- Controlled vocabulary- Heterogeneities (structural and semantic)
Should be consistent and from a standard set of terms
These differences occur because of inconsistency between standard models. For example, the differences that may occur between a schema that’s created to describe a digital image and a schema designed to describe a book.
These differences occur because of an inconsistency between schema definition languages or the interpretation of the items themselves.For example, one standard may have an element field labeled creator where as another may use author to mean the same thing.
Metadata Interoperability between MARC and FRBR
- MARC, or Machine-Readable Cataloging, is inherently linear in structure- FRBR, or Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, was created to overcome the limits of MARC with its non-linear approach
Seungmin Lee and Elin Jacob set out to make MARC andFRBR interoperable.This was a challenge because of the inherent differences instructure between the two standards.
- Didn’t focus on element names- Focused and categorized the elements based on their attributes and entities- Categorized into four groups: exact matching, analogous matching, partial matching, and non-matching- Within those four categories they identified four groups: main class, class, subclass, and instance
- Finally they used the new categories to form a new structure based on the semantic relationships they identified.- This left them with seven core categories that can be mapped between both standards: author, title, subject, description, identifier, publication, and format- The end result is a standard that can represent both single-layer and hierarchical structures, i.e. interoperability between the two standards.
- Interoperability can save time- Controlled vocabularies are important and should be chosen wisely- A metadata standard that would be suitable for all items would be ideal, but is unlikely- Interoperability should be of high importance when creating new metadata standards
ReferencesHaslhofer, B., & Klas, W. (2010). A Survey of Techniques for Achieving Metadata Interoperability. ACM Computing Surveys, 42(2), 7.Hedden, H. (2009). Reviews. Metadata for digital resources: implementation, systems design and interoperability. Key Words, 17(1), 33–34.Hodge, G. (2008). Toward interoperability: a report from the 11th Open Forum on Metadata Registries and related standards. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 35(1), 25–30.Jung-ran Park, & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and Collections: Schemata, Selection Criteria, and Interoperability.. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(3), 104–116. doi:ArticleSeungmin Lee, & Jacob, E. K. (2011). An Integrated Approach to Metadata Interoperability: Construction of a Conceptual Structure between MARC and FRBR. Library Resources & Technical Services, 55(1), 17.Zeng, M. L., & Qin, J. (2004). Metadata. New York: Neal-Shuman Publishers, Inc. doi:ISBN 978-1-55570-635-7