skip to main content
research-article

A survey of techniques for achieving metadata interoperability

Published: 05 March 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Achieving uniform access to media objects in heterogeneous media repositories requires dealing with the problem of metadata interoperability. Currently there exist many interoperability techniques, with quite varying potential for resolving the structural and semantic heterogeneities that can exist between metadata stored in distinct repositories. Besides giving a general overview of the field of metadata interoperability, we provide a categorization of existing interoperability techniques, describe their characteristics, and compare their quality by analyzing their potential for resolving various types of heterogeneities. Based on our work, domain experts and technicians get an overview and categorization of existing metadata interoperability techniques and can select the appropriate approach for their specific metadata integration scenarios. Our analysis explicitly shows that metadata mapping is the appropriate technique in integration scenarios where an agreement on a certain metadata standard is not possible.

References

[1]
ADL. 2007. Sharable Content Reference Model (SCORM). Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL). http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/index.aspx.
[2]
ALCTS CC:DA. 2000. Task force on metadata: Final report. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS). http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/tf-meta6.html.
[3]
Allinson, J., Johnston, P., and Powell, A. 2007. A Dublin Core application profile for scholarly works. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue50/allinson-et-al/.
[4]
Ambler, S. 2003. Agile Database Techniques: Effective Strategies for the Agile Software Developer. Wiley, New York.
[5]
Arms, W. Y. 2000. Digital Libraries. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[6]
Atay, M., Chebotko, A., Liu, D., Lu, S., and Fotouhi, F. 2007. Efficient schema-based XML to-relational data mapping. Inform. Syst. 32, 3, 458--476.
[7]
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. F. 2003. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[8]
Baker, T., Blanchi, C., Brickley, D., Duval, E., Heery, R., Johnston, P., Kalinichenko, L., Neuroth, H., and Sugimoto, S. 2002. Principles of metadata registries. White paper, DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries.
[9]
Baker, T., Dekkers, M., Heery, R., Patel, M., and Salokhe, G. 2001. What terms does your metadata use? Application profiles as machine-understandable narratives. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. National Institute of Informatics, 151--159.
[10]
Benitez, A. B., Zhong, D., Chang, S.-F., and Smith, J. R. 2001. MPEG-7 MDS content description tools and applications. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns (CAIP'01). Springer, Berlin, 41--52.
[11]
Bernauer, M., Kappel, G., and Kramler, G. 2004. Representing XML schema in UML—A comparison of approaches. In Web Engineering, N. Koch et al. eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, vol. 3140. Springer, Berlin, 440--444.
[12]
Berners-Lee, T. 1998. Notation 3. Design note. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.
[13]
Bernstein, P. A., Halevy, A. Y., and Pottinger, R. A. 2000. A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Rec. 29, 4, 55--63.
[14]
Bizer, C. and Seaborne, A. 2004. D2RQ—Treating non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004). http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/D2RQ/.
[15]
Bracha, G. and Ungar, D. 2004. Mirrors: Design principles for meta-level facilities of object-oriented programming languages. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'04), ACM, New York, 331--344.
[16]
Buxmann, P., Weitzel, T., Westarp, F. V., and König, W. 1999. The standardization problem—An economic analysis of standards in information systems. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT99), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 157--162.
[17]
Cardelli, L. and Wegner, P. 1985. On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism. ACM Comput. Surv. 17, 4, 471--523.
[18]
CCSDS. 2002. Open archival information systems. OAIS. Council of the Consultative Commitee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf.
[19]
Chan, L. M. and Zeng, M. L. 2006. Metadata interoperability and standardization: A study of methodology. D-LIB Magazine 12, 6. Parts I + II. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/chan/06chan.html.
[20]
Chen, P. P.-S. 1976. The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 1, 1, 9--36.
[21]
Codd, E. F. 1970. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Comm. ACM 13, 6, 377--387.
[22]
DC. 2007. Dublin Core Collections Application Profile. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DC). http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/.
[23]
DC. 2006. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
[24]
DNB. 2007a. Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken. German National Library. Expert group for data formats. http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/formate/mab.htm.
[25]
DNB. 2007b. Personennormdatei (PND). German National Library. http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/normdateien/pnd.htm.
[26]
EDitEUR. 2007. Online Information Exchange (ONIX). The EDItEUR Group. http://www.editeur.org/onix.html.
[27]
ETSI. 2006. TV Anytime: TS 102 822:1-7. European Telecommunications Standards Instititute (ETSI). http://www.etsi.org/etsisite/website/technologies/tvanytime.aspx.
[28]
Fong, J. 1997. Converting relational to object-oriented databases. SIGMOD Rec. 26, 1, 53--58.
[29]
Franklin, M., Halevy, A., and Maier, D. 2005. From databases to dataspaces: A new abstraction for information management. SIGMOD Rec. 34, 4, 27--33.
[30]
Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V., and Damjanovi, V. 2004. Converting UML to OWL ontologies. In Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers and Posters (WWW Alt.'04). ACM, New York, 488--489.
[31]
Gilliland, A. J. 2005. Introduction to metadata: Pathways to digital information. http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/index.html.
[32]
Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G., and Bracha, G. 2005. The Java Language Specification (3rd Ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
[33]
Gruber, T. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquisit. 5, 199--220.
[34]
Halevy, A. Y. 2001. Answering queries using views: A survey. VLDB J. 10, 4, 270--294.
[35]
Halevy, Y., Ives, G., Suciu, D., and Tatarinov, I. 2005. Schema mediation for large-scale semantic data sharing. VLDB J. 14, 1, 68--83.
[36]
Haslhofer, B. 2008. A comparative study of mapping solutions. Tech. Rep., University of Vienna. http://www.cs.univie.ac.at/publication.php?pid=3886.
[37]
Heery, R. and Patel, M. 2000. Application profiles: Mixing and matching metadata schemas. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/app-profiles/.
[38]
Hunter, J. and Lagoze, C. 2001. Combining RDF and XML schemas to enhance interoperability between metadata application profiles. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'01), ACM, New York, 457--466.
[39]
IEEE WG-12. 2002. IEEE standard for learning object metadata: 1484.12.1-2002. IEEE, Washington, D.C. http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12.
[40]
IFLA. 1997. Functional requirements for bibliographic records. Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm.
[41]
ISO TC 154. 2004. Data elements and interchange formats--Information exchange--Representation of dates and times. ISO 8601:2004. International Standardization Organization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874.
[42]
ISO TC 211. 2003. Geographic information metadata. ISO 19115:2003. International Standardization Organization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26020.
[43]
ISO TC 46. 2006a. CIDOC conceptual reference model (CRM). ISO 21127:2006. International Standardization Organization (ISO).
[44]
ISO TC 46. 2006b. Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions.Part 1: Country codes. ISO 3166-1:2006. International Standardization Organization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39719.
[45]
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29. 2007a. MPEG-21 multimedia framework. ISO 21000-17:2003-2007. International Standardization Organization (ISO).
[46]
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29. 2007b. MPEG-7 multimedia content description interface. ISO 15938-1-11:2002-2007. International Standardization Organization (ISO).
[47]
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32. 2003. SQL - ISO/IEC 9075-1:2003. International Standardization Organization (ISO).
[48]
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32. 2005. Common logic (CL). A framework for a family of logic-based languages. ISO/IEC 24707:2007. International Standardization Organization (ISO).
[49]
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. 2006. Topic maps. Part 2: Data model. ISO/IEC 13250-2:2006. International Standardization Organization (ISO).
[50]
Java Community Process. 2006. JSR 269: Pluggable annotation processing API. http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=269.
[51]
Johnston, P. 2004. Minerva—Technical guidelines for digital cultural content creation programs. Tech. Rep., UKOLN, University of Bath. MLA The Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives. http://www.minervaeurope.org/structure/workinggroups/servprov/documents/techguid1_0.pdf.
[52]
Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. 2003. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18, 1, 1--31.
[53]
Karampiperis, P., Kastradas, K., and Sampson, D. 2003. A schema-mapping algorithm for educational metadata interoperability. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA'03). D. Lassner and C. McNaught (Eds.), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
[54]
Kensche, D., Quix, C., Chatti, M. A., and Jarke, M. 2007. Gerome: A generic role-based metamodel for model management. J. Data Semantics 8, 82--117.
[55]
Kosch, H. 2003. Distributed Multimedia Database Technologies Supported by MPEG-7 and MPEG-21. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
[56]
Lagoze, C. and de Sompel, H. V. 2001. The open archives initiative: Building a low-barrier interoperability framework. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM, New York, 54--62.
[57]
Lee, D., Mani, M., and Chu, W. W. 2003. Schema conversion methods between xml and relational models. In Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, IOS. Press, 1--17.
[58]
Lethi, P. and Frankhauser, P. 2004. XML data integration with OWL: Experiences and Challenges. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT'04). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 160--170.
[59]
LOC. 2007a. Library of Congress Authorities. Library of Congress (LOC). http://authorities.loc.gov/.
[60]
LOC. 2007b. Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/.
[61]
LOC. 2007c. MARC 21 concise format for bibliographic metadata. Library of Congress (LOC) Network Development and MARC Standards Office. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html.
[62]
LOC. 2007d. Metadata object description schema. Library of Congress (LOC) Network Development and MARC Standards Office. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/.
[63]
LOC. 2007e. METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard). Library of Congress (LOC) Network Development and MARC Standards Office. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets.
[64]
Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P. A., Domingos, P., and Halevy, A. Y. 2002. Representing and reasoning about mappings between domain models. In Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial intelligence. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 80--86.
[65]
McParland, A. 2002. TV-Anytime: Using all that extra data. Tech. rep., BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP050.pdf.
[66]
Mena, E., Illarramendi, A., Kashyap, V., and Sheth, A. P. 2000. Observer: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies. Distrib. Para. Datab. 8, 2, 223--271.
[67]
Miller, P. 2000. Interoperability. What is it and why should i want it? http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/interoperability/intro.html.
[68]
Motik, B., Horrocks, I., and Sattler, U. 2007. Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'07). ACM, New York, 807--816.
[69]
Niles, I. and Pease, A. 2001. Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS'01), ACM, New York, 2--9.
[70]
NISO. 2004. Understanding metadata. National Information Standards Organization (NISO). http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf.
[71]
NLM. 2007. Medical subject headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/.
[72]
Noy, N. F. 2004. Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Rec. 33, 4, 65--70.
[73]
Noy, N. F. and Klein, M. 2004. Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution. Knowl. Inform. Syst. 6, 4, 428--440.
[74]
Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A. 2004. Ontology versioning in an ontology management framework. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19, 4, 6--13.
[75]
NWG. 1995. A format for bibliographic records (RFC 1807). Network Working Group (NWG). http://rfc.net/rfc1807.html.
[76]
OCLC. 2007. Dewey decimal classification (DDC). Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). http://www.oclc.org/dewey/.
[77]
OGC. 2004. Geography markup language. Tech. rep., Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=4700.
[78]
OMG. 2006a. Meta Object Facility (MOF) core specification—Version 2.0. Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?formal/06-01-01.pdf.
[79]
OMG. 2006b. Ontology definition metamodel specification (ODM). Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-10-11.pdf.
[80]
OMG. 2006c. UML 2.0: Infrastructure specification. Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-09-15.pdf.
[81]
OMG. 2007a. MOF 2.0 /XMI Mapping Specification, V2.1.1. Object Management Group (OMG).
[82]
OMG. 2007b. Unified Modelling Language (UML). Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.uml.org/.
[83]
Ouksel, A. M. and Sheth, A. 1999. Semantic interoperability in global information systems. SIGMOD Rec. 28, 1, 5--12.
[84]
Pierre, M. S. and LaPlant, W. P. 1998. Issues in crosswalking content metadata standards. Tech. rep., National Information Standards Organization (NISO). http://www.niso.org/press/whitepapers/crsswalk.html.
[85]
Powell, A., Nilsson, M., Naeve, A., and Johnston, P. 2005. DCMI abstract model. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DC). http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/.
[86]
Rahm, E. and Bernstein, P. A. 2001. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10, 4, 334--350.
[87]
Seidewitz, E. 2003. What models mean. IEEE Softw. 20, 5, 26--32.
[88]
Sheth, A. and Klas, W. 1998. Multimedia Data Management: Using Metadata to Integrate and Apply Digital Media. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[89]
Sheth, A. P. and Larson, J. A. 1990. Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 22, 3, 183--236.
[90]
Sintek, M. and Decker, S. 2002. Triple—A query, inference, and transformation language for the semantic web. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. I. Horrocks and J. A. Hendler (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2342. Springer, Berlin, 364--378.
[91]
Spaccapietra, S., Parent, C., and Dupont, Y. 1992. Model independent assertions for integration of heterogeneous schemas. VLDB Journal 1, 1, 81--126.
[92]
TEI. 2007. TEI P5: Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. TEI Consortium. http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/.
[93]
Tillett, B. 2004. What is FRBR: A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe. http://www.loc.gov/cds/FRBR.html.
[94]
Tolk, A. 2006. What comes after the semantic web: PADS implications for the dynamic web. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS'06), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 55.
[95]
Visser, P. R. S., Jones, D. M., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Shave, M. J. R. 1997. An analysis of ontological mismatches: Heterogeneity versus interoperability. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering.
[96]
VRA. 2007. VRA Core 4.0. Visual Resources Association's (VRA) Data Standards Committee. http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/index.html.
[97]
W3C. 2004a. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C semantic web activity—RDF Core Working Group. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
[98]
W3C. 2004b. Web Ontology Language (OWL). W3C semantic web activity. Web Ontology Working Group. http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/.
[99]
W3C. 2006. XML schema 1.1 Part 1: Structure. W3C XML Core Working Group. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/.
[100]
Wache, H. 2003. Semantische mediation für heterogene informationsquellen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bremen.
[101]
Westermann, U. and Klas, W. 2003. An analysis of XML database solutions for the management of MPEG-7 media descriptions. ACM Comput. Surv. 35, 4, 331--373.
[102]
WonderWeb Consortium. 2003. DOLCE: A descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering. http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Patient-Centric Approach to Personalized Electronic Medical Records via QR Code in JapanInteractive Journal of Medical Research10.2196/5733213(e57332)Online publication date: 23-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Designing Metadata for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in AcademiaProceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3605098.3636201(1662-1664)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Key Technologies of Government Data Heterogeneity and Interoperation: A Survey2024 IEEE 7th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC)10.1109/IAEAC59436.2024.10503635(1673-1679)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Computing Surveys
ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 42, Issue 2
February 2010
134 pages
ISSN:0360-0300
EISSN:1557-7341
DOI:10.1145/1667062
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 March 2010
Accepted: 01 October 2008
Revised: 01 August 2008
Received: 01 March 2008
Published in CSUR Volume 42, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Metadata standards
  2. interoperability
  3. mapping

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)173
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17
Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Patient-Centric Approach to Personalized Electronic Medical Records via QR Code in JapanInteractive Journal of Medical Research10.2196/5733213(e57332)Online publication date: 23-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Designing Metadata for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in AcademiaProceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3605098.3636201(1662-1664)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Key Technologies of Government Data Heterogeneity and Interoperation: A Survey2024 IEEE 7th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC)10.1109/IAEAC59436.2024.10503635(1673-1679)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Cultural Heritage Information Retrieval: Past, Present, and Future TrendsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.337476912(42992-43026)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)FAIR Header Reference genome: a TRUSTworthy standardBriefings in Bioinformatics10.1093/bib/bbae12225:3Online publication date: 28-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Scenario-oriented data interoperability: maximising the connection between data and users in collaboration environmentsEnterprise Information Systems10.1080/17517575.2024.244560419:1-2Online publication date: 28-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Leveraging Knowledge Graphs for Earth System Dataset DiscoveryThe Semantic Web – ISWC 202410.1007/978-3-031-77847-6_15(271-288)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2024
  • (2022)Conversion of JAPAN/MARC Bibliographic Records to NCR2018 Element-based MetadataJAPAN/MARC書誌レコードからNCR2018エレメントベースのメタデータへの変換Library and Information Science10.46895/lis.88.4988(47-71)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2022
  • (2022)Interoperability approaches of blockchain technology for supply chain systemsBusiness Process Management Journal10.1108/BPMJ-04-2022-020728:5/6(1251-1276)Online publication date: 22-Aug-2022
  • (2021)Pidgin Metadata Framework as a Mediator for Metadata InteroperabilityLibri10.1515/libri-2020-000371:4(375-387)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media