Generating collaborative systems for digital libraries: A model-driven approach

This is an open access article shared under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Copyright @ 2010 The Authors.The design and development of a digital library involves different stakeholders, such as: information architects, librarians, and domain experts, who need to agree on a common language to describe, discuss, and negotiate the services the library has to offer. To this end, high-level, language-neutral models have to be devised. Metamodeling techniques favor the definition of domainspecific visual languages through which stakeholders can share their views and directly manipulate representations of the domain entities. This paper describes CRADLE (Cooperative-Relational Approach to Digital Library Environments), a metamodel-based framework and visual language for the definition of notions and services related to the development of digital libraries. A collection of tools allows the automatic generation of several services, defined with the CRADLE visual language, and of the graphical user interfaces providing access to them for the final user. The effectiveness of the approach is illustrated by presenting digital libraries generated with CRADLE, while the CRADLE environment has been evaluated by using the cognitive dimensions framework

eBank UK: linking research data, scholarly communication and learning

This paper includes an overview of the changing landscape of scholarly communication and describes outcomes from the innovative eBank UK project, which seeks to build links from e-research through to e-learning. As introduction, the scholarly knowledge cycle is described and the role of digital repositories and aggregator services in linking data-sets from Grid-enabled projects to e-prints through to peer-reviewed articles as resources in portals and Learning Management Systems, are assessed. The development outcomes from the eBank UK project are presented including the distributed information architecture, requirements for common ontologies, data models, metadata schema, open linking technologies, provenance and workflows. Some emerging challenges for the future are presented in conclusion

Extracting, Transforming and Archiving Scientific Data

It is becoming common to archive research datasets that are not only large but also numerous. In addition, their corresponding metadata and the software required to analyse or display them need to be archived. Yet the manual curation of research data can be difficult and expensive, particularly in very large digital repositories, hence the importance of models and tools for automating digital curation tasks. The automation of these tasks faces three major challenges: (1) research data and data sources are highly heterogeneous, (2) future research needs are difficult to anticipate, (3) data is hard to index. To address these problems, we propose the Extract, Transform and Archive (ETA) model for managing and mechanizing the curation of research data. Specifically, we propose a scalable strategy for addressing the research-data problem, ranging from the extraction of legacy data to its long-term storage. We review some existing solutions and propose novel avenues of research.Comment: 8 pages, Fourth Workshop on Very Large Digital Libraries, 201

Representing and Utilizing DDI in Relational Databases

This document is primarily intended for implementers of DDI-based metadata stores who are considering different technical options for housing and managing their metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) metadata specification is expressed in the form of XML schema. With version 3, the DDI specification has become quite complex, including 21 namespaces and 846 elements. Organizations employing DDI, or considering doing so, may want to 1. store and manage the metadata elements in relational databases, for reasons of integration with existing systems, familiarity with the concepts of relational databases (such as Structured Query Language), systems performance, and/or other reasons; 2. select only the subset of the available DDI metadata elements that is of utility to their work, and have the flexibility of capturing metadata they need that would not fit into the DDI model. This paper discusses advantages and disadvantages of the relational database approach to managing DDI. It also describes methods for modeling DDI in relational databases and for formally defining subsets of DDI to employ in this environment.