MODS and RDA - ALA MidWinter 2007

Slide 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

Slide 2: 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

Slide 3: 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 -

Slide 4: 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

Slide 5: 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

Slide 6: 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

Slide 7: 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

Slide 8: 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

Slide 9: 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.”

Slide 10: 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

Slide 11: 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 20th 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

Slide 12: Contact Information Sarah Shreeves sshreeve@uiuc.edu 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.