MODS and RDA - ALA MidWinter 2007


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • MODS and RDA - ALA MidWinter 2007

    1. 1. 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
    2. 2. Where I’m coming from <ul><li>Worked with the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting since 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Concerns about metadata interoperability (see also Bitter Harvest (Tennant), NSDL work (Hillmann, Dushay, Lagoze, and others) </li></ul><ul><li>Led the Best Practices for OAI Data Provider Implementations and Shareable Metadata ( http://oai- ) </li></ul><ul><li>Led development of guidelines for ‘shareable’ MODS records within the Digital Library Federation Aquifer Initiative </li></ul><ul><li>Primarily concerned with the shareability or interoperability of metadata </li></ul>
    3. 3. What is shareable metadata? <ul><li>Is quality metadata (see Bruce and Hillmann) </li></ul><ul><li>Promotes search interoperability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ the ability to perform a search over diverse sets of metadata records and obtain meaningful results.” (Priscilla Caplan) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is human understandable outside of its local context </li></ul><ul><li>Is useful outside of its local context </li></ul><ul><li>Is machine processable </li></ul>
    4. 4. Metadata is a view of a resource <ul><li>No monolithic one-size-fits-all metadata record </li></ul><ul><li>The view might be different depending on use and audience as well as format, content, and context </li></ul><ul><li>Content standard is a view </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata standard is a view </li></ul><ul><li>Vocabulary used is a view </li></ul>
    5. 5. What is MODS? <ul><li>Metadata Object Description Standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplified version of MARC with language based tags instead of numeric codes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintained by the Library of Congress: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ schema for a bibliographic element set that may be used for a variety of purposes, and particularly for library applications” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Example </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Why use MODS? <ul><li>Not MARC </li></ul><ul><li>Is MARC </li></ul><ul><li>Easier entry point </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No codes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Uses XML </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Not simple Dublin Core </li></ul><ul><li>Perhaps a useful middle ground between MARC and simple Dublin Core </li></ul>
    7. 7. Use in the DLF Aquifer Initiative <ul><li>“ to promote effective use of distributed digital library content for teaching, learning, and research in the area of American culture and life” </li></ul><ul><li>Use of MODS mandatory for participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frustration with DC in OAI environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can utilize MODS to build in specific services (asset actions) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Metadata Working Group provided guidelines for ‘shareable’ MODS records </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    8. 8. So where does RDA fit in? <ul><li>RDA is a content standard </li></ul><ul><li>MODS is a metadata standard </li></ul><ul><li>RDA is closely aligned with MARC and MODS </li></ul><ul><li>Useful to have a RDA – MODS examples particularly as MODS is shifting away from MARC </li></ul>
    9. 9. DLF Aquifer Guidelines <ul><li>Does NOT recommend any one content standard over another </li></ul><ul><li>“ 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.” </li></ul>
    10. 10. Other thoughts <ul><li>RDA should not try to be all things to all communities nor all metadata standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OAI and DLF work has shown that communities of practice important and valuable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some standards are better suited to some communities than others (CCO, DACS) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>BUT consensus on overarching model and alignment with other content standards essential for interoperability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Harmonization efforts between FRBR and CIDOC CRM instructive example? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Engagement beyond the Dublin Core and IEEE LOM communities important </li></ul>
    11. 11. References <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. . </li></ul><ul><li>Tennant, R. (2004) “Metadata’s bitter harvest,” Library Journal 129, no.12. </li></ul>
    12. 12. Contact Information <ul><li>Sarah Shreeves </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>217.244.3877 </li></ul><ul><li>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. </li></ul>