Making Future Metadata
Shareable
JENN RILEY
METADATA LIBRARIAN
INDIANA UNIVERSITY DIGITAL LIBRARY PROGRAM
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
What does this record describe?
<dc:title>Bowie County Texas (County Number 19,
Supplementary Sheet D)</dc:title>
<dc:crea...
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
And this one?
<dc:identifier>http://museum.university.edu/unique identifier</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>State University...
Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Why Share?
Sharing benefits users




One-stop searching (maybe)
Ability to create customized searches of specific dom...
Sharing better allows our users to help us

Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Sharing metadata: Federated search
The distributed databases are searched directly.
<title>My
resource</
title>
<date>04

...
Sharing metadata: Data aggregation
The user searches a pre-aggregated database of metadata
from diverse sources.
Mill?
<ti...
Some other options for sharing

< title> My
resource<
/title>
< date> 04

< title> My
resource<
/ title>
< date> 04
< titl...
?????

Collection
Registries
Photograph from
Indiana University
Charles W. Cushman
Collection
Missouri Library Association...
Today’s metadata aggregation environment
Users often discover material through shared

records, not through your front do...
Finding the right balance
Metadata providers know the materials



Document encoding schemes, controlled vocabularies,
...
Shareable Metadata…
Is quality metadata
Promotes search interoperability - “the ability to

perform a search over divers...
Shareable Metadata as a View
Metadata is not monolithic
Metadata should be a view projected from a single

information o...
The Cs & Ss of Shareable Metadata
Content
Coherence
Context
Communication
Consistency
Conformance to
Standards
Missouri Li...
Postcard Dublin Core record

Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Basic metadata sharing workflow
Transform

Plan
Choose
standards
for native
metadata

Who to
share
with?

Create

Create m...
Three possible OAI-PMH workflows

Missouri Library Association

MODS

OAI data
provider
module
MARCXML

QDC

OAI Harvester...
Shareable metadata isn’t just about OAI-PMH
Some other options:
 Lightweight APIs (e.g., OpenLibrary)
 Google SiteMaps
...
Crosswalking – conceptual mapping
Pathways to Digital Information - Crosswalks

Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Crosswalking - XSLT

Missouri Library Association

10/3/2008
Working around system limitations
Many digital asset management systems don’t

support a second shareable copy of records...
Before you share…
Look at the record as the aggregator will see it






Appropriate view?
Consistent?
Context provi...
Thank you!
Questions?
For more information:





jenlrile@indiana.edu
These presentation slides:
<http://www.dlib.ind...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Making Future Metadata Shareable

242 views
151 views

Published on

Riley, Jenn. "Making Future Metadata Shareable." Missouri Library Association Annual Conference, October 2, 2008, St. Louis, MO.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
242
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Making Future Metadata Shareable

  1. 1. Making Future Metadata Shareable JENN RILEY METADATA LIBRARIAN INDIANA UNIVERSITY DIGITAL LIBRARY PROGRAM
  2. 2. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  3. 3. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  4. 4. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  5. 5. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  6. 6. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  7. 7. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  8. 8. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  9. 9. What does this record describe? <dc:title>Bowie County Texas (County Number 19, Supplementary Sheet D)</dc:title> <dc:creator>Texas Transportation Planning and Programming Division.</dc:creator> <dc:subject>Texarkana</dc:subject> <dc:subject>Kennedy Lake</dc:subject> <dc:subject>Coca Cola Lake</dc:subject> <dc:subject>Hobo Jungle Park</dc:subject> <dc:publisher>The General Libraries, University of State</dc:publisher> <dc:identifier>http://library.university.edu/raw/tcbowid1.html </dc:identifier> Record harvested via OAI PMH 2-26-2007 Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  10. 10. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  11. 11. And this one? <dc:identifier>http://museum.university.edu/unique identifier</dc:identifier> <dc:publisher>State University Museum of Ichthyology, Fish Field Notes</dc:publisher> <dc:format>jpeg</dc:format> <dc:rights>These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://museum,univeristy,edu/ for more information.</dc:rights> <dc:type>image</dc:type> <dc:description>1926; 0070; 06; Little S. Br. Pere Marquette R.; THL26-68; 71300; 71301; 71302; 71303; 71304; 71305; 71306; 71307; 71308; 71309; 07; 1926/07/06; R12W; S09; Second collector Moody; T16N</dc:description> <dc:subject>Cottus bairdi; Esox lucius; Cottus cognatus; Etheostoma nigrum; Salmo trutta; Oncorhynchus mykiss; Catostomus commersoni; Pimephales notatus; Margariscus margarita; Rhinichthys atratulus; mottled sculpin; northern pike; slimy sculpin; johnny darter; brown trout; rainbow trout; white sucker; bluntnose minnow… </dc:subject> Record harvested via OAI PMH 2-27-2007 <dc:language>UND</dc:language> <dc:source>Michigan 1926 Langlois, v. 1 1926--1926; </dc:source> Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  12. 12. Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  13. 13. Why Share? Sharing benefits users    One-stop searching (maybe) Ability to create customized searches of specific domains Brings together distributed collections Sharing benefits your institution     Increases exposure of collections Broadens user base Potentially adds collaboration opportunities We can no longer assume that users will come through the front door—sharing metadata gets us “in the flow” Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  14. 14. Sharing better allows our users to help us Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  15. 15. Sharing metadata: Federated search The distributed databases are searched directly. <title>My resource</ title> <date>04 Mill? <title>My resource</ title> <date>04 <title>My resource</ title> <date>04 For Example: Z39.50, SRU Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  16. 16. Sharing metadata: Data aggregation The user searches a pre-aggregated database of metadata from diverse sources. Mill? <title>My resource</ title> <date>04 Missouri Library Association For Example: Search engines, union catalogs, OAI PMH, RSS 10/3/2008
  17. 17. Some other options for sharing < title> My resource< /title> < date> 04 < title> My resource< / title> < date> 04 < title> My resource< /title> < date> 04 Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  18. 18. ????? Collection Registries Photograph from Indiana University Charles W. Cushman Collection Missouri Library Association GEM 10/3/2008
  19. 19. Today’s metadata aggregation environment Users often discover material through shared records, not through your front door Users don’t know about your collection or won’t remember it Shared records lead users to local environment where full context is available Because users enter through “deep” links, they may bypass introductory information that provides the larger context for a collection Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  20. 20. Finding the right balance Metadata providers know the materials   Document encoding schemes, controlled vocabularies, and metadata creation practices Ensure record validity Aggregators have the processing power     Format conversion Reconcile known vocabularies Normalize data Batch metadata enhancement Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  21. 21. Shareable Metadata… Is quality metadata Promotes search interoperability - “the ability to perform a search over diverse sets of metadata records and obtain meaningful results” (Priscilla Caplan) Is human understandable outside of its local context Is useful outside of its local context Preferably is machine processable Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  22. 22. Shareable Metadata as a View Metadata is not monolithic Metadata should be a view projected from a single information object Create multiple views appropriate for groups of important sharing venues Depends on: Use  Audience  Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  23. 23. The Cs & Ss of Shareable Metadata Content Coherence Context Communication Consistency Conformance to Standards Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  24. 24. Postcard Dublin Core record Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  25. 25. Basic metadata sharing workflow Transform Plan Choose standards for native metadata Who to share with? Create Create metadata (thinking about shareability) Choose shared metadata formats Write metadata creation guidelines Missouri Library Association Perform conceptual mapping Perform technical mapping Validate transformed metadata Share Assess Implement sharing protocol See who is collecting your metadata Communicate with aggregators Review your metadata in aggregations Test shared metadata with protocol conformance tools 10/3/2008
  26. 26. Three possible OAI-PMH workflows Missouri Library Association MODS OAI data provider module MARCXML QDC OAI Harvester DC Transformation Metadata creation system QDC Static Repository Gateway Metadata creation module Transformation Metadata creation module Transformation Digital asset management system MODS Stand-alone OAI data provider DC MARCXML 10/3/2008
  27. 27. Shareable metadata isn’t just about OAI-PMH Some other options:  Lightweight APIs (e.g., OpenLibrary)  Google SiteMaps  OpenSearch  OpenURL Notice Z39.50 isn’t  SRU on this list.  OAI-ORE  Linked data Jim Michalko, RLG: library data sharing mechanisms are “high value and low participation” Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  28. 28. Crosswalking – conceptual mapping Pathways to Digital Information - Crosswalks Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  29. 29. Crosswalking - XSLT Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  30. 30. Working around system limitations Many digital asset management systems don’t support a second shareable copy of records Do your best to split the difference with system records Use creative interface design for your local system Use extra-protocol documentation for communicating with aggregators Lobby your vendor! Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  31. 31. Before you share… Look at the record as the aggregator will see it      Appropriate view? Consistent? Context provided? Does the aggregator have what they need? Documented? Can a stranger tell you what the record describes? Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008
  32. 32. Thank you! Questions? For more information:    jenlrile@indiana.edu These presentation slides: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/ molib2008/mla2008.ppt> Shreeves, Sarah L., Jenn Riley, and Liz Milewicz. "Moving towards shareable metadata." First Monday 11, no. 8 (7 August 2006). <http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_8/shreeves/ index.html> Missouri Library Association 10/3/2008

×