Thoughts on Shareable Metadata, MODS, and RDA Sarah L. Shreeves University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Electronic Resources Interest Group (ERIG), ALCTS ALA Midwinter, Seattle WA January 20, 2007

Where I’m coming from Worked with the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting since 2001 Concerns about metadata interoperability (see also Bitter Harvest (Tennant), NSDL work (Hillmann, Dushay, Lagoze, and others) Led the Best Practices for OAI Data Provider Implementations and Shareable Metadata ( http://oai- best.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TableOfContents ) Led development of guidelines for ‘shareable’ MODS records within the Digital Library Federation Aquifer Initiative Primarily concerned with the shareability or interoperability of metadata

Worked with the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting since 2001

Concerns about metadata interoperability (see also Bitter Harvest (Tennant), NSDL work (Hillmann, Dushay, Lagoze, and others)

Led the Best Practices for OAI Data Provider Implementations and Shareable Metadata ( http://oai- best.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TableOfContents )

Led development of guidelines for ‘shareable’ MODS records within the Digital Library Federation Aquifer Initiative

Primarily concerned with the shareability or interoperability of metadata

What is shareable metadata? Is quality metadata (see Bruce and Hillmann) 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 Is machine processable

Is quality metadata (see Bruce and Hillmann)

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

Is machine processable

Metadata is a view of a resource No monolithic one-size-fits-all metadata record The view might be different depending on use and audience as well as format, content, and context Content standard is a view Metadata standard is a view Vocabulary used is a view

No monolithic one-size-fits-all metadata record

The view might be different depending on use and audience as well as format, content, and context

Content standard is a view

Metadata standard is a view

Vocabulary used is a view

What is MODS? Metadata Object Description Standard Simplified version of MARC with language based tags instead of numeric codes Maintained by the Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/ “ schema for a bibliographic element set that may be used for a variety of purposes, and particularly for library applications” Example

Metadata Object Description Standard

Simplified version of MARC with language based tags instead of numeric codes

Maintained by the Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/

“ schema for a bibliographic element set that may be used for a variety of purposes, and particularly for library applications”

Example

Why use MODS? Not MARC Is MARC Easier entry point No codes Uses XML Not simple Dublin Core Perhaps a useful middle ground between MARC and simple Dublin Core

Not MARC

Is MARC

Easier entry point

No codes

Uses XML

Not simple Dublin Core

Perhaps a useful middle ground between MARC and simple Dublin Core

Use in the DLF Aquifer Initiative “ to promote effective use of distributed digital library content for teaching, learning, and research in the area of American culture and life” Use of MODS mandatory for participation Frustration with DC in OAI environment Can utilize MODS to build in specific services (asset actions) Metadata Working Group provided guidelines for ‘shareable’ MODS records http://www.diglib.org/aquifer/dlfmodsimplementationguidelines_finalnov2006.pdf

“ to promote effective use of distributed digital library content for teaching, learning, and research in the area of American culture and life”

Use of MODS mandatory for participation

Frustration with DC in OAI environment

Can utilize MODS to build in specific services (asset actions)

Metadata Working Group provided guidelines for ‘shareable’ MODS records

http://www.diglib.org/aquifer/dlfmodsimplementationguidelines_finalnov2006.pdf

So where does RDA fit in? RDA is a content standard MODS is a metadata standard RDA is closely aligned with MARC and MODS Useful to have a RDA – MODS examples particularly as MODS is shifting away from MARC

RDA is a content standard

MODS is a metadata standard

RDA is closely aligned with MARC and MODS

Useful to have a RDA – MODS examples particularly as MODS is shifting away from MARC

DLF Aquifer Guidelines Does NOT recommend any one content standard over another “ Choice and format of titles should be governed by a content standard such as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2), Cataloguing Cultural Objects (CCO), or Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS). Details such as capitalization, choosing among the forms of titles presented on an item, and use of abbreviations should be determined based on the rules in a content standard. One standard should be chosen and used consistently for all records in an OAI set.”

Does NOT recommend any one content standard over another

“ Choice and format of titles should be governed by a content standard such as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2), Cataloguing Cultural Objects (CCO), or Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS). Details such as capitalization, choosing among the forms of titles presented on an item, and use of abbreviations should be determined based on the rules in a content standard. One standard should be chosen and used consistently for all records in an OAI set.”

Other thoughts RDA should not try to be all things to all communities nor all metadata standards OAI and DLF work has shown that communities of practice important and valuable Some standards are better suited to some communities than others (CCO, DACS) BUT consensus on overarching model and alignment with other content standards essential for interoperability Harmonization efforts between FRBR and CIDOC CRM instructive example? Engagement beyond the Dublin Core and IEEE LOM communities important

RDA should not try to be all things to all communities nor all metadata standards

OAI and DLF work has shown that communities of practice important and valuable

Some standards are better suited to some communities than others (CCO, DACS)

BUT consensus on overarching model and alignment with other content standards essential for interoperability

Harmonization efforts between FRBR and CIDOC CRM instructive example?

Engagement beyond the Dublin Core and IEEE LOM communities important

References Bruce, T.R. and D.I. Hillmann. (2004) “The continuum of metadata quality: defining, expressing, exploiting,” in Metadata in Practice, Ed. by Diane Hillmann and Elaine Westbrooks. Chicago: ALA Editions. Coyle, K. and D.I. Hillmann. (2007) “Resource Description and Access (RDA): Cataloging Rules for the 20 th Century.” D-Lib Magazine. 13, no.1/2. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle.html Dushay, N. and D. I. Hillmann. (2003) “Analyzing metadata for effective use and re-use.” In DC-2003: Proceedings of the International DCMI Metadata Conference and Workshop. [United States]: DCMI. http://www.siderean.com/dc2003/501_Paper24.pdf . Tennant, R. (2004) “Metadata’s bitter harvest,” Library Journal 129, no.12. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA434443.html

Bruce, T.R. and D.I. Hillmann. (2004) “The continuum of metadata quality: defining, expressing, exploiting,” in Metadata in Practice, Ed. by Diane Hillmann and Elaine Westbrooks. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Coyle, K. and D.I. Hillmann. (2007) “Resource Description and Access (RDA): Cataloging Rules for the 20 th Century.” D-Lib Magazine. 13, no.1/2. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle.html

Dushay, N. and D. I. Hillmann. (2003) “Analyzing metadata for effective use and re-use.” In DC-2003: Proceedings of the International DCMI Metadata Conference and Workshop. [United States]: DCMI. http://www.siderean.com/dc2003/501_Paper24.pdf .

Tennant, R. (2004) “Metadata’s bitter harvest,” Library Journal 129, no.12. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA434443.html

Contact Information Sarah Shreeves [email_address] 217.244.3877 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Sarah Shreeves

[email_address]

217.244.3877

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.