Advertisement

Poisonous India or the Importance of a Semantic and Multilingual Enrichment Strategy

  • Marlies Olensky
  • Juliane Stiller
  • Evelyn Dröge
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 343)

Abstract

Cultural heritage information systems offer access to objects coming from museums, archives and libraries. To enhance retrieval performance and access across languages, metadata is enriched with controlled vocabularies or other datasets with structured information. During this process many pitfalls occur which lead to wrong or poor enrichments thus decreasing the user experience. Taking the use case of Europeana, this paper investigates the extent of enrichment flaws and their causes. A categorization of these deficiencies is proposed as well as a strategy to avoid common enrichment mistakes.

Keywords

Semantic and multilingual enrichment problem diagnosis enrichment strategy Europeana 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Isaac, A.: EDM Prototyping, 2.1. Enrichment of EDM data (2011), http://www.europeanalabs.eu/wiki/EDMPrototypingTask21
  2. 2.
    Isaac, A.: Functional Requirements: Data Enrichment (2010), http://europeanalabs.eu/wiki/SpecificationsDanubeRequirementsEDMDataEnrichment
  3. 3.
    Tordai, A., van Ossenbruggen, J., Schreiber, G.: Combining Vocabulary Alignment Techniques. In: Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conf. on Knowledge Capture, K-CAP 2009, pp. 25–32. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    EuropeanaConnect: Milestone 1.2.1: Specification of preferred terms identification methodology (Internal document) (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EuropeanaConnect: D2.3.1 Multilingual mapping of schemes and vocabularies (Internal document) (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vrandecic, D.: Ontology Evaluation. KIT, Karlsruhe (2010), http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000018419 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mader, C.: Quality Assurance in Collaboratively Created Web Vocabularies. In: Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O., Presutti, V. (eds.) ESWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7295, pp. 870–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mader, C., Haslhofer, B., Isaac, A.: Finding Quality Issues in SKOS Vocabularies. In: Zaphiris, P., Buchanan, G., Rasmussen, E., Loizides, F. (eds.) TPDL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7489, pp. 222–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlies Olensky
    • 1
  • Juliane Stiller
    • 1
  • Evelyn Dröge
    • 1
  1. 1.Berlin School of Library and Information ScienceHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations