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

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

20. Business model template

21. Finance models

22. Service models

23. Supplier/consumer models

24. Issues affecting models

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 