Evaluation of Schema.org for Aggregation of Cultural Heritage Metadata
In the World Wide Web, a very large number of resources is made available through digital libraries. The existence of many individual digital libraries, maintained by different organizations, brings challenges to the discoverability, sharing and reuse of the resources. A widely-used approach is metadata aggregation, where centralized efforts like Europeana facilitate the discoverability and use of the resources by collecting their associated metadata. The cultural heritage domain embraced the aggregation approach while, at the same time, the technological landscape kept evolving. Nowadays, cultural heritage institutions are increasingly applying technologies designed for the wider interoperability on the Web. In this context, we have identified the Schema.org vocabulary as a potential technology for innovating metadata aggregation. We conducted two case studies that analysed Schema.org metadata from collections from cultural heritage institutions. We used the requirements of the Europeana Network as evaluation criteria. These include the recommendations of the Europeana Data Model, which is a collaborative effort from all the domains represented in Europeana: libraries, museums, archives, and galleries. We concluded that Schema.org poses no obstacle that cannot be overcome to allow data providers to deliver metadata in full compliance with Europeana requirements and with the desired semantic quality. However, Schema.org’s cross-domain applicability raises the need for accompanying its adoption by recommendations and/or specifications regarding how data providers should create their Schema.org metadata, so that they can meet the specific requirements of Europeana or other cultural aggregation networks.
KeywordsMetadata Cultural heritage Metadata aggregation Schema.org Europeana Data Model Digital libraries
We would like to acknowledge the support given by staff members of North Carolina State University Libraries, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Digital Public Library of America, for their support in access and analysis of the data sources for the case studies: Jason Ronallo, Timothy Cole, Jacob Jett, Gretchen Gueguen and Michael Della Bitta.
This work was partially supported by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) with reference UID/CEC/50021/2013, and by the European Commission under the Connecting Europe Facility, telecommunications sector, grant agreement number CEF-TC-2015-1-01, and under contract number 30-CE-0885387/00-80.
- 1.Verwayen, H.: Business Plan 2017: Spreading the Word. Europeana Foundation (2017). https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/europeana-business-plan-2017.pdf
- 2.Scholz, H., McCarthy, D., Gomez, P.U., Katrinaki, E., Herlt, K., Welter, J., Natale, M.T., Piccininno, M., Baumann, G., Fernie, K., Gavrilis, D., Rendina, M., Verbruggen, E., Ivacs, G., van Schaverbeke, N., Garvin, J.: Amount of Data Partners and Outeach to Major Institutions. Europeana Core Service Platform D1.2 (2017). https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Projects/Project_list/Europeana_DSI/Deliverables/europeana-dsi-d1.2-amount-of-data-partners-and-outreach-to-major-institutions.pdf
- 3.Lagoze, C., Van de Sompel, H., Nelson, M., Warner, S.: The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, Version 2.0 (2002). http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/openarchivesprotocol.htm
- 4.Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description. DCMI Recommendation (2012). http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/
- 5.Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corporation and Yandex. About Schema.org. http://schema.org/docs/about.html
- 6.Freire, N., Manguinhas, H., Isaac, A., Robson, G., Howard, J.B.: Web technologies: a survey of their applicability to metadata aggregation in cultural heritage. In: 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing (2017)Google Scholar
- 7.Wallis, R., Isaac, A., Charles, V., Manguinhas, H.: Recommendations for the application of Schema.org to aggregated Cultural Heritage metadata to increase relevance and visibility to search engines: the case of Europeana. Code4Lib J. (36) (2017). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/12330. ISSN 1940-5758
- 8.Definition of the Europeana Data Model v5.2.8. Europeana Foundation (2017). http://pro.europeana.eu/edm-documentation
- 9.Gradmann, S.: Knowledge = Information in Context: on the Importance of Semantic Contextualisation in Europeana. Europeana Whitepaper (2010). http://pro.europeana.eu/publication/knowledgeinformation-in-context
- 10.Charles, V., Isaac, A.: Enhancing the Europeana Data Model (EDM). Europeana whitepaper (2015). http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/EDM_WhitePaper_17062015.pdf
- 11.Berners-Lee, T.: Linked Data. W3C Design Issues (2006). http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
- 12.Digital Public Library of America. Metadata Application Profile, Version 4.0 (2015). https://dp.la/info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MAPv4.pdf
- 13.Europeana Data Model - Mapping Guidelines v2.4. Europeana Foundation (2017). http://pro.europeana.eu/edm-documentation
- 15.Snydman, S., Sanderson, R., Cramer, T.: The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF): a community & technology approach for web-based images. Archiving (2015). http://purl.stanford.edu/df650pk4327
- 16.Freire, N., Robson, G., Howard, J.B., Manguinhas, H., Isaac, A.: Metadata aggregation: assessing the application of IIIF and sitemaps within cultural heritage. In: Kamps, J., Tsakonas, G., Manolopoulos, Y., Iliadis, L., Karydis, I. (eds.) TPDL 2017. LNCS, vol. 10450, pp. 220–232. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67008-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar