The document discusses projects undertaken by the Metadata 2020 initiative in 2018. It describes 6 projects aimed at improving metadata sharing and quality across different stakeholder communities. The projects address issues like defining common terminology, incentivizing better metadata practices, evaluating metadata tools, and developing shared best practices and mappings between metadata schemas. Community groups met regularly to define problems and collaborate on cross-community solutions to metadata challenges.

1. Juliane Schneider, Harvard Catalyst;
Metadata 2020 Librarian Community Group Leader
2018
Metadata 2020:
Projects

2. Defining the issues

3. ● Each community group has met 4 times
● They have defined their community problem
statements, outlining challenges and opportunities
● Ideas that arose from multiple meetings are now
resulting in specific cross-community projects
Group Work

4. Community Groups
● Publishers; Chairs: Terri Teleen and Duncan Campbell, Wiley
● Librarians; Chair: Juliane Schneider, Harvard Catalyst
● Service Providers & Platforms and Tools;
Chair: Marianne Calilhanna, Cenveo Publishing Services
● Data Publishers and Repositories;
Chair: John Chodacki, California Digital Library
● Researchers; Chair: Cameron Neylon, Curtin
● Funders; Chair: Ross Mounce, Arcadia Fund

5. ● Communities have similar problems and similar
solutions available if they collaborate
● Efforts have been made to address challenges within
each community, but few efforts have been truly cross-
community
● We hope to increase effectiveness and efficiency and
avoid duplication of work

6. Breaking down silos
and getting stuff done

7. 2018 Projects
● With all of this opportunity for improvement, this year will be
year of ACTION for Metadata 2020
● We are forming 6 closely related projects, designed to
address the concerns of the community groups
● Projects include participants from different communities

8. Project 1:
Researcher Communications
Group Lead: Carly Strasser, Coko Foundation
Purpose: Exploring ways to align efforts between communities who
aim to increase the impact and consistency of communication with
researchers about metadata.

9. Project Plan:
Researcher Communications
● Review existing surveys and articles surrounding researcher attitudes to
metadata
● Consider assigning a student to conduct a literature review
● Examine publishers who have improved metadata over last 2 years, and
interview them about possible reasons
● Conduct informal interviews to researchers in different fields to inform survey
questions
● Create survey; find channels for survey distribution, and collect results

10. Project 2:
Metadata Recommendations and Element Mappings
Group Lead: Jim Swainston, Emerald Group Publishing
Purpose: To converge communities and publishers towards a shared
set of recommended metadata concepts with related mappings
between those recommended concepts and elements in important
dialects.

11. Project Plan:
Metadata Recommendations and Element Mappings
● Identify list of metadata schemas that are in use (“Metadata Schema Index”)
● Share list of schemas with MD2020 community to see if there are any
missing and to get feedback on which are most used
● Collaborate with Project 5 to discuss list of tags/elements in each of the
schemas of interest and identify concepts that cut across them
● Map concepts and element names in a table
● Produce diagram/poster to highlight similarities and differences

12. Project 3:
Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata
Group Lead: Scott Plutchak, University of Alabama at
Birmingham (retired)
Purpose: In order to communicate effectively about anything, a
common language must be acknowledged, tacitly or purposefully.
In the metadata space, there is not agreement on what words like
property, term, concept, schema, title refer to. This project will
develop a glossary of words associated with metadata, both for
core concepts and disciplinary areas.

13. Project Plan:
Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata
● Pilot researcher interviews surrounding metadata at Experimental Biology
conference
● In consultation with other project and community groups, refine questions per
community into a fuller survey for circulation surrounding metadata
terminology
● In alignment with other community groups, distribute survey(s) and analyze
results
● Contribute to central list of schema (P.2) and P.5's list of elements
● Consider developing a “glossary” to clarify terminology

14. Project 4:
Incentives for Improving Metadata Quality
Group Lead: Fiona Counsell, Taylor & Francis; and Ginny
Hendricks, Crossref
Purpose: To highlight downstream applications and value of
metadata for all parts of the community, telling real stories as
evidence of how better metadata will meet their goals.

15. Project Plan:
Incentives for Improving Metadata Quality
● Discuss illustration of metadata flow through scholarly communications in
consultation with community groups
● In consultation with communities, start to develop fuller lists of incentives
● Create a detailed list of outputs for phase 2 of the project
● Gather material for re-use in business cases
● Align incentives list with P.5’s best practice guidelines
● Discuss outreach & education plans for time when first content is available for
distribution, including proposals for upcoming conferences

16. Project 5:
Shared Best Practices and Principles
Group Leads: Howard Ratner, CHORUS; and Jennifer Kemp,
Crossref
Purpose: To build a set of high level best practices for using
metadata across the scholarly communication cycle, in order to
facilitate interoperability and easier exchange of information and
data across the stakeholders in the process.

17. Project Plan:
Shared Best Practices and Principles
● Share and discuss list of tags/elements
● Survey Metadata 2020 population for best practices resources
● Catalog and publish list of best practices resources
● Create set of principles (e.g., FAIR)
● Follow up with hosting platforms and consultants that work with them to
include what is included in RFPs, etc.
● Create white paper / statement to the community

18. Project 6:
Metadata Evaluation and Guidance
Group Lead: Ted Habermann, HDF Group
Purpose: To identify and compare existing metadata evaluation
tools and mechanisms for connecting the results of those
evaluations to clear, cross-community guidance.

19. Project Plan:
Metadata Evaluation and Guidance
● Populate Schemas, Tools and Guidance Information
● Review existing evaluation tools and identify what they are evaluating
● Identify advantages/disadvantages of current evaluation tools and make
recommendations for use
● Together with Project 5, create a guidance document for evaluation tool use
● Consider where there might be gaps in evaluation resources and where
relevant, scope out the needs for ideal additional tools

20. Can you help?
● Contribute to Metadata 2020 projects! Email
Clare Dean at cdean@metadata2020.org for details, or
sign up here.
● Help promote our efforts to the wider community through
your organizations, word of mouth, and social media
● Find us on @Metadata2020 Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn,
and at metadata2020.org

21. Questions

22. Metadata2020.org
@metadata2020
info@metadata2020.org
Thank you!

23. But What about You?
https://tinyurl.com/ya2aokhx

24. User Stories
● Scholcomm cycle
● Sharing metadata
● Mapping metadata
● What other standards/schemas do you use?
● Tools that work or tools that make your life difficult
● Interactions with researchers
● Interactions with publishers

25. Current Roadblocks in Sharing Serials Metadata
● MARC
● Proprietary ILS systems
● Metadata for datasets

26. Metadata2020.org
@metadata2020
info@metadata2020.org
Thank you!