Project name: ADL Thesaurus Protocol

Project URL: http://alexandria.sdc.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/thesaurus/

Project Description: Protocol for exchange of thesaurus information. Thesaurus data exchange tool.

The Thesaurus Protocol is based on the ANSI/NISO (1993) Z39.19 thesaurus model and supports downloading, querying, and navigating thesauri.

Protocol: XML- and HTTP-based protocol

Standards: ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993: Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri.

Hierarchy: hierarchy of terms above (broader than) or below (narrower than) a starting preferred term, including the starting term itself. The hierarchy is indicated by the nesting of XML elements.

The protocol provides five independent, stateless services.

Queries the thesaurus by term name and returns a list of the matching terms. operator is the matching operator to employ

Provisional Checklist:

Please use the following form to evaluate semantic interoperability projects.

1. Types of data being integrated

Does the project have:

(a) different controlled vocabularies in same language?

(b) different controlled vocabularies in different languages?

(c) different classification schemas (e.g., DDC, UDC, LCC)?

If yes, which ones?

(d) controlled vocabularies combined with classification schemas?

(e) different metadata framework schemas (e.g., XML, MARC, Dublin Core)?

If yes, which ones? XML- and HTTP-based protocol

(f) different communication protocols?

(g) other:

2. Autonomy and Integrity of Constituent Parts

(a) Is standardization, reconciliation, or conversion of semantic data reversible?

(a.1) Can precoördinated strings, once filtered or deconstructed for semantic matching, later be put back together again?

There are five ways to search the data:

1.Hierarchy—Search asking for broader terms

2.Hierarchy—Search asking for narrower terms

3. String

4. Single term

5. Boolean searches

(I think this is what Daniel is asking but I am not clear on this)

(b) Is full complement of metadata and indigenous subject hierarchies preserved?

If so, how? Hierarchies are preserved through broader and narrower terms

(c) Does project rely on principle of least common denominator?

If so, many data sets may be able to coexist in database, but given resulting stripped-down or ‘dumbed-down’ resource descriptions, the database may no longer serve the interests of readers. (cf. recently cited problems with Dublin Core²⁰ How does the use of least common denominator effect the quality of service? Hierarchies are preserved through broader and narrower terms

(d) How is data stored: gathered into a union catalog (e.g., American Memory Project, NSDL), vs. distributed database? distributed database

(e) How are metadata (including SI links) stored?  (e.g., via authority records, concordance tables, a central switching language, semantic networks, lexical databases, semantic layers, etc.)

3. Reconciliation of heterogeneous vocabularies

(a) How is correlations established when a single term in one source has no equivalent term in the other? Used for terms are listed

(b) Certain vocabularies are highly structured and hierarchical, while others contain terms lacking any structure at all aside from serial numbers or other unique identifiers. How are these differences reconciled?

(c) How are conflicts resolved when an established heading in one vocabulary matches a cross reference in other vocabularies? (E.g., Tumors is an established LCSH heading, but in MeSH it is a cross reference to Neoplasms; and vice versa)

(d) If multiple vocabularies are used in a single bibliographic record, and the headings from such vocabularies are identical (after normalization), how are duplicate retrievals handled?

4. Effective and Efficient Resource Discovery (Precision and Recall), Satisfying User Needs

(a) Does project provide high or satisfactory levels of precision and recall?

(b) To what extent does project rely on precoördination?

If mostly post-coordinate, then:

i) by what means is recall maximized?

ii) by what means is precision maximized?

(d) Does project provide faceted approach (facilitating polysemy) while retaining option for browsable hierarchy (facilitating navigation)?

(e) Are the following objectives and functions supported in the S.I. environment?

i) Locate entities in the system via surrogates (find)

ii) Identify a surrogate that matches an entity (collocate)

iii) Select an entity appropriate to a user’s need via surrogates (choice facilitation)

iv) Obtain access to the entity via the system and its surrogates (acquisition)

v) Navigate the system and its surrogates (navigation)

(f) Has developer released beta version for general testing?

(g) Have user satisfaction surveys been conducted?

5. Ease of Use (this is actually part of our definition, i.e., SI should function “without special effort by the user,” (where “users” include information creators and managers, and end-users)).

(a) Intuitive interface for data entry, searching, browsing, etc.?

(b) Automate validation, mapping, metadata extraction, etc., as much as possible?

(c) Availability of documentation?

6. Long-term viability

(a) Master plan for life-cycle management and data migration?

(b) Reliance on open-source international standards versus proprietary standards?

(c) viable business model (e.g., not based exclusively on research grant with likely expiration)?