[12267] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Ontological, Agent-based, On-the-Fly Cataloging
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gerry Mckiernan)
Wed Jun 17 20:23:41 1998
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:18:24 -0500
From: Gerry Mckiernan <GMCKIERN@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
_Ontological, Agent-based, On-the-Fly Cataloging_=20
Recently, I posted queries requesting consideration of viewing =
_Library Subject and Organizational Systems as Ontologies _ as well as two =
related to the application of Intelligent Software Agents for Cooperative/C=
ollaborative Collection Development. Concurrently, I also have been =
reviewing various Metadata initiatives (MARC, Dublin Core, EAD, GILS, MCF, =
SHOE, TEI, etc. [See IFLA "Metadata Resources" page at http://www.nlc-bnc.c=
a/ifla/II/metadata.htm] for mention in my presentation at the LITA SIG =
Authority Control in the Online Ennvironment program at the ALA annual =
meeting on June 28, 1998 2-5:30 [The theme is "Metadata and Authority =
Control" and all are invited; no reservation are required {:->]=20
My superficial review of Ontologies within the context of MARC as =
well as my superficial review of Agents and their _possible_ application =
to Collection Development, and other library services, has led me to =
consider the possibility of using agents to 'assemble' Ontologies that =
would serve as a 'catalog' record for a given information resource (e.g., =
print or electronic monograph, print or electronic serial title, print or =
electronic serial article, Web pages/sites, etc. In this view the Ontology =
would substitute for a Cataloging Record (e.g., in MARC) or for a metadata =
presentation description (e.g., Dublin Core). In essense the Ontology =
would become the Metadata and Presentation Format. My thinking about this =
approach has been inspired by Thomas R. Gruber, one of the exceptional =
minds of this world, who long ago (1992 {:->) created a _Bibliographic-Data=
Ontology_ [See: http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/~harrison/ontologies/bibliogra=
phic-data/ index.html ; for the full outline of his bibliographic =
ontology]. [Peter Weinstein's work at well with the Digital Libraries =
Initiative at Michigan also had a direct affect on my thinking. I =
highly-recommend a visit to his project and publications pages. His paper =
prepared for this months ACM Digital Libraries conference is well-worth =
The Read. His _Ontology-based Metadata_ and _UMDL Ontology Concept =
Descriptions_ are of particular note [Available At/From: http://www-persona=
l.umich.edu/~peterw/Ontology/Beethoven/demo.html]=20
In considering Ontologies, I initially thought of representing =
standard library classification and subjects systems as Ontologies. Indeed =
Vickery in a recent issue of _The Journal of Information Science_ =
[Vickery, B.C. "Ontologies." Journal of Information Science 23, no. 4 =
(1997): 277-286] presents an _excellent_ summary and profile of Ontologies =
as well as explicit recognition of Library Classification and Subject =
Systems as Ontologies [Thanks B.C!][BTW: I wish to publicly acknowledge =
the direct influence on my initial thinking about Ontologies to Jane =
Greenberg, University of Pittsburgh [Go Pitt! {:->] Her excellent article =
"Reference Structures: Stagnation, Progress, and Future Challenges" in the =
September 1997 issue of _Information Technology and Libraries_ 16(3) =
[Abstract available at: http://www.lita.org/ital/ital1603.htm#greenberg] =
explicitly details the Ontological Nature of Library Schemes and I =
consider it a Must-Read! Thanks, Jane!]=20
On the way to work [I get some of my best ideas riding the bus!], =
it occurred to me that perhaps we need to re-think our current approach to =
'Catalog Record' for Print and/or Electronic resources. Not only should we =
begin to consider the Ontology as the Record Format, but to think more =
'dynamically' about the nature of the data or information that would be =
included in each Ontology Class that constitutes the Ontology Format [See =
Gruber's and Weinstein's outline above] Instead of having one and only one =
appropriate member within a given class, there could be many such members. =
For example, in Gruber's Bibliographic Ontology in the Author Class we =
would have more than one Author, or Title, or Publisher, etc. These =
members would exist as Class Clusters and ranked by some systen algorithm =
within the Bibliographic Ontology for a given resource (e.g., monograph, =
serial, etc.) Such clusters would not be created manually but would be =
categorized by Ontological Agents that would analyze and *class*ify the =
'content' of an 'object' (e.g., electronic book) based upon the function =
of each individual ontological agent. For example, within the Cataloging =
Ontological Agent, there would be an Author Ontological Agent to identify =
the 'Author(s)' of a 'work', and a separate Subject Ontological Agent to =
identify'Author(s)' of a 'work', and a separate Subject Ontological Agent =
to identify the 'subject' of a 'work', etc. The Cataloging Ontological =
Agent would organize the results of the sub-agent activities and present =
to the user a Catalog Record organized by the established Ontological =
Outline [See Gruber, for example], or customized to user preference.=20
Whew! Whew! Whew!=20
In summary, this model seeks to reconceptualize the cataloging =
process and the presentation and navigation of catalog data/metadata!=20
For my continuing search for The Truth and the Meaning of Life =
[:-)], I' d appreciate any reactions or elaborations on this proposed =
model. As Always, Any and All ontributions, questions, concerns, comments, =
citations, or queries are Most Welcome!=20
Joy!=20
/Gerry McKiernan Curator, CyberStacks(sm) Iowa State University Ames IA =
50011 gerrymck@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/=20
"The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Use An Agent! {;->] With =
Possible Apologies to Peter Drucker=20
=20
