Project Name: Library & Archives of Canada Bilingual Cataloguing

Project URL: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/csh/s23-120-e.html

Project Description: To support the bilingual cataloging policy of the Library & Archives of Canada (L&AC), all publications cataloged by the L&AC are assigned subject headings in both official languages, English and French. References between equivalent CSH and RVM headings are displayed in the L&AC's online public access catalog, AMICUS.

Canadian Subject Headings (CSH) is a list of subject access points in the English language; however, the authority records contain links to French language equivalents which allow the user to search on equivalent French language headings, from Répertoire de vedettes-matière (RVM), and be led to the record for the equivalent heading in CSH.

The Répertoire de vedettes-matière (RVM) provides access to more than 200,000 French subject headings and their English equivalents, as well as some 30 lists of subdivisions applicable to these headings.

Inaugural efforts at a separate list of subject headings for Canadian topics not adequately covered in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) began in 1968.

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?

If yes, which ones? DDC,LCC

(d) controlled vocabularies combined with classification schemas?

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

If yes, which ones? MARC

(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?

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

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

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?

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

(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.) Authority records

3. Reconciliation of heterogeneous vocabularies

(a) How is correlations established when a single term in one source has no equivalent term in the other? Inaugural efforts at a separate list of subject headings for Canadian topics not adequately covered in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) began in 1968.

(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? through authority reocrds

(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)

. Policies are set of define how conflicts are resolved

(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? only lcsh is used as a heading in this case

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

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

Precoordination (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?

6. Long-term viability

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

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