If You Tag it, Will They Come? Metadata Quality and Repository Management

2,755 views

Published on

Presentation to Metadata Perspectives 2009, a conference held in Vienna, Austria in November 2009.

When we build collections of scholarly works, learning materials, or other educational "stuff", we want people to be able to find it. This raises a number of problems, including ensuring that resources are tagged with adequate metadata. In 2004 a pioneering paper on this issue noted:

"At its best, “accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” (Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) metadata is a powerful tool that enables the user to discover and retrieve relevant materials quickly and easily and to assess whether they may be suitable for reuse. At worst, poor quality metadata can mean that a resource is essentially invisible within the repository and remains unused." (Currier et al, 2004).

Have the five years since the above-quoted paper was published borne out its prediction: that simply expecting resource authors to create their own metadata at upload would lead to metadata of insufficient quality? Have repository managers been able to persuade funders that including professional metadata augmentation is worth the money? What has been the impact of recent Web developments allowing easier exposure, searching and sharing of resources? How is metadata being treated within the emerging domain of open educational resources? And what does all this mean for repository managers wanting to increase the discoverability of their resources, and to implement workflows for creation of good quality metadata?

Currier, S. et al (2004) Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process, ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2004

http://repository.alt.ac.uk/616/1/ALT_J_Vol12_No1_2004_Quality%20assurance%20for%20digital%20.pdf


Greenberg, J. & Robertson, W. (2003) Semantic web construction: an inquiry of authors’ views on collaborative metadata generation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata for e-Communities 2002, 45–52.

http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/ojs/pubs/article/viewArticle/693

Published in: Education, Technology
3 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Hello Dear,
    Nice Meeting You, my name is miss faith, i wish to have you as my friend when i came across your profile today , please get back to me at my private email ( faithassin24@yahoo.in ) for more details of my self, and i also have something very important to share with you and also promise to send my picture to you OK? yours friend faith
    ( faithassin24@yahoo.in )
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hi dear,
    My name is amirah, a beautiful young girl full of love and affection.
    Well, I saw your profile today on the dating site www.slideshare.net, which gave me interest to contact you and know what the future
    might bring for us together.
    if you feel interested in being my friend, you can contact me back
    through my private email address and I'll give you my picture and tell you more about me.........(amirahrashide005@yahoo.com)
    I wait for your response
    Thank you and God bless
    Sincerely with love
    amirah ...
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hello
    my name is Queen
    i saw your profile today and became interested in you, i will like to know you the more, and i want you to send an email to my mail so that i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am. Here is my email address [jobe.queen@yahoo.com] I believe we can move from here. I am waiting for your reply in my mail don't send it in the site.
    [Remember the distance or color does not matter but love matters allot in life]
    [jobe.queen@yahoo.com]
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,755
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
138
Comments
3
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

If You Tag it, Will They Come? Metadata Quality and Repository Management

  1. 1. If You Tag it, Will They Come? Metadata Quality and Repository Management Presentation by Sarah Currier Perspectives on Metadata Conference University of Vienna, Austria, 12-13 November 2009
  2. 2. Who is here? <ul><li>How many librarians / information management people? </li></ul><ul><li>How many IT / systems management people? </li></ul><ul><li>How many software development people? </li></ul><ul><li>How many from libraries? </li></ul><ul><li>How many from museums? </li></ul><ul><li>How many from archives? </li></ul><ul><li>How many from educational support (e.g. repositories of learning & teaching resources, educational development)? </li></ul><ul><li>Others? </li></ul>
  3. 3. If you tag it? What is metadata? <ul><li>for the purposes of this discussion, metadata is </li></ul>
  4. 4. If you tag it? What is metadata? <ul><li>for the purposes of this discussion, metadata is </li></ul><ul><li>structured data about data </li></ul>
  5. 5. If you tag it? What is metadata? <ul><li>for the purposes of this discussion, metadata is </li></ul><ul><li>structured data about data </li></ul><ul><li>this includes </li></ul><ul><li>metadata structured via recognised standards, local specifications and social tagging systems </li></ul>
  6. 6. .. will they come? Who are they ? <ul><li>Whose requirements are you trying to meet? </li></ul><ul><li>What is your business case? </li></ul><ul><li>What is your business model? </li></ul>
  7. 7. .. will they come? Who are they ? <ul><li>Whose requirements are you trying to meet? </li></ul><ul><li>End users? Academics? Students? </li></ul><ul><li>Funders? Administrators? </li></ul><ul><li>A subject community? Some other community? </li></ul><ul><li>The whole wide world? </li></ul><ul><li>Who are your users and what are their requirements? </li></ul>
  8. 8. .. will they come? Who are they ? <ul><li>What is your business case? </li></ul><ul><li>Enabling academics to share research with subject community? </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancing the reputation of your institution? </li></ul><ul><li>Saving costs across an organisation, consortium, country? </li></ul><ul><li>Archiving resources for the future? </li></ul><ul><li>What is your business case? Have you articulated it? </li></ul>
  9. 9. .. will they come? Who are they ? <ul><li>What is your business model? </li></ul><ul><li>Consortium of institutions sharing costs? </li></ul><ul><li>Nationally funded service? </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional service? </li></ul><ul><li>Subject community with member organisations paying a subscription? </li></ul><ul><li>What is your business model? </li></ul>
  10. 10. What is “metadata quality”? <ul><li>Technical quality: adherence to local or international metadata standards, specifications and application profiles. </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic quality: proper use of controlled vocabularies and semantic standards. </li></ul><ul><li>Value quality: populating metadata fields appropriately for describing the resource and its relationships , for the benefit of the user community and other stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><li>“ accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” </li></ul><ul><li>(Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) </li></ul>
  11. 11. What is “metadata quality”? <ul><li>Technical quality: adherence to local or international metadata standards, specifications and application profiles. </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic quality: proper use of controlled vocabularies and semantic standards. </li></ul><ul><li>Value quality: populating metadata fields appropriately for describing the resource and its relationships , for the benefit of the user community and other stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><li>“ accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” </li></ul><ul><li>(Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) </li></ul>I’m going to assume you know something about this
  12. 12. What is “metadata quality”? <ul><li>Technical quality: adherence to local or international metadata standards, specifications and application profiles. </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic quality: proper use of controlled vocabularies and semantic standards. </li></ul><ul><li>Value quality: populating metadata fields appropriately for describing the resource and its relationships , for the benefit of the user community and other stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><li>“ accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” </li></ul><ul><li>(Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) </li></ul>You may not understand everything about this (who does?), but it’s a big topic for another presentation
  13. 13. What is “metadata quality”? <ul><li>Technical quality: adherence to local or international metadata standards, specifications and application profiles. </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic quality: proper use of controlled vocabularies and semantic standards. </li></ul><ul><li>Value quality: populating metadata fields appropriately for describing the resource and its relationships, for the benefit of the user community and other stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><li>“ accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” </li></ul><ul><li>(Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) </li></ul>This is the quality of the values that populate the metadata fields
  14. 14. Why worry about it? <ul><li>&quot;At its best, “ accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable ” (Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) metadata is a powerful tool that enables the user to discover and retrieve relevant materials quickly and easily and to assess whether they may be suitable for reuse. At worst, poor quality metadata can mean that a resource is essentially invisible within the repository and remains unused.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>(Currier et al, 2004) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Why worry about it? <ul><li>&quot;At its best, “accurate, consistent, sufficient, and thus reliable” (Greenberg & Robertson, 2002) metadata is a powerful tool that enables the user to discover and retrieve relevant materials quickly and easily and to assess whether they may be suitable for reuse. At worst, poor quality metadata can mean that a resource is essentially invisible within the repository and remains unused.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>(Currier et al, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Is this still true? </li></ul>
  16. 16. Do we even need metadata? <ul><li>Now we have Google ... </li></ul>
  17. 17. Do we even need metadata? <ul><li>Now we have Google ... </li></ul><ul><li>For some use cases, in order to maximise resource discovery and use, you need to focus on search engine optimisation, and exposure of resources to user communities via social media. Looking ahead to the Semantic Web and linked data probably won’t hurt either. </li></ul>
  18. 18. First things first <ul><li>What is the problem to which the repository is a solution? And who identifies this as a problem? </li></ul><ul><li>What will be the measure of success for your repository? </li></ul><ul><li>Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007 </li></ul>
  19. 19. Using “Good Intentions” <ul><li>JISC-funded Good Intentions project developed a template to gather different existing business models for sharing t&l resources, and evaluating affordances, successes </li></ul><ul><li>Created a matrix to map different elements of business cases to different business models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Too big to show it all here: worth following up, but here are examples </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>McGill et al (2008) </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Business model template
  21. 21. Finance models
  22. 22. Service models
  23. 23. Supplier/consumer models
  24. 24. Issues affecting models
  25. 25. Impact of business cases <ul><li>Significant impact </li></ul><ul><li>Some impact </li></ul><ul><li>Possible with right conditions </li></ul><ul><li>No impact </li></ul>
  26. 26. General benefits to global community Open CoP Subject-based Institutional National Informal Supporting subject-discipline communities to share Encourages innovation and experimentation Shares expertise and resources between developed and developing countries Supports re-use and re-purposing Supports community input to metadata through tagging, notes, reviews Supports effective retrieval through professionally created metadata Ensures trust through appropriate licensing
  27. 27. General benefits to global community Open CoP Subject-based Institutional National Informal Supporting subject-discipline communities to share Encourages innovation and experimentation Shares expertise and resources between developed and developing countries Supports re-use and re-purposing Supports community input to metadata through tagging, notes, reviews Supports effective retrieval through professionally created metadata Ensures trust through appropriate licensing
  28. 28. Business cases - Global Case Subject Open Supporting subject-based communities to share   Encourages innovation and experimentation  Shares expertise and resources between developed and developing countries  Supporting re-use and re-purposing   Supporting continued development of standards and interoperability   Supporting continued development of tools for sharing and exchange   Supporting sharing and reuse of individual assets   Helps develop critical mass of materials in particular subject areas   Supporting ease of access through search engines such as Google 
  29. 29. Business cases - National Case Subject Open Cost efficiencies   Decrease in duplication   Supports cross-institutional sharing   Provides access to non-educational bodies such as employers, professional bodies, trade unions, etc  Supports a broad vision of sharing across the country  Promotes the concept of lifelong learning  Supports shared curricula  Supports discovery of most used/highest quality resources   Supports the notion that educational institutions should leverage taxpayers money by allowing free sharing and reuse of resources  Mitigates the cost of keeping resources closed  Mitigates the risk of doing nothing in a rapidly changing environment  Supports sustained long-term sharing 
  30. 30. Business cases - Institutional Case Subject Open Increased transparency and quality of learning materials   Encourages high quality learning and teaching resources   Supports modular course development   Maintaining and building institution’s reputation - globally  Attracting new staff and students to institutions – recruitment tool for students and prospective employers  Shares expertise efficiently within institutions  Supports the altruistic notion that sharing knowledge is in line with academic traditions and a good thing to do  Likely to encourage review of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment  Enhancing connections with external stakeholders by making resources visible 
  31. 31. Business cases - Teachers Case Subject Open Increased personal recognition   Supports sharing of knowledge and teaching practice  Encourages improvement in teaching practice   Supports immediate one-off instances of sharing   Supports attribution  Encourages multi-disciplinary collaboration and sharing  Supports CPD and offers evidence of this 
  32. 32. Business cases - Learners Case Subject Open Easy and free access to learning material for learners  Increased access options for students enrolled on courses (particularly remote students)  Easily accessed through student-owned technologies  Increased access for non-traditional learners (widening participation)  Likely to encourage self-regulated and independent learning  Likely to increase demand for flexible learning opportunities  Likely to increase demand for assessment and recognition of competencies gained outside formal learning settings  Likely to encourage peer support, mentorship and ambassadorial programmes 
  33. 33. What are the use cases for metadata? <ul><li>Resource discovery </li></ul><ul><li>Resource selection </li></ul><ul><li>Resource aggregation and manipulation </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual property rights </li></ul><ul><li>Digital preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation (of individuals and organisations) </li></ul>
  34. 34. What are the use cases for metadata? <ul><li>Resource discovery </li></ul><ul><li>Resource selection </li></ul><ul><li>Resource aggregation and manipulation </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual property rights </li></ul><ul><li>Digital preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation (of individuals and organisations) </li></ul><ul><li>Any others? </li></ul>
  35. 35. Developing your application profile <ul><li>Once you have your requirements, </li></ul><ul><li>... based on your business case, business model and use cases ... </li></ul><ul><li>you can decide what metadata fields and vocabularies are necessary (if any) to meet these requirements. </li></ul>
  36. 36. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Broadly: </li></ul><ul><li>Manual generation by humans, or: </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic generation </li></ul>
  37. 37. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Manual generation by humans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Created by resource authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Added by resource depositors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Created, checked, augmented by professionals, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cataloguers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subject experts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Designated IPR gatekeepers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enriched by resource users, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Additional description, comments, annotations, descriptions of usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corrections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enrichment (additional subject description etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social tagging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ratings and recommendations </li></ul></ul></ul>
  38. 38. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Manual generation by humans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Created by resource authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Added by resource depositors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Created, checked, augmented by professionals, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cataloguers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subject experts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Designated IPR gatekeepers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enriched by resource users, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Additional description, comments, annotations, descriptions of usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corrections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enrichment (additional subject description etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social tagging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ratings and recommendations </li></ul></ul></ul>Rich and useful, but requires quality checks, and must be minimal to encourage deposit
  39. 39. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Manual generation by humans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Created by resource authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Added by resource depositors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Created, checked, augmented by professionals, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cataloguers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subject experts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Designated IPR gatekeepers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enriched by resource users, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Additional description, comments, annotations, descriptions of usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corrections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enrichment (additional subject description etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social tagging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ratings and recommendations </li></ul></ul></ul>Expensive! Must be justified by business case and minimised by use of automatic metadata generation, search engine exposure and community metadata
  40. 40. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Manual generation by humans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Created by resource authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Added by resource depositors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Created, checked, augmented by professionals, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cataloguers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subject experts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Designated IPR gatekeepers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enriched by resource users, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Additional description, comments, annotations, descriptions of usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corrections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enrichment (additional subject description etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social tagging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ratings and recommendations </li></ul></ul></ul>Can be useful for many types of resource collection, for description; community building; and supporting greater exposure and use of resources
  41. 41. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Automatic generation, e.g.: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction from resource files </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inferred from resource relationships </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation according to system settings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generation of default values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction via text mining </li></ul></ul>
  42. 42. How is metadata created? <ul><li>Automatic generation, e.g.: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction from resource files </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inferred from resource relationships </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation according to system settings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generation of default values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction via text mining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other ways? </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. When is metadata created? <ul><li>During resource creation / editing </li></ul><ul><li>During resource upload </li></ul><ul><li>During metadata creation workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Via post-upload metadata harvesting / combining / augmentation / checking / “cleaning” </li></ul><ul><li>During or after resource use. </li></ul>
  44. 44. When is metadata created? <ul><li>During resource creation / editing </li></ul><ul><li>During resource upload </li></ul><ul><li>During metadata creation workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Via post-upload metadata harvesting / combining / augmentation / checking / “cleaning” </li></ul><ul><li>During or after resource use </li></ul><ul><li>So, basically: </li></ul><ul><li>At any and many points during the resource lifecycle. </li></ul>
  45. 45. Thinking outside the repository box <ul><li>“ We have used the term ' service' to describe the various infrastructures that exist to support sharing, but must stress that this includes a wide range of activities including those supported by formal repositories and/or open social software services, as well as informal mechanisms within or across institutions, between lecturers and/or students. This term [...] was deliberately chosen to highlight the wide range of activities, mechanisms and support that are offered to encourage and facilitate sharing, including, but not limited to static storage of content.” </li></ul><ul><li>McGill, Currier, Duncan & Douglas, 2008 </li></ul>
  46. 46. Thinking outside the repository box <ul><li>Implications: </li></ul><ul><li>Think about the places, ways your intended community works, socialises, shares and communicates </li></ul><ul><li>Think about interoperability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What if you need to migrate your content in 5 years? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What metadata specs and standards do you need? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expose your content and services via open APIs. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Think about a service-based approach (Web services that is): what components do you need to interact with? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook? Twitter? Delicious or Diigo tagging? Widgets? RSS feeds! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student and staff records? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning managements systems? Library management systems? Other campus / organisational systems? </li></ul></ul>
  47. 47. Thinking about communities (1 of 5) <ul><li>If you build it, will they come? </li></ul><ul><li>“ [...] the pedagogical, social, and organisational aspects of these communities have not been at the forefront in the design and development of [learning object repositories]. Research has consistently demonstrated that the most substantial barriers in uptake of technology are rooted in these factors” </li></ul><ul><li>Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007 </li></ul>
  48. 48. Thinking about communities (1 of 5) <ul><li>If you build it, will they come? </li></ul><ul><li>“ [...] the pedagogical, social, and organisational aspects of these communities have not been at the forefront in the design and development of [learning object repositories]. Research has consistently demonstrated that the most substantial barriers in uptake of technology are rooted in these factors ” </li></ul><ul><li>Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007 </li></ul>
  49. 49. Thinking about communities (2 of 5) <ul><li>Community dimensions to think about </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Purpose : the shared goal/interest of the community; the reason why the community was formed in the first place </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Composition : the number and types of (sub-)communities to be supported </li></ul><ul><li>(3) Dialogue : modes of participation and communication (online, face-to-face, or mixed) adopted by the community </li></ul><ul><li>(4) Roles and responsibilities : of community members </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Coherence : whether the community is close-knit or loosely confederated/transient </li></ul><ul><li>(6) Context : the broader ecology within which the community exists (for example, professional bodies; governments; implicit and explicit rules that govern the functioning of community; ground rules of conduct; rewards and incentives mechanisms; etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>(7) Pedagogy : teaching and learning approaches used in the community (for example, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, etc.) </li></ul>
  50. 50. Thinking about communities (3 of 5) <ul><li>Repository dimensions to think about </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Purpose : including t&l repositories created to support professional development of teachers, or for the exchange of specific resource formats, such as sound files, learning designs, or student assignments </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Subject discipline : including t&l repositories created to support mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary communities </li></ul><ul><li>(3) Scope : including t&l repositories supporting departmental, institutional, regional, national, or international communities </li></ul><ul><li>(4) Sector : for example school, higher education, further education, hobby-based learning, work-based, or lifelong learning </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Contributors : such as teachers, students, publishers, institutions, funded projects </li></ul><ul><li>(6) Business model : concerning the business, trading, and management framework underpinning the repository </li></ul>
  51. 51. Thinking about communities (4 of 5) <ul><li>Thinking about engaging communities </li></ul><ul><li>Iterative, agile design: be ready to change tack, make mistakes </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-disciplinary team from the start: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Educational development, library, staff development, learning services, technical services, academic and student representatives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Engagement and support vital from line managers at departmental, school, faculty, institutional level: gives people permission to put time and effort into working with repository, sharing materials </li></ul><ul><li>Talk to others doing the same thing (JISC CETIS Repositories Community, JISC-Repositories list, software user communities, international contacts) </li></ul><ul><li>If you can, have a designated repository manager from the start. </li></ul>
  52. 52. Thinking about communities (5 of 5) <ul><li>Thinking about engaging individuals </li></ul><ul><li>How do they currently store, back up, share and discover resources? </li></ul><ul><li>What pain points can you solve first off, to get them engaged? </li></ul><ul><li>What’s juicy for them? E.g. Providing an RSS Feed of their own publications that can appear on their personal or departmental web page. </li></ul><ul><li>Be aware of time & other pressures: sometimes engaging with new technology/processes takes more time at the start; make sure it pays off for them fairly quickly re supporting their work and saving them time. </li></ul><ul><li>Identify champions in user communities to mentor others </li></ul><ul><li>Mentor and support users by choosing a specific task they can easily achieve, or a specific problem they can solve with your repository </li></ul>
  53. 53. Thinking about software <ul><li>Affordances to support metadata quality: </li></ul><ul><li>Tried and tested support for appropriate metadata standards, and interface standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web services, APIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OAI-PMH </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS / Atom / OPML </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SWORD for easy or bulk deposit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vocabulary interchange (SKOS, Zthes, IMS VDEX)). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Automatic metadata generation MUST be used to create as much metadata as possible at the appropriate points. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Text mining for term extraction; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of templates to populate with default values; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction of user data for authorship and IPR; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction of course data to populate educational level, educational context, subject metadata ... Etc.! </li></ul></ul>
  54. 54. Thinking about software <ul><li>Affordances to support metadata quality: </li></ul><ul><li>Workflow capability: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To support different kinds of metadata being created at appropriate times by appropriate people or systems. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To support publication of resources before all metadata is created. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Metadata forms usability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical aspects of metadata should be invisible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drop-down menus, text-completion, vocabulary term suggestion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spell-check! Some browsers do this: make sure they can use those browsers. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Step-through wizard type approach can be helpful. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Careful with default values though: research and experience shows that users will simply leave the default selected. </li></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Thinking about software <ul><li>Affordances to support metadata enhancement: </li></ul><ul><li>Using text mining to create / suggest metadata. </li></ul><ul><li>Using tools for combining metadata from different sources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Other instances of the same resource; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>From related resources; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course information about where the resource was used; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Person” metadata about authors and other agents. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Metadata “cleaning” tools: checking spelling, appropriate use of vocabularies, reducing duplication, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Registries for vocabularies, metadata elements and application profiles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can assist with ensuring your metadata is standardised, and mapped across different communities / languages etc. </li></ul></ul>
  56. 56. Example of repository with metadata quality measures in place <ul><li>IRISS Learning Exchange: </li></ul><ul><li>Built on intraLibrary, using their open source SRU search tool </li></ul><ul><li>Leeds Met Uni / others are adapting for their own use </li></ul><ul><li>Social work education across Scotland (HE, now WBL/CPD and FE also) </li></ul><ul><li>Started closed to members only, now open </li></ul><ul><li>Professional metadata, high quality resources- but teacher sharing never took off. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.iriss.org.uk/openlx/ </li></ul>
  57. 57. Example of repository with metadata workflows easing sharing <ul><li>EdShare (Southhampton) </li></ul><ul><li>Built on ePrints: first formal attempt to make ePrints a learning materials repository </li></ul><ul><li>Covers all subjects at Southampton Uni, open to Web </li></ul><ul><li>Worked closely from the start with academics </li></ul><ul><li>Focussed on minimal metadata, maximal sharing and Web exposure (Morris, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Problems with metadata quality? Early example: academic unable to create RSS Feed of own materials as couldn’t be distinguished from another academic of the same name! </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/ </li></ul>
  58. 58. Resources <ul><li>Sarah Currier Consultancy http://www.sarahcurrier.com/ </li></ul><ul><li>JISC CETIS Repositories Domain: http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/domain/metadata </li></ul><ul><li>JISC CETIS Repositories & Metadata list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CETIS-METADATA </li></ul><ul><li>Special thanks to Lou McGill and Charles Duncan for “Good Intentions” slides: http://www.loumcgill.co.uk/ and http://www.intrallect.com/ </li></ul><ul><li>Additional thanks to Lorna M. Campbell, Phil Barker and R. John Robertson of JISC CETIS for the fabulous sessions at CETIS09 in Birmingham, UK immediately prior to this Vienna conference, also to the participants from the JISC OER Programme. These sessions have not yet been written up so cannot be referenced here, but there will be resources appearing on JISC CETIS website in due course. Here’s an initial taster: http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/lmc/2009/11/13/orders-from-the-roundtable/ </li></ul><ul><li>Automated metadata generation and enhancement: </li></ul><ul><li>FixRep Project, UKOLN: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/fixrep/ </li></ul><ul><li>NaCTEM / Intute Project on enhancing metadata using text mining: http://www.nactem.ac.uk/intute/ </li></ul><ul><li>JISC Automatic Metadata Generation study: http://www.intrallect.com/wiki/index.php/AMG-UC </li></ul><ul><li>JISC Metadata Generation Tools study: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/258/ </li></ul><ul><li>For information on metadata augmentation, enhancement and “cleaning” post-creation/harvesting, see numerous publications by Diane Hillmann at Metadata Associates: http://managemetadata.org/otherPubs.php & [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>For numerous publications on automatic metadata generation and enhancement in e-learning see publications of Erik Duval and his research group: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/items-by-author?author=Duval%2C+Erik%3B+U0016838 </li></ul>
  59. 59. References <ul><li>Currier, S. et al (2004) Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process in ALT-J Research in Learning Technology Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2004. Available: http://repository.alt.ac.uk/616/1/ALT_J_Vol12_No1_2004_Quality%20assurance%20for%20digital%20.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Greenberg, J. & Robertson, W. (2003) Semantic web construction: an inquiry of authors’ views on collaborative metadata generation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata for e-Communities 2002, 45–52. Available: http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/ojs/pubs/article/viewArticle/693 </li></ul><ul><li>Margaryan, A., Milligan, C. And Douglas, P. (2007) CD-LOR Deliverable 9: Structured Guidelines for Setting up Learning Object Repositories. JISC. Available: http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/cd-lor/documents/CD-LOR_Structured_Guidelines_v1p0_000.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>McGill, L ., Currier, S., Duncan, C. , Douglas, P. (2008) Good Intentions: Improving the Evidence Base in Support of Sharing Learning Materials. JISC. Available: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/265/ </li></ul><ul><li>Morris, D. (2009) Encouraging More Open Educational Resources with Southampton’s EdShare in Ariadne , Issue 59 Available: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue59/morris/ </li></ul>

×