The document discusses the importance of high-quality metadata in higher education libraries, focusing on findings from a survey about commonly encountered errors in vendor-supplied metadata. It emphasizes the negative implications of poor metadata, such as inadequate resource discoverability and increased operational costs, while proposing essential metadata elements for books and e-books to enhance discoverability and user experience. Additionally, it highlights the ethical considerations and evolving practices in metadata creation within library systems.

1. #UKSG2022
ESSENTIAL E-BOOK
METADATA FOR EVERYONE!
Nettie Lagace
National Information
Standards Organisation
@abugseye
Emma Booth
University of Manchester
Library
@EmmaE_B
Concetta La Spada
Cambridge University
Press
@ConcettaLaSpada
Diane Rasmussen
Pennington
Strathclyde iSchool
University of Strathclyde
@infogamerist

3. National Acquisitions Group
Quality of Shelf-Ready Metadata Project
EMMA BOOTH
METADATA MANAGER FOR CONTENT MANAGEMENT
#UKSG2022

4. NAG Quality of Shelf-Ready Metadata Survey
Data from 50 Higher Education libraries in the UK & Ireland to
inform metadata specifications for:
The Joint Consortia Framework Agreement for the Supply of
Books, E-books, Standing Orders and Related Materials.
https://nag.org.uk/publications/
@UKLibrariesNAG

5. Commonly Encountered Errors in Vendor-Supplied Metadata
Fig.14. Respondents’ commonly encountered issues with shelf-ready records received from Suppliers
NAG (2020) Quality of Shelf-Ready Metadata, p.17.

6. Metadata Quality: Why it Matters
Metadata has always been at the heart of library services
because they need it to describe their resources for end-user
discovery and collection management.
Bascones, M., & Staniforth, A. (2018)
Data quality is an especially important issue where metadata
records for resource discovery are concerned.
Resources can be rendered essentially invisible due to poor data.
Pomerantz, J. (2015)

7. Negative Impact of Poor Quality Metadata
Inadequate search and retrieval experience:
→ Low usage of resources.
→ Poor user-opinion of content-provision.
→ Poor return-on-investment in resources.
→ Detrimental to collection management.
Hidden costs for libraries:
→ Manual correction/upgrade of metadata – duplicated effort.
→ Extra support for library-users to help with search and retrieval.
→ Inability to participate in metadata-sharing initiatives (data silo).
→ Barriers to participation in resource-sharing programmes (e.g. ILL).

8. http://man.ac.uk/RsMU55
Richer metadata
fuels discovery and
innovation.
Connected
metadata bridges
the gaps between
systems and
communities.
Reusable, open
metadata eliminates
duplication of effort.
Mitchell, D., &
Counsell, F. (2018)

9. NAG Recommendations:
Essential Metadata Elements for Books & E-Books
• Titles: – Main title, Series title, Collection title
• Names: – Author(s)/Creator(s), Publisher(s), Distributor(s), Funder(s)
• Dates: – Publication, Distribution, Availability
• Book Identifiers: – ISBNs, URIs, DOIs, Series ISSN
• Subject Terms: – Keywords or Subject Headings (LCSH, BISAC, FAST)
─ Classification, Abstracts, Contents lists
• Format: – Physical/Electronic, Pagination, File type(s)
• Access Rights or Restrictions: – Copyright, Open Access (CC) Licence
• Electronic Access Management: – Full-text URL

10. NISO-RP: Essential Metadata Elements for E-Books
NISO (2022) NISO RP-29-2022.
Full NAG report, recommendations
and Metadata Profiles available at:
https://nag.org.uk/publications/

11. Jisc Plan M
Research Consulting & Jisc (2020)
Recommendations for Remodelling the UK
Library Data Marketplace
NAG & SUPC (2021) Metadata Profiles

12. Cambridge University Press and Metadata
CONCETTA LA SPADA
SENIOR METADATA LIBRARIAN
#UKSG2022

13. Metadata Production: where, how and by whom
Libraries
Publishers
Providers/
Vendors
Authors
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata

14. #UKSG2022
Importance of Metadata to Improve Discoverability

15. No
082
No Subject
headings
No authorized forms of
authors’/editors’ names and series
titles.
The eBook records
merged with the LC
print records
Cataloguing

16. MARC Records at CUP
LC and Dewey Classification numbers (050 and 082 fields)
LC Subject Headings (600, 610, 611, 630, 650 and 651 fields)
LC Authorized forms of authors/editors’ names (100 and 700 fields)
Also, in these records that require them,
Language and Geographical codes (041 and 043 fields)
LC Authorized forms of Series’ titles (490 and 830 fields)
Corporate or Conference entries (110, 111, 710 and 711 fields)
Title variants (130, 240 and 246 fields)

21. Improvements to the automated systems for
retrieving MARC records and KBART

22. CUP and Third Parties
XML Metadata
MARC21 records
KBART lists

23. Metadata Production: where, how and by whom
Libraries
Publishers
Providers/
Vendors
Authors
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata

24. Metadata Quality & Metadata Ethics
DIANE RASMUSSEN PENNINGTON
SENIOR LECTURER IN INFORMATION SCIENCE
CILIP METADATA & DISCOVERY GROUP CHAIR
#UKSG2022

25. Bibliographic metadata quality evaluation framework
(Stuart, 2017)

26. Libraries
Publishers
Providers/
Vendors
Authors
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Ethics
Ethics
Ethics
Ethics
What is quality
ethical
metadata?
• Access
• EDI
• Value for £

27. Cataloguing Code of Ethics
(Cataloguing Ethics Steering Committee, January 2021)
‘The term cataloguing ethics is defined as a set of principles and values
that provide an intentional decision-making framework for those who work
in cataloguing or metadata positions.
A subset of critical librarianship, critical cataloguing focuses on
understanding and changing how knowledge organisations codify
systems of oppression.
The term cataloguer is used as shorthand for referring to anyone involved
in cataloguing and metadata work.’
‘Metadata creation is an ongoing process involving work that is wide-
ranging, collaborative, and in a constant state of change. Tension
between change and status quo creates opportunity to confront ethical
issues within our community of practice.’

28. Reimagine descriptive workflows (April 2022)
 Power and bias are inherent in our systems (DDC, LCSH)
 White supremacy: “The January 2021 Cataloguing Code
of Ethics, reflecting the views of professional library
associations and practitioners from the United States,
Canada, and the United Kingdom, identifies white
supremacy as one of the factors that influences
cataloging standards and practice” (p. 15)
 Power-holding institutions
 Relinquishing power
 Building trust
 Framework for guidance includes:
 Organisational shifts
 Operational workflows
 Professional and personal development

29. Decolonising the
library catalogue:
Cartonera Collection
“How can we enhance accessibility?
How far can we go? Can we be fair to
all the agents involved in the creation
of a book, regardless of their place in
the ‘canon’? Can we reflect the
nature of a publication through its
bibliographic record? How can the
vocabularies we use influence
accessibility and representation?”
(Cambridge University Decolonising
Through Critical Librarianship Group,
2022, p. 179).

30. (Meta)data alignment as a unifying theory of
resource discovery (Macgregor, 2020)

31. Linked data and
persistent identifiers
(Cousijn et al., 2021)
 Awareness of/support
for/consistency of linked
data implementations
(Cagnazzo & Rasmussen
Pennington, 2019)
 Can persistent identifiers
mitigate the problem of
broken links? Currently open
survey for researchers:
https://strath.eu.qualtrics.co
m/jfe/form/SV_bCmMiz8rc6C
MMMC

32. References
Bascones, M., & Staniforth, A. (2018). What is all this fuss about? Is wrong metadata really bad for
libraries and their end-users? UKSG Insights, 31. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.441
Cambridge University Decolonising Through Critical Librarianship Group. (2022). Cataloguing,
classification and critical librarianship at Cambridge University Library. In J. Crilly & R. Everitt (Eds.),
Narrative expansions: Interpreting decolonisation in academic libraries (pp. 173-188). London:
Facet Publishing.
Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee. (2021) A code of ethics for catalogers: The official website of the
Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee. https://sites.google.com/view/cataloguing-ethics/home
Frick, R. L. & Proffitt, M. (2022). Reimagine descriptive workflows: A community-informed agenda for
reparative and inclusive descriptive practice.
https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2022/oclcresearch-reimagine-
descriptive-workflows.pdf
Macgregor, G. (2020). Resource discovery in heterogeneous digital content environments. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Strathclyde. https://stax.strath.ac.uk/concern/theses/d791sq25p
Mitchell, D., & Counsell, F. (2018). Metadata 2020: A collaborative effort to improve metadata quality in
scholarly communications. Septentrio Conference Series, 1. http://doi.org/10.7557/5.447
NAG. (2020). Quality of shelf-ready metadata: Analysis of survey responses and recommendations for
suppliers. https://nag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NAG-Quality-of-Shelf-Ready-Metadata-
Survey-Analysis-and-Recommendations_FINAL_June2020.pdf

33. NAG & SUPC. (2021). Metadata profiles: MARC21 records for print and electronic books.
https://nag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NAG-SUPC-Metadata-Profiles-MARC21-Records-
for-Print-Electronic-Books-v2
NISO (2022) E-book bibliographic metadata requirements in the sale, publication, discovery, delivery,
and preservation supply chain: A recommended practice of the National Information Standards
Organization. NISO RP-29-2022. https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-29-2022-ebmd
Pomerantz, J. (2015). Metadata, The MIT Press.
Rasmussen Pennington, D., & Cagnazzo, L. (2019). Connecting the silos: Implementations and
perceptions of linked data across European libraries. Journal of Documentation, 75(3), 643-666.
Research Consulting (2020) Recommendations for remodelling the UK library data marketplace.
https://libraryservices.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2020/11/Remodelling-the-UK-Library-Data-
Marketplace-Full-slidedeck-PPT-Accessibility-Checked.pdf
Smith-Yoshimura, K. (2020) Transitioning to the Next Generation of Metadata, OCLC Research.
https://doi.org/10.25333/rqqd-b343
Stuart, S. (2017). By the book: A case study on evaluation frameworks for the improvement of
bibliographic metadata quality [MSc dissertation, University of Strathclyde.] Unpublished.