바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

A Proposal for Creating Task-Centric Application Profile: Utilization of Task Model for Suitable Selection and Combination of Metadata Schema Properties

Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society / Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, (P)2466-2542;
2018, v.49 no.3, pp.407-428
https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.49.3.201809.407

  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Metadata standard is very important element to describe a digital resource in the records lifecycle. Metadata standard is influenced by the purpose and content of tasks that are performed to a resource. But it does not reflect a task-centric viewpoint to cover the whole records-lifecycle because metadata is defined and designed from a resource-centric viewpoint. In other words, to cover the whole records-lifecycle using metadata, it is necessary to properly select and combine metadata property from a task-centric viewpoint. Therefore, we proposed a task-centric metadata application profile that can combine and select appropriate metadata properties according to requirements and tasks performed on resource.

keywords
Application profile, Interoperability, Mapping, Metadata property, Metadata schema, Records lifecycle, Task, Task-Centric Application profile, Task model, 기록생애주기, 매핑, 메타데이터 속성, 메타데이터 스키마, 상호운용성, 어플리케이션 프로파일, 업무, 업무중심의 어플리케이션 프로파일, 태스크, 태스크 모델

Reference

1.

백재은. 2014. A Study on Feature Analysis of Archival Metadata Standards in the Records Lifecycle. 『한국문헌정보학회지』, 48(3): 71-111.

2.

백재은, 스기모토 시게오. 2012. 메타데이터 상호운용성을 위한 기록관리 메타데이터 표준 분석. 『기록학연구』, 32: 127-176.

3.

Baek, Jaeeun, Shigeo Sugimoto. 2010. Feature Analysis of Metadata Schemas for Records Management and Archives from the Viewpoint of Records Lifecycle. 『한국기록관리학회지』, 10(2): 75-99.

4.

Baek, Jaeeun, Shigeo Sugimoto. 2011. “Facet Analysis of Archival Metadata Standards to Support Appropriate Selection, Combination and Use of Metadata Schemas.” In: Proceeding of International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, The Hague, Sep 2011. Netherlands, 1-11.

5.

Tambouris. E. et al. 2007. “Metadata for digital collection of e-government resources.” The Electronic Library, 25(2): 176-192.

6.

Chen, L.M. and Zeng, M.L.. 2006. Metadata Interoperability and Standardization - A Study of Methodology Part I. [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/chan/06chan.html>.

7.

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). 2007. Dublin Core Collection Description Application Profile. [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/>.

8.

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). 2012. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description. [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/>.

9.

Haslhofer, Bernhard and Klas, Wolfgang. 2010. “A Survey of Techniques for Achieving Metadata Interoperability.” ACM Computing Surveys, 42(7): 1-37.

10.

International Council on Archives (ICA). 2000. ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description, Second Edition. [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/CBPS_2000_Guidelines_ISAD%28G%29_Second-edition_EN.pdf>.

11.

National Archives of Australia. 2010. AGLS Metadata Standard Part 2 Usage Guide – (Version 2.0). [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <http://www.agls.gov.au/pdf/AGLS%20Metadata%20Standard%20Part%202%20Usage%20Guide.PDF>.

12.

National Archives of Australia. 2015. Australian Government Recordkeeping, Metadata Standard (AGRkMS). [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <http://www.naa.gov.au/Images/AGRkMS-Version-2.2-June-2015_tcm16-47131.pdf>.

13.

The Library of Congress. 2015. PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata. [cited 2018. 8. 15]. <http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v3/premis-3-0-final.pdf>.

Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society