ADMS Questionnaire No. 2
List your Metadata of asset description – Federation of Repositories
The ADMS Community tackles the issue of a federation of repositories for semantic assets to make decentralised resources available through a single
point of access. The primary goal to achieve the level
of interoperability required for such a federation is
to make artefacts available by means of a harmonised Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS). ADMS can be used as a common language to
describe semantic artefacts stored in separate systems. It can also provide some directions for new
initiatives to create similar repositories. In this way, ADMS will facilitate the federated use of semantic resources, especially of those used for and by public administrations.
Our second step of the ADMS development is to identify metadata fields describing assets in existing
repositories and metadata that is necessary to enable a federated search across a federation of repositories on semantic assets.
What do we mean by “List your Metadata requirements”?
The following questionnaire is based an initial evaluation of repositories that can be found as “related repositories” at www.semic.eu.
As a repository owner: We would like you to evaluate the list of metadata and semantic statements.
Do they match with metadata of your repository? Please give us a short yes/no-statement and a
short comment about those metadata that are defined differently in your repository. Add any
metadata which is missing in the list and of course metadata that might be helpful to have in future.
As an academic ADMS-Member: We would like you to evaluate the list of metadata and semantic
statements. Please provide a short statement and/or comment on relevance of this metadata. Add
any metadata which is missing and of course metadata that might be helpful to have in future.
Your next step
Please send the filled questionnaire back to Renke. The SEMIC.EU team will set up a synopsis and publish it
within the ADMS Community. Please consider that you don’t have to complete the questionnaire. Just send it,
if you finalize your work.
Contact
Coordinator
Dr. Renke Fahl-Spiewack
SEMIC.EU
Phone: +49 (0) 30 97006-702
Mail: renke.fahl-spiewack@init.de
Community chair
Vassilios Peristeras, PhD
Programme Manager
European Commission, DG Informatics, Interoperability solutions for European public administrations (ISA)
Phone: +32 (0) 2 29 81014
Mail: vassilios.peristeras@ec.europa.eu
Metadata Evaluation (ADMS Community)
(filled by: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
Initial questions for repository owner
Type
Name of Repository
Semantic Statement
Repository
Owner
The repository/registry belongs to which
organisation?
Responsible
person
Who is the person responsible for service
and maintenance of the repository/registry?
URL
Please note the URL of the repository/registry.
Domain
Please put explanation of the domain of
the repository/registry. Is it focused on
eGovernment?
Number of
assets
Estimated number of assets in your repository
Please note the name of the repository/registry you are reporting from.
Your Comments
Please indicate the metadata used to describe the assets.
If you are using any additional metadata fields please add them to this list.
No Type
1. Name
2.
3.
Title
Abstract
4.
Description
5.
Represented
Countries
6.
7.
8.
Tags
Owner
Image
9.
Semantic Statement
The name of the use case is a short way
to identify and to refer to the use case in
discussions.
A headline for the asset
A short overview of case(s) in which this
asset is used
A description of the asset for example
comprising it's content, use cases, structure, etc.
Countries involved in the development
and/or countries in the scope of the
asset
Keywords to make the asset traceable
The owner of the copyright for this asset
An image to represent the asset (something like an icon)
Domains which are covered by the asset
(e.g. health, justice, economy, etc.)
Domains /
Scope
10. Links to related Any connection to related assets
Assets
Any information about the asset's state
11. Status
12. Publisher
13. Frequency
(e.g. published, under construction, final,
ect.)
The (official) publisher of the asset
To measure how often the asset has
been updated in any way over a certain
time period
Yes / No Your Comments
No Type
14. Release Data
15. Update Data
16. Temporal Coverage
17. License
18. Granularity
19. Asset format
20. Documentation
Language
21. Type
22. History
23. Last changed
by
24. Link to website
25. User Groups
26. Quality level
Semantic Statement
The date an asset / a version of an asset
has been released
E.g. date, person, reason for an update
of the asset
A time span in which the asset is valid or
available
A license specifying the terms of use for
an asset
A field to specify the level of detail of an
asset
E.g. XML, PDF, OWL, etc.
The language(s) in which the asset is
written
E.g. code list, ontology, taxonomy, etc.
A change history of the asset
Last person / body to change the asset
A link to another (maybe original) web
resource of the asset
To allow access to an asset for certain
groups of repository users
Any indicator for the quality for an asset
(e.g. current level in a clearing process)
Yes / No Your Comments
List your Asset formats
1.
Asset Format
Archives
(ZIP, etc.)
HTML
PDF
DOC
XLS
CSV
RDF
XSD
XML
UML
OWL
SKOS
Please indicate the format(s) in
which assets are stored in your
repository. If you are using any
additional formats please add
them to this list
Your Comments
2.
Interfaces
SPARQL
SOAP
REST
ODBC
Please indicate the interfaces of
your repository. If you are
providing any additional interfaces please add them to this list.
Your Comments