Rhuan Henrique Alves de Oliveira, Luana Carolina de Castro Gil, Ana Carolina Simionato Arakaki, Fabiano Ferreira de Castro
{"title":"Europeana 数据模型、IFLA LRM 和 BIBFRAME 概念模型实体之间的分析和对应关系","authors":"Rhuan Henrique Alves de Oliveira, Luana Carolina de Castro Gil, Ana Carolina Simionato Arakaki, Fabiano Ferreira de Castro","doi":"10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92822/54068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To propose the harmonization between the EDM, BIBFRAME, and IFLA LRM models with the purpose of analyzing the equivalence of entities to enable the interoperability between systems that use these conceptual models as a basis. Method: This research is characterized as exploratory and descriptive with a qualitative approach, in which a bibliographic survey was used to identify the studies already carried out on the topic. In addition, the analysis of entities was based on the methodology substantiated by Pierre et al. (1999), Taniguchi (2018), Arakaki (2019), and Carrasco (2019). Results: From the analysis of the models, six ontological categories of entities were identified: (i) Intellectual Content, (ii) Subject, (iii) Concrete Unit, (iv) Agent, (v) Space-time, and (vi) Reification. Consistent equivalences were observed between the entities, their functionalities, and terminology in most categories, except for the entities of the Intellectual Content category and the structuring of the Concrete Unit category. Conclusions: It was concluded that the most notable difference between the models was expressed in the Intellectual Content category, and that, because they are based on the cataloging tradition, the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models have functionally equivalent entities, while the EDM model, focused on the cultural heritage object itself, does not have any entity that may be mapped in this category. Likewise, a structural difference was found in the Concrete Unit category, in which the EDM model makes a distinction between the object itself and its digital representation, whereas such a distinction occurs in the Intellectual Content category for the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models.","PeriodicalId":505727,"journal":{"name":"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis and correspondence between the entities of Europeana Data Model, IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME conceptual models\",\"authors\":\"Rhuan Henrique Alves de Oliveira, Luana Carolina de Castro Gil, Ana Carolina Simionato Arakaki, Fabiano Ferreira de Castro\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92822/54068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To propose the harmonization between the EDM, BIBFRAME, and IFLA LRM models with the purpose of analyzing the equivalence of entities to enable the interoperability between systems that use these conceptual models as a basis. Method: This research is characterized as exploratory and descriptive with a qualitative approach, in which a bibliographic survey was used to identify the studies already carried out on the topic. In addition, the analysis of entities was based on the methodology substantiated by Pierre et al. (1999), Taniguchi (2018), Arakaki (2019), and Carrasco (2019). Results: From the analysis of the models, six ontological categories of entities were identified: (i) Intellectual Content, (ii) Subject, (iii) Concrete Unit, (iv) Agent, (v) Space-time, and (vi) Reification. Consistent equivalences were observed between the entities, their functionalities, and terminology in most categories, except for the entities of the Intellectual Content category and the structuring of the Concrete Unit category. Conclusions: It was concluded that the most notable difference between the models was expressed in the Intellectual Content category, and that, because they are based on the cataloging tradition, the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models have functionally equivalent entities, while the EDM model, focused on the cultural heritage object itself, does not have any entity that may be mapped in this category. Likewise, a structural difference was found in the Concrete Unit category, in which the EDM model makes a distinction between the object itself and its digital representation, whereas such a distinction occurs in the Intellectual Content category for the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92822/54068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92822/54068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analysis and correspondence between the entities of Europeana Data Model, IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME conceptual models
Objective: To propose the harmonization between the EDM, BIBFRAME, and IFLA LRM models with the purpose of analyzing the equivalence of entities to enable the interoperability between systems that use these conceptual models as a basis. Method: This research is characterized as exploratory and descriptive with a qualitative approach, in which a bibliographic survey was used to identify the studies already carried out on the topic. In addition, the analysis of entities was based on the methodology substantiated by Pierre et al. (1999), Taniguchi (2018), Arakaki (2019), and Carrasco (2019). Results: From the analysis of the models, six ontological categories of entities were identified: (i) Intellectual Content, (ii) Subject, (iii) Concrete Unit, (iv) Agent, (v) Space-time, and (vi) Reification. Consistent equivalences were observed between the entities, their functionalities, and terminology in most categories, except for the entities of the Intellectual Content category and the structuring of the Concrete Unit category. Conclusions: It was concluded that the most notable difference between the models was expressed in the Intellectual Content category, and that, because they are based on the cataloging tradition, the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models have functionally equivalent entities, while the EDM model, focused on the cultural heritage object itself, does not have any entity that may be mapped in this category. Likewise, a structural difference was found in the Concrete Unit category, in which the EDM model makes a distinction between the object itself and its digital representation, whereas such a distinction occurs in the Intellectual Content category for the IFLA LRM and BIBFRAME models.