In 2005, IFLA started “Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR)” as a working group in the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) family. The group was supposed to focus on subject authority data (information about subjects from authority files) and its use in a wide range of applications, the semantics, structures and interoperability issues of such data, independent from any implementation or specific context.

In June this year, the FRSAR working group published a second draft of a “Conceptual Model” [1]. It focuses on general functional requirements and the potential of subject authority data for broad sharing and use.

This draft was open for comments and review until the end of July in order for discussions by the Working Group during the IFLA 2009 conference in mid-August in Milan. Further comments can be sent to mzeng@kent.edu.

The core of the model on the aboutness of works is the following:

work <<has as subject/is subject of>> thema <<has appellation/is appellation of>> nomen

The relationships between the three entities are many-to-many relationships and bi-directional. However, in a given controlled vocabulary and within a domain, a nomen should be an appellation of only one thema.

“Thema” is defined as “any entity that can be subject of a work”. Thema includes any of the entities which are originally defined by FRBR: work, expression, manifestation, item; person, corporate body; concept, object, event, place and all other subjects “work” might have.
The entity “Nomen” and the relationships ‘Thema has appellation Nomen/ Nomen is appellation of Thema’ are new proposals of the working group. “Nomen” is any sign or sequence of signs (alphanumeric characters, symbols etc.) by which a “Thema” is known, referred to or addressed as.

Two co-chairs of the working group, Marcia Zeng and Maja Zumer, compare the FRSAR model in a paper presented at IFLA 2009 [2] with related models (new thesauri standards BS8723 and ISO 25964-1; SKOS, OWL and the DCMI Abstract Model). They conclude that these models match rather well with the FRASAR conceptual model, and thus, that subject authority data that are modeled according to FRSAD and encoded in SKOS or OWL will have a high potential of interoperability and contribute to linked data and the semantic web.

[1] IFLA (2009). Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD). A Conceptual Model. IFLA Working Group on FRSAR. 2nd draft 2009-06-10.http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/report090623.pdf

[2] Zeng, Marcia and Zumer, Maja (2009). Introducing FRSAD and mapping it with SKOS and other models. 75th IFLA General Conference, Papers, 23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy. Available in 5 languages.
http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/index.html

Autoren: Stefan Kramer, Yale University Library, stefan.kramer@yale.edu; Anne Oechtering, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, anne.oechtering@sbb.spk-berlin.de; Joachim Wackerow, GESIS (Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften), joachim.wackerow@gesis.org

Abstract:
Numeric datasets generated in the course of research projects in the social sciences pose distinct problems for their efficient and effective description, indexing, locating, reusing, and archiving. The development of the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) seeks to address these problems. With the release of DDI version 3 as a metadata schema for social science data, the DDI Alliance as the organization behind these efforts now focuses on the development of tools and the promotion of the DDI in appropriate communities of practice. Read the rest of this entry »

Autor: John A. Kunze, University of California, jak@ucop.edu

Abstract
Ein Archival Resource Key (ARK) ist eine URL, die die langzeitig verfügbare, digitale Referenz von Informationsobjekten jeglicher Art ermöglicht. Die California Digital Library (CDL) nutzt die Software „noid“, um ARKs zu generieren. ARKs setzen sich aus einer Folge von Zeichen (eineindeutig und unveränderbar) zusammen, die den Namen der Organisation (durch eine NAAN identifiziert), die dem Label “ark:” folgen. Davor kann optional der Protokoll- und Hostnamen einer URL stehen.

An ARK¹ is a URL created to support persistent, long-term access to information objects. ARKs can identify objects of any type: digital documents, databases, images, software, and websites, as well as physical objects (books, bones, statues, etc.) and intangible objects (chemicals, diseases, vocabulary terms, performances). Read the rest of this entry »

The heavily used ISO thesaurus standards are now about 35 years old and their last revisions took place more than twenty years ago. Since roughly a year ago, an international working group (WG 8 Structured Vocabularies) under the ISO TC46/SC9 committee “Identification and Description”, is developing a common new standard under the title “ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies”.

Aim
The basic principles of how to build, maintain and use a thesaurus and, especially, the function of such a controlled vocabulary, might not have changed significantly. The technology, scale of application and especially the new context of the digital world and the Internet are radically different, however.
Modern tools are needed to access networked information resources by topic and to prepare for Semantic Web. Rather traditional Knowledge Organization tools have shown to carry considerable benefits in this new environment.

Predecessors
Prior updates to the original ISO standards (ISO 2788 monolingual thesauri and ISO 5964 multilingual thesauri) have been taking place in US and UK national standards. NISO has updated the US national standard for monolingual thesauri ANSI/NISO Z39.19 more frequently, especially with the latest version 2005 (available at [1]). Seven years of work in the UK resulted in BS 8723, published in five parts between 2005 and 2008 (print for a fee, copyright). The latter effort is the main basis for the work with the new ISO standard, again under the leadership of Stella Dextre Clarke as convenor.

New content, structure and scope
All of the existing scope of the two earlier ISO standards will be retained and revised, and the following additional subjects will be added, what to a large degree already has happened in the new British Standard:

• Function (and display) of thesauri in electronic environments
• Functional specification for software to manage thesauri
• Data model for a thesaurus
• Formats and protocols for exchange of thesaurus data
• Guidelines for certain additional types of vocabulary (e.g. classification schemes, taxonomies)

• Interoperability and mapping between vocabularies

Since thesauri still are dealt with in greatest detail and completeness, the ISO standard will be published in two separate parts:

1) Thesauri for information retrieval, covering mono- and multilingual thesauri; data model and exchange formats; everything which relates solely to thesauri

2) Interoperability with other vocabularies, covering guidelines and issues of interoperability between thesauri and single other types of structured vocabularies; advice on mapping

Timetable, Contributions
A Committee Draft (CD), in the language of ISO, of Part 1 has been delivered to SC9 on 30 November 2008. During February/March 2009, the standard bodies of the SC9 member countries voted on the Committee Draft which received 100% approval to advance to the Draft International Standard (DIS) stage. The extensive comments received will be used to consider and improve the text for the submission of a DIS version, expected in July 2009, which again will be voted on. Part 1, ISO 25964-1, is expected to be finally published and ready for use in Fall 2009. The work on Part 2 has been started during May 2009.

As widely known, drafts and texts worked on during an ISO standardisation process are not publicly available, they are confidential and under copyright constraints.

To exercise your influence, please contact experts in the responsible national committees (Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Ukraine and United States are represented in the ISO working group at this time) via the national standards bodies.
At least the DIS will be open to everybody for general comments and feedback.
Your comments and questions on this and following blog entries at this TechWatch Report site are very welcome and will be read and considered by the responsible ISO working group.

Reference
For a few further details and references, i.e. the five parts of the British standard, consult:
Dextre Clarke, Stella G. (2008). ISO 2788 + ISO 5964 + Much Energy = ISO 25964. In: ASIS&T Bulletin October/November 2008 [2]

[1] http://www.niso.org/standards/
[2] http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Oct-08/OctNov08_DextreClarke.html

Autor: Tobias Steinke, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, t.steinke@d-nb.de

Am 2. April 2008 wurde Open XML als ISO-Norm 29500 verabschiedet. Sie wurde am 19. November 2008 in vier Teilen veröffentlicht und gehört zu den wenigen kostenlos verfügbaren ISO-Normen, welche hier heruntergeladen werden können. Zuvor hatte es im Zuge des Standardisierungsverfahren erhebliche Kontroversen gegeben.

Die Office-Formate der Programme von Microsoft sind zwar schon lange ein Defakto-Standard, aber bisher legte die Firma die zugehörigen Spezifikationen nie völlig offen. Ihr für die aktuelle Programmversion neu entwickeltes Office-Format auf Basis von XML wurde nun aber zuerst ein ECMA-Standard und als solcher auch beim ISO zur Normierung eingereicht. Kritiker waren gegen die Normierung, da es bereits ein anderes von der ISO normiertes Office-Format auf XML-Basis gibt, OpenDocument (ISO 26300). OpenDocument wird besonders von Open-Source-Befürwortern gefördert und von vielen Programmen unterstützt, insbesondere vom freien Programmpaket OpenOffice.org. Microsoft argumentierte für ihr eigenes Format damit, dass sich mit OpenDocument nicht alles abbilden ließe, was mit den bisherigen MS-Office-Produkten möglich war. Die Kritiker unterstellten Microsoft hingegen, mit einem eigenen Norm-Format nur die eigene Vormachtstellung im Office-Markt zementieren zu wollen. Denn die 6000 Seiten umfassende Spezifikation von Open XML sei so ausgelegt, dass Mitbewerber sie kaum implementieren könnten. Aus Sicht der Langzeitarchivierung von Office-Dokumenten kann die Normierung jedoch begrüßt werden. Denn eine ISO-Norm garantiert, dass die Spezifikationen “für alle Zeiten” verfügbar bleiben, was für die Langzeitarchivierung essentiell ist. Ein nicht-offener Defakto-Standard, wie sie die Microsoft-Office-Formate bisher waren, schafft dagegen erhebliche Probleme bei der Durchführung der notwendigen Langzeitverfügbarkeitsstrategien Migration und Emulation.