Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015

1. Collection Development & Metadata Quality TF The Hague 18/05/2015 @jpekel What have we achieved and where are we going? Joris Pekel and Marie-Claire Dangerﬁeld

2. Welcome Aggregators! @jpekel

3. Looking back… 2011-2015 @jpekel

4. Lots of records! @jpekel

5. From a lot of countries @jpekel

6. 6 We also worked on the quality of the database

7. Previews à Old and new version with preview @jpekel

8. @jpekel

9. Europeana Data Model @jpekel

10. Rights Labelling à G

11. Direct links à Portal image with light box @jpekel

12. Focus 2015-2020 à Screenshot strategy website @jpekel

13. Quantity done well, but what about the quality? à Poor record @jpekel

14. How to find your beautiful material in a bin of 42 million records? @jpekel Meisje is verdwaald op het strand. Nationaal Archief

15. @jpekel

16. @jpekel

17. Metadata Quality Task Force @jpekel

18. Task Force on Metadata Quality à How does Europeana define high quality metadata? à What is preventing the submission of good quality metadata? à How should data providers add information that is not in the original metadata but is required by Europeana? à What is the difference between domain-specific metadata and what is required for Europeana Data Model metadata? à What can be done to help the Europeana Network to increase the submission of high quality metadata? à Who is responsible for checking data quality - data providers, aggregators or Europeana? @jpekel

19. Task Force on Metadata Quality

25. @jpekel Task Force on Metadata Quality

26. TF results    Defined Metadata quality as: à Resulting from a series of trusted processes à Findable à Readable à Standardised à Meaningful to audiences à Clear on re-use à Visible @jpekel

27. TF results    Blockers to Metadata Quality à A lack of digital appraisal à Context of Metadata Creation à Metadata as a by-product of the preservation process à Limited Resources à Type of Material Digitised à Lack of Understanding of Technical documentation

28. TF results Some of the Recommendations: à Metadata crosswalks need to be documented à The metadata processes need to be more transparent à Minimum quality standard be raised à Greater use of the Europeana Publication Policy à Aggregators to conduct more checks before submission à Europeana Aggregation Team to be more available to Partners

29. Document published today @jpekel

30. Collection Profile à Creating collections becomes vital à Gives greater context to metadata à Constructed from existing EDM elements à dcterms:isPartOf à edm:isRelatedTo, à dc:relation, à edm:isNextInSequence à edm:isReferencedBY à Proposes to impliementation new EDM elements à edm:highlight à dcterms:description à edm:itemGenre à Available in full http://bit.ly/1IGBdsS

31. Collection Profile @jpekel

32. Thematic Focus à Thematic Channels  à Art  à Music  à Better Selected   Collections  à Designed for   showcase and  exploration @jpekel

33. Europeana 280 à Campaign to showcase Europe's national art pieces in co- operation with Ministries of Culture  à Runs from now till October  à 28 countries 10 art works  à Rich metadata, high quality image   à Higher demands for a different product @jpekel

34. Europeana 280 @jpekel

35. Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following elements: à Title of Work à The title should be the title as given by the creator. à Please submit a language tag for the title as this will allow multilingual search. à For the purposes of this project, works cannot be titled ‘untitled’ à Description of Item à This should be a short description of the work that helps the user find and understand the art piece. à Name of Creator à This should be the common name of the creator. à Date of Creation à Approximate dates if possible

36. Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following elements:      à Type of work à Adding the type of artwork makes it easier to locate in a search à Medium of work à The type of materials used in the making of the object e.g. Oil on canvas, watercolour etc. à Dimensions à We require the height, width, length of the object in its physical form à Subject

37. Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following elements:    Location à This is the general location of the object à The more specific the better e.g. Mauritshaus, Den Haag à A high-resolution digital version of the object à We recommend 4 megapixels à The image should not be embedded in a webpage as we cannot then extract it. à Rights statements à The rights statement should reflect the current copyright status of the artwork. à Your works will gain greater exposure if you are able to provide them under an Open Licence.

38. What does this mean? à Focus on Quality over Quantity  à Exists alongside the Europeana Portal  à Priority processing  à Improved representation for thematic material

39. How does this benefit you? à We want you involved in this  à Dedicated channel for thematic works  à Chance to curate and showcase collections à Collections more findable on the portal  à Institutions can promote their preferred artworks  à Resources set aside for the development of platform

40. Thank you Joris Pekel Joris.pekel@europeana.eu @jpekel Marie-Claire Dangerfield marie-claire.dangerfield@europeana.eu

41. Task Force on Metadata Quality à How does Europeana define high quality metadata? à What is preventing the submission of good quality metadata? à How should data providers add information that is not in the original metadata but is required by Europeana? à What is the difference between domain-specific metadata and what is required for Europeana Data Model metadata? à What can be done to help the Europeana Network to increase the submission of high quality metadata? à Who is responsible for checking data quality - data providers, aggregators or Europeana? @jpekel

48. @jpekel Task Force on Metadata Quality

49. TF results    Defined Metadata quality as: à Resulting from a series of trusted processes à Findable à Readable à Standardised à Meaningful to audiences à Clear on re-use à Visible @jpekel

50. TF results    Blockers to Metadata Quality à A lack of digital appraisal à Context of Metadata Creation à Metadata as a by-product of the preservation process à Limited Resources à Type of Material Digitised à Lack of Understanding of Technical documentation

51. TF results Some of the Recommendations: à Metadata crosswalks need to be documented à The metadata processes need to be more transparent à Minimum quality standard be raised à Greater use of the Europeana Publication Policy à Aggregators to conduct more checks before submission à Europeana Aggregation Team to be more available to Partners

52. Collection Profile à Creating collections becomes vital à Gives greater context to metadata à Constructed from existing EDM elements à dcterms:isPartOf à edm:isRelatedTo, à dc:relation, à edm:isNextInSequence à edm:isReferencedBY à Proposes to impliementation new EDM elements à edm:highlight à dcterms:description à edm:itemGenre à Available in full http://bit.ly/1IGBdsS

53. Collection Profile @jpekel

54. Thematic Focus à Thematic Channels  à Art  à Music  à Better Selected   Collections  à Designed for   showcase and  exploration @jpekel

55. Europeana 280 à Campaign to showcase Europe's national art pieces in co- operation with Ministries of Culture  à Runs from now till October  à 28 countries 10 art works  à Rich metadata, high quality image   à Higher demands for a different product @jpekel

56. Europeana 280 @jpekel

57. Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following elements: à Title of Work à The title should be the title as given by the creator. à Please submit a language tag for the title as this will allow multilingual search. à For the purposes of this project, works cannot be titled ‘untitled’ à Description of Item à This should be a short description of the work that helps the user find and understand the art piece. à Name of Creator à This should be the common name of the creator. à Date of Creation à Approximate dates if possible

58. Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following elements:      à Type of work à Adding the type of artwork makes it easier to locate in a search à Medium of work à The type of materials used in the making of the object e.g. Oil on canvas, watercolour etc. à Dimensions à We require the height, width, length of the object in its physical form à Subject

59. Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following elements:    Location à This is the general location of the object à The more specific the better e.g. Mauritshaus, Den Haag à A high-resolution digital version of the object à We recommend 4 megapixels à The image should not be embedded in a webpage as we cannot then extract it. à Rights statements à The rights statement should reflect the current copyright status of the artwork. à Your works will gain greater exposure if you are able to provide them under an Open Licence.

60. What does this mean? à Focus on Quality over Quantity  à Exists alongside the Europeana Portal  à Priority processing  à Improved representation for thematic material

61. How does this benefit you? à We want you involved in this  à Dedicated channel for thematic works  à Chance to curate and showcase collections à Collections more findable on the portal  à Institutions can promote their preferred artworks  à Resources set aside for the development of platform

Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015

Similar to Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015 (20)

More from Europeana

More from Europeana (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015