Advertisement

Content Profiling for Preservation: Improving Scale, Depth and Quality

  • Artur Kulmukhametov
  • Christoph Becker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8839)

Abstract

Content profiling in digital preservation is a crucial step that enables controlled management of content over time. However, large-scale profiling is facing a set of challenges. As data grows and gets more diverse, the only option to control it is to combine outputs of multiple characterization tools to cover the varieties of formats and extract features of interest. This cooperation of tools introduces conflicting measures and poses challenges on data quality. Sparsity and labeling conflicts make it difficult or impossible to partition, sample and analyze large metadata sets of a content profile. Without this, however, it is virtually impossible to manage heterogeneous collections reliably over time.

In this paper, we present the content profiling tool C3PO, which includes rule-based techniques and heuristics designed for conflict reduction. We conduct a set of experiments in which we assess the effect of creating such a mechanisms and rule set on the quality and effectiveness of content profiling. The results show the potential of simple conflict reduction rules to strongly improve data quality of content profiling for analysis and decision support.

Keywords

Digital Preservation Characterization Content Profiling Conflict Reduction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams, S., Morrissey, S., Cramer, T.: What? So What.: The next-generation JHOVE2 architecture for format-aware characterization. IJDC 4(3) (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, C., Duretec, K.: Free benchmark corpora for preservation experiments: using model-driven engineering to generate data sets. In: Proc. JCDL. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, C., Rauber, A.: Preservation decisions: Terms and conditions apply. In: Proc. JCDL. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brody, T., Carr, L., Hey, J., Brown, A., Hitchcock, S.: PRONOM-ROAR: Adding format profiles to a repository registry to inform preservation services. IJDC 2(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dappert, A.: Deal with conflict, capture the relationship: The case of digital object properties. In: Proc. IPRES, pp. 21–29 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dappert, A., Farquhar, A.: Significance is in the eye of the stakeholder. In: Agosti, M., Borbinha, J., Kapidakis, S., Papatheodorou, C., Tsakonas, G. (eds.) ECDL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5714, pp. 297–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faria, L., Petrov, P., Duretec, K., Becker, C., Ferreira, M., Ramalho, J.: Design and architecture of a novel preservation watch system. In: Chen, H.-H., Chowdhury, G. (eds.) ICADL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7634, pp. 168–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forgy, C.L.: Rete: A fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Artificial Intelligence 19(1), 17–37 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hedstrom, M., Lee, C.A.: Significant properties of digital objects: definitions, applications, implications. In: DLM-Forum, vol. 200, pp. 218–27 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutchins, M.: Testing software tools of potential interest for digital preservation activities at the national library of australia. NLA Australia Staff Papers (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulovits, H., Kraxner, M., Plangg, M., Becker, C., Bechhofer, S.: Open preservation data: Controlled vocabularies and ontologies for preservation ecosystems. In: Proc. IPRES, pp. 63–72Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrov, P., Becker, C.: Large-scale content profiling for preservation analysis. In: 9th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (IPRES 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Knijff, J., Wilson, C.: Evaluation of characterisation tools. part 1: Identification. Technical report, National Library of the Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wheatley, P.: The practitioners have spoken: “we need better characterisation!”. Blog post (2012), http://www.openplanetsfoundation.org/blogs/2012-10-19-practitioners-have-spoken-we-need-better-characterisation (accessed June 2014)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artur Kulmukhametov
    • 1
  • Christoph Becker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Information and Software Engineering GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-12823-8_1
link.springer.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-39
76832
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IO3IBHZQZPNFKMOV4FWDI26JRGUWMNG7
<urn:uuid:233e1c49-0189-46fe-be26-09da53798251>
2018-09-23T00:58:38Z
151.101.200.95
text/html
sha1:HX2JDH3V4N7XNBCUBACQIMPD4PTA474X
<urn:uuid:8ecceb15-eda4-43de-bea8-2a9b593dbbfd>
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-12823-8_1
response
<urn:uuid:1fcd55b6-00d8-4087-9021-3993ff81f59a>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-186-125-198.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/