Metadata for your Digital Collections

825 views

Published on

Riley, Jenn. "Metadata for your Digital Collections." Workshop sponsored by the Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority (INCOLSA), March 6, 2007, Indianapolis, IN.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
825
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Extensibility: via Application Profiles and local qualifiers. Local qualifiers maybe not kosher but there are no metadata police. Usually.
  • Recommended: Elements, Element Refinements, and DCMI-maintained Vocabulary Terms (e.g., member terms of the DCMI Type Vocabulary) useful for resource discovery across domains.
    Conforming: Elements, Element Refinements and Application Profiles may be assigned a status of conforming. Elements and Element Refinements assigned a status of conforming are those for which an implementation community has a demonstrated need and which conform to the grammar of Elements and Element Refinements, though without necessarily meeting the stricter criteria of usefulness across domains or usefulness for resource discovery.
    Obsolete: For Elements and Element Refinements that have been superseded, deprecated, or rendered obsolete. Such terms will remain in the registry for use in interpreting legacy metadata.
    Registered: Used for Vocabulary Encoding Schemes and language translations for which the DCMI provides information but not necessarily a specific recommendation.
  • Can use as much or as little authority control as you want. CVs not required – use if you think they’re important for material. Can use collection-level description instead of item-level description if you want. Shared metadata only for discovery purposes – not necessarily complete description. Complete description is done locally. Domain-specific service providers can be for library interests, or merge library materials with those held in archives, museums, etc.
  • Metadata for your Digital Collections

    1. 1. Metadata for your Digital Collections Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian IU Digital Library Program
    2. 2. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 2 Many definitions of metadata  “Data about data”  “Structured information about an information resource of any media type or format.” (Caplan)  “Any data used to aid the identification, description and location of networked electronic resources.” (IFLA)  …
    3. 3. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 3 Refining a definition  Other characteristics  Structure  Control  Origin  Machine-generated  Human-generated  In practice, the term often covers data and meta-metadata
    4. 4. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 4 Some uses of metadata  By information specialists  Describing non-traditional materials  Cataloging Web sites  Navigating digital objects  Managing digital objects over the long term  Managing corporate assets  By novices  Preparing Web sites for search engines  Describing Eprints  Managing personal CD collections
    5. 5. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 5 Metadata and cataloging  Depends on what you mean by:  metadata, and  cataloging!  But, in general:  Metadata is broader in scope than cataloging  Much metadata creation takes place outside of libraries  Good metadata practitioners use fundamental cataloging principles in non-MARC environments  Metadata created for many different types of materials  Metadata is NOT only for Internet resources!
    6. 6. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 6 Metadata in digital library projects  Searching  Browsing  Display for users  Interoperability  Management of digital objects  Preservation  Navigation
    7. 7. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 7 Some types of metadata Type Use Descriptive metadata Searching Browsing Display Interoperability Technical metadata Interoperability Digital object management Preservation Preservation metadata Interoperability Preservation Rights metadata Interoperability Digital object management Structural metadata Navigation
    8. 8. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 8 How metadata is used
    9. 9. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 9 Creating descriptive metadata  Digital library content management systems  ContentDM  ExLibris Digitool  Greenstone  Library catalogs  Spreadsheets & databases  XML
    10. 10. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 10 Creating other types of metadata  Technical  Stored in content management system  Stored in separate Excel spreadsheet  Structural  Created and stored in content management system  METS XML  GIS  Using specialized software  Content markup  In XML
    11. 11. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 11 Descriptive metadata  Purpose  Description  Discovery  Some common general schemas  Dublin Core (unqualified and qualified)  MARC  MARCXML  MODS  LOTS of domain-specific schemas
    12. 12. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 12 Simple Dublin Core (DC)  15-element set  National and international standard  2001: Released as ANSI/NISO Z39.85  2003: Released as ISO 15836  Maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)  Other players  DC Usage Board  DCMI Communities  DCMI Task Groups
    13. 13. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 13 DCMI mission  The mission of DCMI is to make it easier to find resources using the Internet through the following activities:  Developing metadata standards for discovery across domains,  Defining frameworks for the interoperation of metadata sets, and,  Facilitating the development of community- or disciplinary-specific metadata sets that are consistent with items 1 and 2
    14. 14. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 14 DC Principles  Original principles  “Core” across all knowledge domains  No element required  All elements repeatable  1:1 principle  DC Abstract Model  “A reference against which particular DC encoding guidelines can be compared” model  Two schools of thought on its development  Clarifies model underlying the metadata standard  Overly complicates a standard intended to be simple
    15. 15. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 15 Content/value standards for DC  None required  Some elements recommend a content or value standard as a best practice  Relation  Source  Subject  Type  Coverage  Date  Format  Language  Identifier
    16. 16. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 16 Some limitations of DC  Can’t indicate a main title vs. other subordinate titles  No method for specifying creator roles  W3CDTF format can’t indicate date ranges or uncertainty  Can’t by itself provide robust record relationships
    17. 17. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 17 Good times to use DC  Cross-collection searching  Cross-domain discovery  Metadata sharing  Describing some types of simple resources  Metadata creation by novices
    18. 18. DC [record] QDC [record] [collection] MARC [record] [collection] MARCXML [record] MODS [record] [collection] Record format XML RDF (X)HTML Field labels Text Reliance on AACR None Common method of creation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation
    19. 19. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 19 Qualified Dublin Core (QDC)  Adds some increased specificity to Unqualified Dublin Core  Same governance structure as DC  Same encodings as DC  Same content/value standards as DC  Listed in DMCI Terms  Additional principles  Extensibility  Dumb-down principle
    20. 20. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 20 Types of DC qualifiers  Additional elements  Element refinements  Encoding schemes  Vocabulary encoding schemes  Syntax encoding schemes
    21. 21. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 21 DC qualifier status  Recommended  Conforming  Obsolete  Registered
    22. 22. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 22 Limitations of QDC  Widely misunderstood  No method for specifying creator roles  W3CDTF format can’t indicate date ranges or uncertainty  Split across 3 XML schemas  No encoding in XML (yet) officially endorsed by DCMI
    23. 23. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 23 Best times to use QDC  More specificity needed than simple DC, but not a fundamentally different approach to description  Want to share DC with others, but need a few extensions for your local environment  Describing some types of simple resources  Metadata creation by novices
    24. 24. DC [record] QDC [record] [collection] MARC [record] [collection] MARCXML [record] MODS [record] [collection] Record format XML RDF (X)HTML XML RDF (X)HTML Field labels Text Text Reliance on AACR None None Common method of creation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation
    25. 25. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 25 MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC)  Format for the records in library catalogs  Used for library metadata since 1960s  Adopted as national standard in 1971  Adopted as international standard in 1973  Maintained by:  Network Development and MARC Standards Office at the Library of Congress  Standards and the Support Office at the National Library of Canada
    26. 26. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 26 More about MARC  Actually a family of MARC standards throughout the world  U.S. & Canada use MARC21  Structured as a binary interchange format  ANSI/NISO Z39.2  ISO 2709  Field names  Numeric fields  Alphabetic subfields
    27. 27. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 27 Content/value standards for MARC  None required by the format itself  But US record creation practice relies heavily on:  AACR2r  ISBD  LCNAF  LCSH
    28. 28. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 28 Limitations of MARC  Use of all its potential is time-consuming  OPACs don’t make full use of all possible data  OPACs virtually the only systems to use MARC data  Requires highly-trained staff to create  Local practice differs greatly
    29. 29. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 29 Good times to use MARC  Integration with other records in OPAC  Resources are like those traditionally found in library catalogs  Maximum compatibility with other libraries is needed  Have expert catalogers for metadata creation
    30. 30. DC [record] QDC [record] [collection] MARC [record] [collection] MARCXML [record] MODS [record] [collection] Record format XML RDF (X)HTML XML RDF (X)HTML ISO 2709 [ANSI Z39.2] Field labels Text Text Numeric Reliance on AACR None None Strong Common method of creation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By specialists
    31. 31. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 31 MARC in XML (MARCXML)  Copies the exact structure of MARC21 in an XML syntax  Numeric fields  Alphabetic subfields  Implicit assumption that content/value standards are the same as in MARC
    32. 32. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 32 Limitations of MARCXML  Not appropriate for direct data entry  Extremely verbose syntax  Full content validation requires tools external to XML Schema conformance
    33. 33. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 33 Best times to use MARCXML  As a transition format between a MARC record and another XML-encoded metadata format  Materials lend themselves to library-type description  Need more robustness than DC offers  Want XML representation to store within larger digital object but need lossless conversion to MARC
    34. 34. DC [record] QDC [record] [collection] MARC [record] [collection] MARCXML [record] MODS [record] [collection] Record format XML RDF (X)HTML XML RDF (X)HTML ISO 2709 [ANSI Z39.2] XML Field labels Text Text Numeric Numeric Reliance on AACR None None Strong Strong Common method of creation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By specialists By derivation
    35. 35. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 35 Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)  Developed and managed by the Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office  For encoding bibliographic information  Influenced by MARC, but not equivalent  Usable for any format of materials  First released for trial use June 2002  MODS 3.2 released late 2006
    36. 36. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 36 MODS differences from MARC  MODS is “MARC-like” but intended to be simpler  Textual tag names  Encoded in XML  Some specific changes  Some regrouping of elements  Removes some elements  Adds some elements
    37. 37. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 37 Content/value standards for MODS  Many elements indicate a given content/value standard should be used  Generally follows MARC/AACR2/ISBD conventions  But not all enforced by the MODS XML schema  Authority attribute available on many elements
    38. 38. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 38 Limitations of MODS  No lossless round-trip conversion from and to MARC  Still largely implemented by library community only  Some semantics of MARC lost
    39. 39. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 39 Good times to use MODS  Materials lend themselves to library-type description  Want to reach both library and non-library audiences  Need more robustness than DC offers  Want XML representation to store within larger digital object
    40. 40. DC [record] QDC [record] [collection] MARC [record] [collection] MARCXML [record] MODS [record] [collection] Record format XML RDF (X)HTML XML RDF (X)HTML ISO 2709 [ANSI Z39.2] XML XML Field labels Text Text Numeric Numeric Text Reliance on AACR None None Strong Strong Implied Common method of creation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By specialists By derivation By specialists and by derivation
    41. 41. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 41 Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core  From Visual Resources Association  Separates Work from Image  Library focus  Inspiration from Dublin Core  Version 3.0 released on 2002  Version 4.0 currently in Beta
    42. 42. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 42 Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) Lite  Reduced version of the Categories for the Description of Works of Art (512 categories)  From J. Paul Getty Trust  Museum focus  Conceived for record sharing
    43. 43. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 43 Structure standards for learning materials  Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM)  From the U.S. Department of Education  Based on Qualified Dublin Core  Adds elements for instructional level, instructional method, etc.  “GEM's goal is to improve the organization and accessibility of the substantial collections of materials that are already available on various federal, state, university, non-profit, and commercial Internet sites.”*  IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM)  Elements for technical and descriptive metadata about learning resources * From <http://www.thegateway.org/about/documentation/schemas>
    44. 44. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 44 Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)  TEI in Libraries  For encoding full texts of documents  Literary texts  Letters  …etc.  Requires specialized search engine  Delivery requires specialized software or offline conversion to HTML
    45. 45. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 45 Encoded Archival Description (EAD)  Maintained by the Society for American Archivists EAD Working Group  Markup language for archival finding aids  Designed to accommodate multi-level description  Requires specialized search engine  Delivery requires specialized software or offline conversion to HTML  EAD 1.0 released in 1998  EAD2002 finalized in December 2002
    46. 46. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 46 Levels of control  Data structure standards (e.g., MARC)  Data content standards (e.g., AACR2r)  Encoding schemes  Vocabulary  Syntax  High-level models (e.g., FRBR)  Very few metadata standards include a counterpart to the AACR “chief source of information”
    47. 47. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 47 Some data content standards  Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2)  Scheduled to be replaced by RDA in 2009  Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS)  Replaces APPM  Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO)  First content standard explicitly designed for these materials
    48. 48. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 48 When there’s no data content standard…
    49. 49. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 49 Vocabulary encoding schemes  TGM I  TGM II  TGN  GeoNet  AAT  LCSH  LCNAF  DCMI Type  MIME Types  …etc.
    50. 50. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 50 Syntax encoding schemes  ISO8601  W3CDTF  URI  AACR2r  …etc.
    51. 51. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 51 Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model WORK EXPRESSION MANIFESTATION ITEM is realized through is embodied in is exemplified by
    52. 52. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 52 Using FRBR principles in metadata creation  Don’t need to take the model literally  For unique materials, much simplification is possible  Make sure you know how your practices conform to the high-level model  Be consistent in these practices
    53. 53. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 53 How do I pick standards? (1)  Institution  Nature of holding institution  Resources available for metadata creation  What others in the community are doing  Capabilities of your delivery software  The standard  Purpose  Structure  Context  History
    54. 54. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 54 How do I pick standards? (2)  Materials  Genre  Format  Likely audiences  What metadata already exists for these materials  Project goals  Robustness needed for the given materials and users  Describing multiple versions  Mechanisms for providing relationships between records  Plan for interoperability, including repeatability of elements  More information on handout
    55. 55. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 55 Assessing materials for ease of metadata creation  Number of items?  Homogeneity of items?  Foreign language?  Published or unpublished?  Specialist needed?  How much information is known?  Any existing metadata?
    56. 56. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 56 Assessing currently existing metadata  Machine-readable?  Divided into fields?  What format?  What content standards?  Complete?
    57. 57. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 57 Assessing software capabilities  Are there templates for standard metadata formats?  Can you add/remove fields to a template?  Can you create new templates?  Can you add additional clarifying information without creating a separate field?  Personal vs. corporate names  Subject vocabulary used  Is there an XML export? Does it produce valid records?
    58. 58. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 58 Case studies in choosing standards  Describe your institution  Describe one collection you’d like to digitize  Describe your technical infrastructure
    59. 59. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 59 Beyond descriptive metadata  Technical metadata  Preservation metadata  Rights metadata  Structural metadata
    60. 60. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 60 Technical metadata  For recording technical aspects of digital objects  For long-term maintenance of data  Migration  Emulation  Much can be generate automatically, but not all  Some examples:  NISO Z39.87: Data Dictionary – Technical Metadata for Digi & MIX  Schema for Technical Metadata for Text  Forthcoming standard for audio from the Audio Engineering Society  LC VMD draft schema for technical metadata for video files
    61. 61. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 61 Image technical metadata  Might include:  Color space  Bit depth  Byte order  Compression scheme  Camera settings  Operator name
    62. 62. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 62 Text technical metadata  Might include:  Character set  Byte order  Font/script  Language
    63. 63. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 63 Audio technical metadata  Might include:  Byte order  Checksum  Sample rate  Duration  Number of channels
    64. 64. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 64 Video technical metadata  Might include:  Bits per sample  Calibration information  Sample format  Signal format
    65. 65. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 65 Preservation metadata  The set of everything you need to know to preserve digital objects over the long term  Information that supports and documents the digital preservation process  Includes technical metadata but also other elements  Covers elements such as checksums, creation environment, and change history  PREMIS is the prevailing model
    66. 66. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 66 Rights metadata  Machine- or human-readable indications of rights information for a resource  Can be used to determine if a user can access a resource  Can indicate rights holder of a resource for payment purposes  Some current schemas  METS rights  XrML  ODRL
    67. 67. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 67 Structural metadata  For creating a logical structure between digital objects  Multiple copies/versions of same item  Multiple pages within item  Multiple sizes of each page  Meaningful groups of content  Often handled transparently by a delivery system  METS is the current primary standard
    68. 68. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 68 Why you should care about these standards  You will migrate from your current system to another, probably in the next few years  File formats become obsolete  We have too many interesting collections to have to re-do work we’ve already done  Standards promote interoperability
    69. 69. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 69 Building “Good digital collections”*  Interoperable – with the important goal of cross-collection searching  Persistent – reliably accessible  Re-usable – repositories of digital objects that can be used for multiple purposes *Institute for Museum and Library Services. A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Museum and Library Services, November 2001. http://www.niso.org/framework/Framework2.html
    70. 70. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 70 Building “Good digital collections”  Interoperable – with the important goal of cross-collection searching  Persistent – reliably accessible  Re-usable – repositories of digital objects that can be used for multiple purposes Good metadata promotes good digital collections.
    71. 71. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 71 Sharing your metadata  Harvesting  Collects metadata, processes it, and stores it locally to respond to user queries  Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting  Federated searching  Transmits user queries to multiple destinations in real time  ILS vendors currently offering these products  Protocols used  Z39.50  SRU
    72. 72. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 72 OAI Protocol Structure  Intentionally designed to be simple  Data providers  Have metadata they want to share  “Expose” their metadata to be harvested  Service providers  Harvest metadata from data providers  Provide searching of harvested metadata from multiple sources  Can also provide other value-added services
    73. 73. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 73 Data Providers  Set up a server that responds to harvesting requests  Required to expose metadata in simple Dublin Core (DC) format  Can also expose metadata in any other format expressible with an XML schema
    74. 74. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 74 Service Providers  Harvest and store metadata  Generally provide search/browse access to this metadata  Can be general or domain-specific  Can choose to collect metadata in formats other than DC  Generally link out to holding institutions for access to digital content
    75. 75. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 75 Advantages for Libraries  Any existing rules for description can be used  Can share metadata without sacrificing local granularity  Location of unique materials by many users  Domain-specific service providers  Middle ground between Google and OCLC  One of a suite of tools to provide users with access to all of your materials
    76. 76. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 76 Why share metadata?  Benefits to users  One-stop searching  Aggregation of subject-specific resources  Benefits to institutions  Increased exposure for collections  Broader user base  Bringing together of distributed collections Don’t expect users will know about your collection and remember to visit it.
    77. 77. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 77 Why share metadata with OAI?  “Low barrier” protocol  Shares metadata only, not content, simplifying rights issues  Same effort on your part to share with one or a hundred service providers (basically)  Wide adoption in the cultural heritage sector  Quickly eclipsed older methods such as Z39.50
    78. 78. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 78 Three possible architectures OAIHarvester Digital asset management system Metadata creation module OAI data provider module Transformation Metadata creation system Stand-alone OAI data provider Transformation DC QDC MODS MARCXML DC MARCXML QDC MODS Metadata creation module Static Repository Gateway Transformation
    79. 79. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 79 Basic metadata sharing workflow  Create metadata, thinking about shareability  Determine format(s) you wish to share your metadata in  Transform records into versions appropriate for sharing via OAI  Validate transformed metadata  Load transformed metadata into OAI data provider  Test with OAI Repository Explorer  Communicate with service providers  See what your metadata looks like once a service provider harvests it
    80. 80. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 80 Preparing your metadata for sharing  Map to common formats; also called “crosswalking”  To create “views” of metadata for specific purposes  Mapping from robust format to more general format is common  Mapping from general format to more robust format is ineffective
    81. 81. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 81 Crosswalks (1)  For transforming between metadata formats  Usually refers to transforming between content standards rather than structure standards, but not always  Mapping from more robust format to less robust format effective; mapping from simpler format to more robust format less so  Good practice to create and store most robust metadata format possible, then create other views for specific needs
    82. 82. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 82 Crosswalks (2)  Can be in many formats  Logical sets of rules [example]  Actual code [example]  Often need to tweak a generic crosswalk for a specific implementation  Accommodating local practice  Adding institution-specific information  Adding context not available locally
    83. 83. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 83 Types of mapping logic  Mapping the complete contents of one field to another  Splitting multiple values in a single local field into multiple fields in the target schema  Translating anomalous local practices into a more generally useful value  Splitting data in one field into two or more fields  Transforming data values  Boilerplate values to include in output schema
    84. 84. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 84 Metadata as a view of the resource  There is no monolithic, one-size-fits-all metadata record  Metadata for the same thing is different depending on use and audience  Harry Potter as represented by…  a public library  an online bookstore  a fan site
    85. 85. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 85 Choice of vocabularies as a view  Names  LCNAF: Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1475- 1564  ULAN: Buonarroti, Michelangelo  Places  LCSH: Jakarta (Indonesia)  TGN: Jakarta  Subjects  LCSH: Neo-impressionism (Art)  AAT: Pointillism
    86. 86. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 86 Finding the right balance  Metadata providers know the materials  Document encoding schemes and controlled vocabularies  Document practices  Ensure record validity  Aggregators have the processing power  Format conversion  Reconcile known vocabularies  Normalize data  Batch metadata enhancement
    87. 87. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 87 What does this record describe? identifier: http://name.university.edu/IC-FISH3IC-X0802]1004_112 publisher: Museum of Zoology, Fish Field Notes format: jpeg rights: These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. type: image subject: 1926-05-18; 1926; 0812; 18; Trib. to Sixteen Cr. Trib. Pine River, Manistee R.; JAM26-460; 05; 1926/05/18; R10W; S26; S27; T21N language: UND source: Michigan 1926 Metzelaar, 1926--1926; description: Flora and Fauna of the Great Lakes Region Example courtesy of Sarah Shreeves, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    88. 88. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 88
    89. 89. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 89 Shareable metadata defined  Metadata for aggregation with records from other institutions  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  Preferably is machine processable
    90. 90. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 90 6 Cs and lots of Ss of shareable metadata Content Consistency Coherence Context Communication Conformance Metadata standards Vocabulary and encoding standards Descriptive content standards Technical standards
    91. 91. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 91 Content  Choose appropriate vocabularies  Choose appropriate granularity  Make it obvious what to display  Make it obvious what to index  Exclude unnecessary “filler”  Make it clear what links point to
    92. 92. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 92 Consistency  Records in a set should all reflect the same practice  Fields used  Vocabularies  Syntax encoding schemes  Allows aggregators to apply same enhancement logic to an entire group of records
    93. 93. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 93 Coherence  Record should be self-explanatory  Values must appear in appropriate elements  Repeat fields instead of “packing” to explicitly indicate where one value ends and another begins
    94. 94. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 94 Context  Include information not used locally  Exclude information only used locally  Current safe assumptions  Users discover material through shared record  User then delivered to your environment for full context  Context driven by intended use
    95. 95. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 95 Communication  Method for creating shared records  Vocabularies and content standards used in shared records  Record updating practices and schedules  Accrual practices and schedules  Existence of analytical or supplementary materials  Provenance of materials
    96. 96. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 96 Conformance to Standards  Metadata standards (and not just DC)  Vocabulary and encoding standards  Descriptive content standards (AACR2, CCO, DACS)  Technical standards (XML, Character encoding, etc)
    97. 97. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 97 Before you share…  Check your metadata  Appropriate view?  Consistent?  Context provided?  Does the aggregator have what they need?  Documented? Can a stranger tell you what the record describes?
    98. 98. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 98 The reality of sharing metadata  We can no longer afford to only think about our local users  Creating shareable metadata will require more work on your part  Creating shareable metadata will require our vendors to support (more) standards  Creating shareable metadata is no longer an option, it’s a requirement  Indiana is moving toward a portal of Indiana-related digital content – you should be planning for this now
    99. 99. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 99 Putting it all into practice  Develop written documentation  Develop a quality control workflow for metadata creation  Share your findings with others  Get better with every new online collection
    100. 100. 3/6/07 INCOLSA Workshop 100 Further information  jenlrile@indiana.edu  These presentation slides: < http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/incolsa2007/incolsa.ppt>  Metadata librarians listserv: <http: //metadatalibrarians.monarchos.com>  Priscilla Caplan: Metadata Fundamentals for all Librarians, 2003

    ×