrated eDoc items.

Others

• Is the SFX knowledge base an alternative to the ZDB?
• Favourite co-authors feature has to be implemented in accordance with authority file concept (Wörterbuchfunktion could be an alternative to the favourite coauthors feature).
• Automatic “Umverknüpfungsprozess” has to be specified. Privileges and rights of IR items have to be considered (i.e. how to handle the re-direction of items from other collections).

Questions for service implementation and data

Michael, Natasa--Natasa 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• AUTOSUGGESTION
  • would it be OK to autosuggest only journals that have SFX-ID
  • suggested list to contain SFX-ID and edoc journal name (as it is normalized)
  • TEST TO TRY:

1) lucene index compound from searchable fields 2) add special triple for autosuggest results for each journal 3) each journal contains regularly metadata as defined

• JOURNAL MAINTENANCE
  • if new journals are added must / can they always acquire SFX-ID? If needed, HOW? e.g. send first to SFX, get back jouID, then assign real ID

• DDC
  • please note that the current notation of DDC values in the CONE service (e.g. "100.110.116 - Change") may be confusing because DDC uses the dot to separate a category from its extension, e.g.

 641 Food and drink
 641.84 Sandwiches

Aha, we were not aware of this, so we took the hierarchy of the three levels above as value and as identifier. So does it mean only the third level should have been actually stated as a value (in this case identifiers would still have the full path?)--Natasa 08:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't understood for what the "full path" is required - there is only one path to 112 in any case (= 100.110.112). I believe that the actual DDC value is the number only, e.g.

 <dc:subject scheme="DDC">
   062
 </dc:subject>

see http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/04/14/dc-xml-guidelines/. In addition, DDC codes/notations have been translated into terms in a couple of natural languages, including German. --Inga 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is explicitly decided for values to use only English names (and to serve only English names in the autosuggested list). The whole concept of data internationalization is not yet completely clear. --Natasa 08:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not considering internationalization is fine with me - even NIMS will bring the issue on the table very soon. In terms of interoperability, you probably should consider to store the notation individually and to use this in the pubman metadata only. But it looks like this is already done ;) - I got confused because the json output merges various sub elements into"value" --Inga 12:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect to identifiers, must admit, was probably not fully understood. I was using the following resources: http://dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/panzer.pdf, http://dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/panzer.pdf, http://ddc.typepad.com/025431/2007/09/designing-ident.html - and misunderstood the class identifier (was not paying attention on the level). Sure, we only need the last 3 digits in each identifier and identifier value. Another mislead was also the fact that we only use first three levels of DDC :) --Natasa 08:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja! ... and this is definitively not the implementation recommended by Traugott, because the first three levels do not provide a very "fine-grained" classification by subject, see Talk:ESciDoc_Application_Profile_Publication#Subject --Inga 12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Informationsvermittlungsstelle

Biology and Medicine

Central European Time

Simple Object Access Protocol

Web Services Description Language

Personen Normdatei

Gemeinsame Körperschaftsdatei

Schlagwort Datei

Max Planck Society

Integrated Library System by ExLibris

Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Hypertext Markup Language

Extensible Markup Language

Zeitschriftendatenbank

Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung Göttingen

International Standard Serial Number

Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access

Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting

Use Case

Quality Assurance

Metadata

Identifier

Publication Management

Internet Protocol

Electronic Documentation

OpenURL Link Resolver

Coordinated Universal Time

Display Data Channel

National Institute for Materials Science Japan