Die Koordinierungsstelle für die Erhaltung des schriftlichen Kulturguts (KEK) veröffentlichte im Oktober 2015 bundesweite Handlungsempfehlungen für die Erhaltung des schriftlichen Kulturguts in Archiven und Bibliotheken (BWHE). Sichtbar wird darin die Notwendigkeit bundesweiter Koordination und Zusammenarbeit.

Die Kommunen stehen vor teils enormen personellen und organisatorischen Herausforderungen. Diese zu bewältigen, wird u. a. durch effiziente Strukturen begünstigt. Der SRH unterstützt Kommunen mit der vorliegenden Beratenden Äußerung und stellt ein Organisationsmodell als Fortschreibung bzw. Aktualisierung der Beratenden Äußerung aus dem Jahre 2005 „Organisationsmodell für Gemeinden mit 5.000 bis 10.000 Einwohnern“ zur Verfügung. Das vorliegende Organisationsmodell ermöglicht den Kommunen der Größenklasse 5.000 bis 10.000 Einwohner aufgabenbezogen individuell (z. B. hinsichtlich des Eigenerledigungsgrades, der Arbeitsmenge oder der Aufgabenerfüllungsintensität) die empfohlenen Sollwerte (VZÄ) als Orientierung für ihre Personalausstattung zu bestimmen. Gz.: 21-0444/35/11-2020/10982 Redaktionsschluss: 04. August 2020

Die administrative Bewältigung des Zustroms von 890.000 Flüchtlingen im Jahr 20151 und 280.000 Flüchtlingen im Jahr 2016 hat die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Bundesländer vor sehr große Herausforderungen gestellt. Auch im für die Erstunterbringung zuständigen Freistaat Sachsen mussten Flüchtlinge oft übergangsweise in Turnhallen, Zelten und Containern untergebracht werden. Der Freistaat Sachsen hatte das Ziel, allen ankommenden Flüchtlingen einen winterfesten Unterkunftsplatz zur Verfügung zu stellen. Die baulichen Kapazitäten der sächsischen Erstaufnahmeeinrichtungen konnten nach Angaben des SMI von 2.043 Unterkunftsplätzen Anfang Januar 2015 auf 21.481 Unterkunftsplätze Ende Dezember 2015 um mehr als den Faktor zehn erhöht werden. Nur dank des großen Engagements aller Beteiligten in den verschiedenen Verwaltungsbereichen und einer dem gemeinsamen Ziel förderlichen Zusammenarbeit konnte dies gelingen. Allen Beteiligten gebührt dafür besondere Anerkennung. Mit der vorliegenden Prüfung für die Haushaltsjahre 2014 bis 2017 hat der SRH untersucht, ob die Erfahrungen des Jahres 2015 mit rd. 40.000 in Sachsen erfassten Flüchtlingen ab Rückgang der Zahlen auf 8.645 (2016) und 5.894 (2017)3 dazu genutzt werden konnten, in angemessener Weise Ressourcen und Verfahren zur Bewältigung der Flüchtlingsunterbringung zu etablieren. Neuere in ihren Auswirkungen und ihrer Dimensionierung noch ungewisse Entwicklungen in Bezug etwa auf die pilotierten Ankerzentren sind nicht Gegenstand der vorliegenden Prüfung. Az.: 311702/65 3842/18 und 321704/14 3843/18, Redaktionsschluss: 21.August 2018

Music is perceived and described very subjectively by every individual. Nowadays, people often get lost in their steadily growing, multi-placed, digital music collection. Existing music player and management applications get in trouble when dealing with poor metadata that is predominant in personal music collections. There are several music information services available that assist users by providing tools for precisely organising their music collection, or for presenting them new insights into their own music library and listening habits. However, it is still not the case that music consumers can seamlessly interact with all these auxiliary services directly from the place where they access their music individually. To profit from the manifold music and music-related knowledge that is or can be available via various information services, this information has to be gathered up, semantically federated, and integrated into a uniform knowledge base that can personalised represent this data in an appropriate visualisation to the users. This personalised semantic aggregation of music metadata from several sources is the gist of this thesis. The outlined solution particularly concentrates on users’ needs regarding music collection management which can strongly alternate between single human beings. The author’s proposal, the personal music knowledge base (PMKB), consists of a client-server architecture with uniform communication endpoints and an ontological knowledge representation model format that is able to represent the versatile information of its use cases. The PMKB concept is appropriate to cover the complete information flow life cycle, including the processes of user account initialisation, information service choice, individual information extraction, and proactive update notification. The PMKB implementation makes use of SemanticWeb technologies. Particularly the knowledge representation part of the PMKB vision is explained in this work. Several new Semantic Web ontologies are defined or existing ones are massively modified to meet the requirements of a personalised semantic federation of music and music-related data for managing personal music collections. The outcome is, amongst others, • a new vocabulary for describing the play back domain, • another one for representing information service categorisations and quality ratings, and • one that unites the beneficial parts of the existing advanced user modelling ontologies. The introduced vocabularies can be perfectly utilised in conjunction with the existing Music Ontology framework. Some RDFizers that also make use of the outlined ontologies in their mapping definitions, illustrate the fitness in practise of these specifications. A social evaluation method is applied to carry out an examination dealing with the reutilisation, application and feedback of the vocabularies that are explained in this work. This analysis shows that it is a good practise to properly publish Semantic Web ontologies with the help of some Linked Data principles and further basic SEO techniques to easily reach the searching audience, to avoid duplicates of such KR specifications, and, last but not least, to directly establish a \"shared understanding\". Due to their project-independence, the proposed vocabularies can be deployed in every knowledge representation model that needs their knowledge representation capacities. This thesis added its value to make the vision of a personal music knowledge base come true.

Music is perceived and described very subjectively by every individual. Nowadays, people often get lost in their steadily growing, multi-placed, digital music collection. Existing music player and management applications get in trouble when dealing with poor metadata that is predominant in personal music collections. There are several music information services available that assist users by providing tools for precisely organising their music collection, or for presenting them new insights into their own music library and listening habits. However, it is still not the case that music consumers can seamlessly interact with all these auxiliary services directly from the place where they access their music individually. To profit from the manifold music and music-related knowledge that is or can be available via various information services, this information has to be gathered up, semantically federated, and integrated into a uniform knowledge base that can personalised represent this data in an appropriate visualisation to the users. This personalised semantic aggregation of music metadata from several sources is the gist of this thesis. The outlined solution particularly concentrates on users’ needs regarding music collection management which can strongly alternate between single human beings. The author’s proposal, the personal music knowledge base (PMKB), consists of a client-server architecture with uniform communication endpoints and an ontological knowledge representation model format that is able to represent the versatile information of its use cases. The PMKB concept is appropriate to cover the complete information flow life cycle, including the processes of user account initialisation, information service choice, individual information extraction, and proactive update notification. The PMKB implementation makes use of SemanticWeb technologies. Particularly the knowledge representation part of the PMKB vision is explained in this work. Several new Semantic Web ontologies are defined or existing ones are massively modified to meet the requirements of a personalised semantic federation of music and music-related data for managing personal music collections. The outcome is, amongst others, • a new vocabulary for describing the play back domain, • another one for representing information service categorisations and quality ratings, and • one that unites the beneficial parts of the existing advanced user modelling ontologies. The introduced vocabularies can be perfectly utilised in conjunction with the existing Music Ontology framework. Some RDFizers that also make use of the outlined ontologies in their mapping definitions, illustrate the fitness in practise of these specifications. A social evaluation method is applied to carry out an examination dealing with the reutilisation, application and feedback of the vocabularies that are explained in this work. This analysis shows that it is a good practise to properly publish Semantic Web ontologies with the help of some Linked Data principles and further basic SEO techniques to easily reach the searching audience, to avoid duplicates of such KR specifications, and, last but not least, to directly establish a \"shared understanding\". Due to their project-independence, the proposed vocabularies can be deployed in every knowledge representation model that needs their knowledge representation capacities. This thesis added its value to make the vision of a personal music knowledge base come true.:1 Introduction and Background 11 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2 Personal Music Collection Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 Music Information Management 17 2.1 Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.1.1 Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1.1 Knowledge Representation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1.2 Semantic Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1.3 Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2 Knowledge Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2.1 Information Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2.2 Ontology-based Distributed Knowledge Management Systems . . 20 2.1.2.3 Knowledge Management System Design Guideline . . . . . . . . 21 2.1.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2 Semantic Web Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2.1 The Evolution of the World Wide Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Personal Music Knowledge Base Contents 2.2.1.1 The Hypertext Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2.1.2 The Normative Principles of Web Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2.1.3 The Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.2.2 Common Semantic Web Knowledge Representation Languages . . . . . . 25 2.2.3 Resource Description Levels and their Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.4 Semantic Web Knowledge Representation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.4.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.2.4.2 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.2.4.3 Context Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.4.4 Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.4.5 Providing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.2.4.6 Consuming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3 Music Content and Context Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3.1 Categories of Musical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3.2 Music Metadata Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.3.3 Music Metadata Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.3.3.1 Audio Signal Carrier Indexing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3.3.2 Music Recommendation and Discovery Services . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.3.3 Music Content and Context Analysis Services . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.4 Personalisation and Environmental Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.4.1 User Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.4.2 Context Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2.4.3 Stereotype Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3 The Personal Music Knowledge Base 48 3.1 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.1.1 Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.1.2 Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.1 User Account Initialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.2 Individual Information Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.3 Information Service Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.3.4 Proactive Update Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.5 Information Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.6 Personal Associations and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4 A Personal Music Knowledge Base 57 4.1 Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.1.1 The Info Service Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.1.2 The Play Back Ontology and related Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.1.2.1 The Ordered List Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.1.2.2 The Counter Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.1.2.3 The Association Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.1.2.4 The Play Back Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1.3 The Recommendation Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.1.4 The Cognitive Characteristics Ontology and related Vocabularies . . . . . . 72 4.1.4.1 The Weighting Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.1.4.2 The Cognitive Characteristics Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.1.4.3 The Property Reification Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.1.5 The Media Types Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.2 Knowledge Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5 Personal Music Knowledge Base in Practice 87 5.1 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.1.1 AudioScrobbler RDF Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.1.2 PMKB ID3 Tag Extractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.2.1 Reutilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.2.2 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2.3 Reviews and Mentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2.4 Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6 Conclusion and Future Work 93 6.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94