Metadata Alignment

For the Metadata Alignment step we had to compare the different Metadata Standards used for each macro-category.
We decided to cluster our items into five areas: Textual documents, Visual artworks, Audio recordings, Building and Website. For each of them we identified all the standards to describe in our tables, which were then organised following the Who? What? Where? When? path. Starting from the predicates we chose in the description of the items, we provided all the analogous predicates within the standards, where it was possible.
All the clusters have been described by the most widely used Standard, Dublin Core and DCTerms, but also with the Schema Ontology, that we found the most complete and detailed in a full range of applications. Then, basing on the type of item we were working on, we differentiated the ontologies that better described our domain. For the Textual documents the comparison was made focusing on MODS Record and MARC 21, because they are the most interoperable in the domain of written texts, while for the artworks we chose to work on the comparison between LIDO and CIDOC-CRM, the most appropriate for the artistic domain. Focusing on audio objects the comparison was made between the variety of predicates offered in the area by Music Ontology with Dublin Core and Schema.
Concerning the two specific items we decided to leave alone in the metadata alignment, we worked on the comparison between PREMIS, a specific ontology for digital objects, MODS and MARC 21 which proved to be valid in the textual description of the website. And in the case of the building, already described with gndo, we aligned it with CIDOC-CRM.