Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management (한국기록관리학회지)

Korean Society of Archives and Records Management (한국기록관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Ontology Modeling by Analyzing RiC-CM v0.2

RiC-CM v0.2 분석을 통한 온톨로지 모델링에 관한 연구

  • 전예지 (서울여자대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 이혜원 (서울여자대학교 사회과학대학 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2020.01.30
  • Accepted : 2020.02.26
  • Published : 2020.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is the first paper to introduce in the country the preview of RiC-CM v0.2, the standard for the description of records based on archival principles by the ICA in December 2019, and an early stage of research that considers how to apply it at archive management. This study was conducted as follows. First, this study compared and analyzed entities, attributes, and relations of RiC-CM v0.1 and v0.2, and extracted the characteristics of version 0.2. Second, this study tried to confirm the semantic structure of the archives by constructing the ontology modeling in consideration of the basic principle and the extracted characteristics of version 0.2, and built ontology modeling using Protégé. Finally, this study figured out the differences from version 0.1 through entering individuals into Protégé and examined how the characteristics of version 0.2 was represented by ontology.

본 연구는 2019년 12월에 ICA에서 발표한 보존기록의 기술표준인 RiC-CM v0.2 초안을 국내에 처음으로 소개하는 논문이며, 기록 현장에서 어떻게 적용해야 하는지를 고민한 초기 단계의 연구이다. 본 연구는 다음과 같은 절차에 의해 수행되었다. 첫째, RiC-CM v0.1과 v0.2의 각 개체, 속성, 관계를 비교·분석하였으며 이를 통해 버전 0.2의 주요 특성을 추출하였다. 둘째, 버전 0.2의 기본 원리와 추출된 특성을 고려하여 온톨로지를 구축하고 보존기록의 의미구조를 확인하고자 하였다. 의미구조를 구축하기 위해 온톨로지 언어를 지원하는 프로테제(Protégé)를 활용하였다. 셋째, 프로테제 사례 입력을 통해 버전 0.1과의 차이점을 확인하고 버전 0.2의 특성이 온톨로지로 어떻게 표현되는지를 살펴보았다.

Keywords

References

  1. National Archives of Korea (2017). Development of an International Cooperation Agenda for the Management and Preservation of Electronic Records.
  2. Park, Zi-young (2016). Analyzing the Next-generation Archival Description Standard: "Record in Context" of ICA EGAD. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 16(1), 223-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2016.16.1.223
  3. Park, Zi-young (2017a). Transition of Archival Description from ISAD(G) to Record in Context Conceptual Model. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 17(1), 93-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2017.17.1.093
  4. Park, Zi-young (2017b). Improving Archival Descriptive Standard Based on the Analysis of the Reviews by Archival Communities on Ric-CM Draft. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 54, 81-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2017.54.081
  5. Seol, Mun-won (2017). An Analysis of Discourses on Interpreting and Applying the Principle of Provenance in Archival Organization. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 52, 59-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2017.52.060
  6. Chun, Jae yong (2005). A Study on the Way to Sustain the Authenticity of Electronic Transactions Records, Master's Thesis, The Graduate School of Archival Science, Myongji University. Seoul.
  7. Hyun, Moonsoo & Seol, Mun-won (2018). An Exploration of the Direction of Development of the Next Generation Conceptual Model for Organizing Public Digital Records. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 56, 183-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2018.56.183
  8. Associazione Nazionale Archivistica Italiana (Sezione Toscana) (2016). Record In Contexts: A Conceptual Model For Archival Description: Il contributo italiano. Retrieved January 3, 2020, from http://www.ilmondodegliarchivi.org/images/Quaderni/MdA_Quaderni_n2.pdf
  9. CA EGAD (2016). Record In Contexts: A Conceptual Model For Archival Description. Consultation Draft v.0.1.
  10. ICA (2004). International Standard Archival Authority Records-Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families. 2nd edition.
  11. ICA (2007). International Standard for Describing Institutions with Archival Holdings.
  12. ICA (2011). International Standard for Describing Function.
  13. ICA EGAD (2019). Record In Contexts: A Conceptual Model For Archival Description. Consultation Draft v.0.2(Preview).
  14. Ince, Lindsay (2014). ISDF, ISAAR (CPF) and the HEI Classification Scheme. In: UKAD Forum 2014. Standards for Discovery: From the small archive to the European stage, 27 March 2014, National Archives.
  15. Llanes-Padron, D. & Pastor-Sanchez, J. A. (2017). Records in contexts: the road of archives to semantic interoperability. Program, 51(4), 387-405. https:/10.1108/PROG-03-2017-0021
  16. Popovici, Bogdan-Florin (2016). A Broader Perspective Over Records As Seen By 'Ric'. 8th Sept. 2016. Seoul: ICA Congress. https:/10.3828/comma.2016.19
  17. Yeo, G. (2015). Contexts, original orders, and item-Level orientation: Responding Creatively to user's needs and technological change. Journal of Archival Organization, 12(3-4), 170-185. https:/10.1080/15332748.2015.1048626
  18. 국가기록원. 검색일자: 2020. 1. 3. http://theme.archives.go.kr
  19. 국립중앙도서관. 검색일자: 2020. 1. 3. http://www.nl.go.kr
  20. 국사편찬위원회. 검색일자: 2020. 1. 3. http://archive.history.go.kr
  21. 토지박물관. 검색일자: 2020. 1. 3. http://museum.lh.or.kr
  22. ICA Records in Context - Compendium. Retrieved November 27, 2019, from https://web.esrc.unimelb.edu.au/ICAD/