Project Name:  MACS (Multilingual Access to Subjects) 
 
Project URL: http://laborix.kub.nl/prj/macs/
 
Project Description: “MACS aims to provide multilingual subject access to library catalogues. MACS enables users to simultaneously search the catalogues of the project's partner libraries in the language of their choice (English, French, German). The partners are: the Swiss National Library (SNL), project leader, the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), The British Library (BL) and Die Deutsche Bibliothek (DDB). The project is running under the auspices of the Conference of European National Librarians (CENL). 

This multilingual search is made possible thanks to the equivalence links created between the three indexing languages used in these libraries: SWD (for German), RAMEAU (for French) and LCSH (for English). Topics (headings) from the three lists are analysed to determine whether they are exact or partial matches, of a simple or complex nature. The end result is neither a translation nor a new thesaurus but a mapping of existing and widely used indexing languages.

On the basis of this approach, a prototype has been developed by Index Data (Denmark) and Tilburg University Library (Netherlands) which contains a small subset of data from the indexing languages and the libraries' databases so that link creation and management and subsequent searching can be explored and tested.” (MACS)

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? Subject heading list in three languages English, French and German

(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? .     

(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?

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

(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.) In three subject heading lists

3. Reconciliation of heterogeneous vocabularies

(a) How is correlations established when a single term in one source has no equivalent term in the other? through linking

(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? not all differences are reconciled but linking is used where possible

(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) through linking

(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? the crossing link here is language not subject as idential headings are unlikely

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

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

unknown (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)?