Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards

57

Published on

Riley, Jenn. "The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards" Digital Library Federation Fall Forum, November 6, 2007, Philadelphia, PA

Riley, Jenn. "The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards" Digital Library Federation Fall Forum, November 6, 2007, Philadelphia, PA

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
57
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The Variations2 Data Model includes the following entities and relationships:
    The Work represents the abstract concept of a musical composition or set of compositions.
    It is manifested in the Instantiation, which represents a manifestation of a work as a recorded performance or a score.
    The physical level is represented by the Container, which is the item or set of item(s) on which one or more instantiations of works can be found, e.g. a CD or published score.
    This is actually the level which is most typically represented in the traditional USMARC catalogs.
    Finally, the Media Object represents a piece of digital media content, such as a sound file or score image, and Contributors represent people or groups that contribute to a work, instantiation, or container.
  • <number>
  • Transcript

    • 1. The Standards Paradox: Case Studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program
    • 2. The problem “Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone agrees that they’re a good idea but nobody wants to use anyone else’s.” * * I heard this from Murtha Baca at the Getty, but she got it from someone else… 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 2
    • 3. Seriously, though…     We have to make decisions about how to represent metadata internally in our systems We all have our own unique needs Every collection/project is different One solution does not fit all HOWEVER, we cannot afford to make a new solution from scratch for every new pool of content. 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 3
    • 4. What are metadata standards for?  Will focus today on descriptive metadata structure standards    10/31/07 Interoperability Providing clear representations of conceptual models Reminding you of the sorts of things you ought to record DL Brown Bag Series 4
    • 5. How do metadata standards differ?   Underlying conceptual model Focus of description    Analog vs. digital Intellectual content vs. carrier Use of data     10/31/07 Discovery Description Interpretation etc… DL Brown Bag Series 5
    • 6. Variations2/3: Digital Music Library From local model to standard model
    • 7. Current locally-designed model WORK represents the abstract concept of a musical composition or set of compositions is manifested in is created by INSTANTIATION CONTRIBUTOR represents a manifestation of a work as a recorded performance or a score is enclosed in represents people or groups that contribute to a work, instantiation, or container CONTAINER is represented by MEDIA OBJECT 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series represents the physical item or set of items on which one or more instantiations of works can be found (e.g., CD, score) represents a piece of digital media content (e.g., sound file, score image) 7
    • 8. FRBR as an alternative model     “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records” 1998 report from IFLA Conceptual model describing the entities and relationships underlying bibliographic information Only recently gaining real traction   10/31/07 Open WorldCat is semi-FRBRized New RDA content standard will be based on FRBR principles DL Brown Bag Series 8
    • 9. FRBR Group 1 entities WORK is realized through “the intellectual or artistic realization of a work” “a distinct intellectual or artistic creation” “the physical embodiment of an expression of a work” “a single exemplar of a manifestation” EXPRESSION w1 Harry Lindgren's Geometric dissections w1 Franz Schubert's Trout quintet -e1 original text entitled Geometric w1 Ronald Hayman's Playback dissections -e1 the author's text edited for -e1 the composer's score -m1 publicationthe bookby the Amadeus by Van -e2 a performance published in 1964 Nostrand Quartet the book published in 1973 by -m1 and Hephzibah Menuhin on -e2 pianorevised text entitled Recreational Davis-Poynter problems in geometric dissections .... -e3 a performance by the Cleveland the -i1 copy autographed by Quartet -m1 the book published in 1972 by and Yo-Yo Ma on the cello author -. . .Dover . 10/31/07 is embodied in MANIFESTATION is exemplified by DL Brown Bag Series ITEM 9
    • 10. V3 vs. FRBR – loose mapping Variations2 Entity FRBR Group 1 Entity Work (more concrete than FRBR Work) Work Instantiation (can only appear on one Container) Expression Container (includes some copy-specific data) Manifestation Media Object (defined as a digital file) Bag Series 10/31/07 DL Brown Item 10
    • 11. Possible benefits of moving to FRBR     Improve system sustainability Better integration with future catalogs More easily support cooperative cataloging Get some other features of the model “free”   10/31/07 Group 2 and 3 entities User tasks DL Brown Bag Series 11
    • 12. Possible drawbacks of moving to FRBR  No approved binding of FRBR conceptual model to a true data structure exists    Unclear what it means to be “FRBR compliant” We’d have to make up our own data structure based on the standard conceptual model Our current model is so close to FRBR, it is unclear if the benefits will outweigh the costs 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 12
    • 13. Current status of switch  FRBR modeling documentation created     Switch still in proposal stage    Report on applying FRBR to music Data dictionary (draft) XML Schema (draft) Advisors believe it’s a good idea We don’t know if we have time to implement it as part of current project Still undecided as to how to model non-musical content 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 13
    • 14. EVIADA: Ethnographic Video From standard model to local model
    • 15. EVIADA conceptual model 10/31/07 slide courtesy of Will Cowan, EVIADA project DL Brown Bag Series 15
    • 16. Original metadata model  MODS descriptive metadata record for each collection, event, scene, action      Was a bit of a stretch, but we made it work Forthcoming AES audio technical metadata Slightly revised version of LC video technical metadata Forthcoming AES process history (digiprov) metadata METS wrapper 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 16
    • 17. New required functionality stretched MODS usage too far  Text formatting         lists paragraphs bold, italics, etc. Glossary Bibliography Video technical problems Transcriptions Translations 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 17
    • 18. New internal descriptive model   Hierarchical collection/event/scene/action Goes beyond “bibliographic” information      timecodes text markup internal linking Still stores technical and process history metadata in standard formats Could export any needed combination of descriptive and technical/process history metadata together in a single METS wrapper 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 18
    • 19. Exports into standard representations   Designed for sharing, not internal representation; therefore can afford to leave things out EAD    hierarchical, for sharing with archives, although event/scene/action not the normal hierarchy one document has entire collection hierarchy MODS   10/31/07 for sharing with libraries individual records can be generated for collection, event, scene, action on demand DL Brown Bag Series 19
    • 20. Lessons learned Or, so, now what?
    • 21. Assessing standards     Clearly define functional requirements – what functions does your descriptive metadata need to support? The functional requirements suggest a certain conceptual model to underlie your metadata Compare existing descriptive metadata structure standards against your functional requirements and conceptual model Use a standard internally whenever it meets defined functional requirements; take inspiration from them regardless 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 21
    • 22. The increasing role of conceptual modeling    Trend is toward clearer conceptual models, e.g., DCMI Abstract Model, FRBR in RDA Will likely result in better interoperability among metadata standards Conformance to conceptual models is more important than conformance to metadata structure standards The decision then becomes, “Which conceptual model should I use?” rather than “Which descriptive metadata structure standard should I use?” 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 22
    • 23. For more information  These presentation slides: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/ dlfFall2007/standardsParadox.ppt>  “Shareable” metadata  OAI Best Practices for Shareable Metadata <http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/mediawiki/oaibp/index.php/ ShareableMetadataPublic>   Metadata for You & Me <http://images.library.uiuc.edu/projects/mym/> Variations3 <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/variations3/>  EVIADA <http://www.indiana.edu/~eviada/> 10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 23

    ×