Recommendations for Geospatial Metadata Standards for Digital          Collections
Introduction• Hello, I’m Dorotea Szkolar!  – M.L.I.S. Candidate at Syracuse University.  – Specializing in Digital Librari...
Purpose• Introduce Geospatial Metadata  – Importance/GIS Technology/ Map Interfaces  – Benefit to MWDL and Its Partners• O...
So What?• So What? Who Cares  About Geospatial  Metadata!?  – Maps are lame and old    news!  – What does it matter    hav...
Geospatial Revolution• Geospatial Information and Map  Interfaces are the next big things!   – Geospatial Revolution.   – ...
Example• The World Digital Library   – Sleek Map Interface to Showcase Digital     Collections of Partners From Around the...
Other Examples• MWDL could visualize  partners collections and  information in new  exciting ways.• But in order to achiev...
Table 1Coll.   Digital Collection   Partner                   No. of       CONTENTdm                   No. ofNo.          ...
Table 2Collection   Partner      Subject   Coverage   Spatial                                               CoverageAdams,...
Analysis Highlights• Total of 50 collections use spatial  refinement of Dublin core  (dcterms:spatial).• On average 53 dis...
Map Interface                                   Examples and Issues• Inconsistent formatting and  vocabularies resulted in...
Summary of Issues and                         Missed Opportunities• Reduced success of search.• Interoperability issues wo...
Recommendations-                                    Short Tern• Mandate partners utilize spatial coverage  refinement in f...
Recommendations-                                Long Term• Select and enforce one standard for  formatting and select cont...
Recommendations-                                        Long Tern• Require partners to set timeline and make  reformatting...
Questions welcome!• Sandra McIntyre  Program Director  Mountain West Digital Library  sandra.mcintyre@utah.edu• Dorotea Sz...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Mwdl geospatial metadata_recommendations

258 views

Published on

The powerpoint of my presentation

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
258
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
21
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mwdl geospatial metadata_recommendations

  1. 1. Recommendations for Geospatial Metadata Standards for Digital Collections
  2. 2. Introduction• Hello, I’m Dorotea Szkolar! – M.L.I.S. Candidate at Syracuse University. – Specializing in Digital Libraries. – Professional background in museums and research. – Internship focus on geo-spatial metadata interoperability.
  3. 3. Purpose• Introduce Geospatial Metadata – Importance/GIS Technology/ Map Interfaces – Benefit to MWDL and Its Partners• Overview Analysis – Highlight Specific Interoperability Issues• Overview Recommendations – Short Term – Long Term
  4. 4. So What?• So What? Who Cares About Geospatial Metadata!? – Maps are lame and old news! – What does it matter having standards for spatial metadata? – Why make it the focus of my internship?
  5. 5. Geospatial Revolution• Geospatial Information and Map Interfaces are the next big things! – Geospatial Revolution. – Maps visualize information and patterns in ways text cannot achieve. – Several Digital Libraries achieving exciting results on this forefront. – Great opportunities for collaboration and advancement.
  6. 6. Example• The World Digital Library – Sleek Map Interface to Showcase Digital Collections of Partners From Around the World – http://www.wdl.org/en/• Map of State of the Internet – http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/• Tweets of the words “beer” and “church” by U.S. county – http://io9.com/5923723/tweets-of-the-words-beer- and-church-by-us-county
  7. 7. Other Examples• MWDL could visualize partners collections and information in new exciting ways.• But in order to achieve that, need to resolve geo-spatial metadata interoperability issues!
  8. 8. Table 1Coll. Digital Collection Partner No. of CONTENTdm No. ofNo. Records in Geospatial Field(s) -- Distinct Collection Label(s) Values for Spatial Field • Collections which map to the spatial1 American University of Utah - J. 62 Latitude; Place Names 37 Westward Willard Marriott refinement of Migration Library coverage: 502 Barry Maxfield Utah Valley 252 Coverage-Spatial 64 • Total Collection Railroad University Library Records: 103,971 Photographs • Avg. No. of Distinct3 Bear River Utah State University 772 Location; Geographic data 85 Values for Spatial Field: Watershed - Merrill-Cazier 52.6 Historical Library Collection • Almost all the collections contained4 Civilian Conservation Utah State Historical Society 1455 Geopolitical place 92 spatial terms involving Corps in Utah state, county, Geographic Location populated place and5 Design Workshop Utah State University 303 4 Landscape - Merrill-Cazier feature Architecture Library Archive
  9. 9. Table 2Collection Partner Subject Coverage Spatial CoverageAdams, R. Southern Yes No NoD. Utah University - Sherratt • 50 out of 297 collectionsAlbert Library University No No No map to the spatialTissandier of Utah - refinement of coverage.Collection Utah Museum • 170 out of the 297 (not of Fine Arts including collectionsAlta (UT) University No Yes Yes mapping to coverage spatial refinement), contain spatialAvalanche of Utah -Study J. WillardCenter Marriott term or reference in the Library subject or coverage field.American Brigham Yes No NoTravelers in YoungItaly University - Harold B. Lee Library
  10. 10. Analysis Highlights• Total of 50 collections use spatial refinement of Dublin core (dcterms:spatial).• On average 53 distinct values or terms utilized in each collection = wide variation.• 2/3 of collections contain spatial information somewhere in metadata = starting point to improve.
  11. 11. Map Interface Examples and Issues• Inconsistent formatting and vocabularies resulted in: – Semantic based errors – Interoperability issues – Display difficulties in map initiatives. – Skewed map density or items not properly displaying on the map.• Country: Britain Vs. England Vs. United Kingdom• State: Utah County Vs. Utah State• City: Salt Lake City Vs. Salt Lake County
  12. 12. Summary of Issues and Missed Opportunities• Reduced success of search.• Interoperability issues worsen as additional geographic regions are incorporated.• Map initiative display difficulties.• Collaboration difficulties- DPLA• Historic Names vs. Current Political Name
  13. 13. Recommendations- Short Tern• Mandate partners utilize spatial coverage refinement in future collections harvested by MWDL.• Complete global search and replace of simple geospatial metadata with properly formatted spatial metadata in current collections.• Hire a programmer to write scripts to automatically make assumptions when harvesting metadata.
  14. 14. Recommendations- Long Term• Select and enforce one standard for formatting and select controlled vocabularies (see report for candidates).• Ensure standards adopted are compliant ISO 19115.• Collaborate and experiment with interactive map interfaces and geospatial technologies.
  15. 15. Recommendations- Long Tern• Require partners to set timeline and make reformatting of spatial metadata part of long term institutional plan.• Fundraise and establish funds for support. – Allow partners to hire someone to reformat metadata in a timely manner. – Hiring additional staff for MWDL to assist with map interfaces and spatial based initiatives. – Build proper metadata infrastructure.
  16. 16. Questions welcome!• Sandra McIntyre Program Director Mountain West Digital Library sandra.mcintyre@utah.edu• Dorotea Szkolar 2012 Mountain West Digital Library Intern Email: doroteaszkolar@gmail.com Twitter: @doroteaszkolar LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/doroteaszkolar

×